Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
Sri Dilip Acharjee, Son of Late Mrinal Acharjee - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. No. 76 of 2017
Decided on : 28-04-2021
Indian Penal Code , 1860 - Sections 279 and 338 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161- Order of conviction – Challenged - Accident occurred was also drawn up by him and the material locations were pointed out in a separate index - Offending vehicle was seized which was examined by the Motor Vehicles Inspector [PW-9] who opined that there was no mechanical disorder in the said vehicle at the time of the occurrence.
Finding of the court: It is true that passengers of offending vehicle would have the court to arrive at a correct decision with regard to the guilt of the accused. It appears from judgments of courts below that they did not enquire into these essential facts. Merely because witnesses have said that offending vehicle was at high speed at time of occurrence accused cannot be held guilty of offence punishable under section 279 & 338 IPC. No evidence with regard to width of road, its shape and density of traffic on road at time of occurrence was collected during investigation. No photograph of either offending vehicle or bicycle of victim was taken to assess intensity of collision. Admittedly, driver managed to stop his vehicle immediately after it hit bicycle of victim and carried victim to nearby hospital and got him admitted there. Even though accident resulted in injury and loss to bicycle rider, the accident does not ipso facto make the petitioner liable for accident in absence of strict proof of rash and negligent driving against him.
Result: Criminal revision petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
By means of filing this criminal revision petition, petitioner has challenged impugned judgment dated 17.08.2017 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 02(01) of 2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udaipur in Case No. PRC (SP) 156 of 2014 convicting the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and sentencing him to RI for 4 months for offence under section 279 IPC and RI for 1 year for having committed offence punishable under section 338 IPC.
[2] The factual background of the case is as under:
Abdul Hossain Chowdhury of village named Town Sonamura of Udaipur lodged a written ejahar with the Officer in Charge of RK Pur police station at Udaipur on 06.05.2014 alleging, inter alia, that when his father Ful Miah was going to Brahmabari from Sonamura market on his bicycle at about 9 O’clock in the morning on 30.04.2014 he was hit by the offending vehicle of the accused petitioner bearing registration No. TR 01D-2147(MAX). It was stated by the informant that petitioner was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the vehicle hit his father and caused fatal injuries to him. Local people rescued his father and shifter him to hospital who suffered from fracture of bones in several parts of his body. Informant further stated that since he was engaged in the treatment of his father, filing of the FIR was delayed by 7 days.
[3] Based on his FIR, RK Pur PS case No. 97 of 2014 under sections 279 and 338 IPC was registered and investigation of the case was taken up by police.
[4] Sub Inspector Subir Malakar [PW-13] conducted the whole investigation of the case. During investigation he visited the crime scene and examined the material witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case and recorded their police statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Hand sketch map of the place where the accident occurred was also drawn up by him and the material locations were pointed out in a separate index. The offending vehicle was seized which was examined by the Motor Vehicles Inspector [PW-9] who opined that there was no mechanical disorder in the said vehicle at the time of the occurrence. After collection of the mechanical inspection report as well as the injury report of the victim [PW-6], the Investigating Officer arrested the accused and submitted charge sheet No. 153 of 2014 dated 01.10.2014 against the petitioner for having committed offence punishable under sections 279 and 338 IPC.
[5] The Chief Judicial Magistrate received the charge sheet and on the facts of the case took cognizance of offence punishable under sections 279 and 338 IPC and thereafter he made over case to the trial court for conducting trial of the case in accordance with law. At the commencement of the trial, the learned trial Judge stated the following particulars of offence to the petitioner in terms of section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C for short), 1973:
[6] Accused petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
[7] In the course of trial, as many as 14 prosecution witnesses [PW-1-PW-14] were examined and 13 exhibits [Exbt.1-Exbt.13] and the bicycle used by the victim [Exbt.MO1] were relied on by the prosecuti
Rash driving or riding on a public way – There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In absence of any material on record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be ....
Conviction for negligent driving requires substantial evidence beyond mere speed; a driver cannot be held liable under IPC without evidence proving rashness and negligence distinctly.
The court affirmed the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death, establishing that the accused's recklessness was the primary cause of the victim's fatal injuries.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove rash and negligent driving and causation beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving fatal accidents....
A conviction under criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was lacking in this case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Insufficient evidence and lack of investigation into the circumstances of the accident led to the acquittal of the accused of the charges of rash and negligent driving.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a driver to exercise reasonable care and precaution on public roads, and the prosecution's burden to prove rash and negligent driving i....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
