Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Sentu Rudra Paul - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. 3 of 2017
Decided On : 17-11-2020
Rash and Negligent Driving - Criminal Law - IPC 279, 304A - The court discussed the legal provisions and interpretations related to rash and negligent driving under sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. It highlighted the tests of rashness and negligence in driving, the duty of drivers to exercise reasonable care, and the need for evidence to establish rash and negligent driving. The court emphasized that high speed alone does not constitute rashness or negligence and that the prosecution must provide evidence of other material factors for the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a fatal accident where the petitioner was convicted for offenses under sections 279 and 304A IPC based on the prosecution's evidence of rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of a person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide reliable evidence to establish the fact of rash and negligent driving against the petitioner. It noted that most witnesses improved their version at trial, casting doubt on their credibility. The investigating officer's shallow investigation and the lack of material facts further weakened the prosecution's case.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution had proven the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the offenses under sections 279 and 304A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that high speed alone does not constitute rash and negligent driving and highlighted the duty of drivers to exercise reasonable care. It stressed the need for reliable evidence to establish the fact of rash and negligent driving, including the traffic conditions, location of the accident, and position of witnesses.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the lower court and acquitted the petitioner of the charges under sections 279 and 304A IPC, granting him the benefit of doubt.
Key Points: - The prosecution must provide reliable evidence to establish rash and negligent driving beyond a reasonable doubt. (!) - High speed alone does not constitute rash or negligent driving; the driving must be shown to be rash or negligent in manner endangering life, considering all attendant circumstances. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment acquitted the petitioner due to lack of reliable evidence and credibility concerns among witnesses, and criticized shallow investigation and omissions of material facts. (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur in case number Criminal Appeal 14 of 2016 whereby he affirmed the judgment & order dated 28.05.2016 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamalpur in case number PRC 01 of 2015 convicting the petitioner for having committed offence punishable under sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 2 (two) years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation under section 304A IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for his conviction under section 279 IPC.
2. The prosecution story, briefly stated is that on 02.01.2015, the first informant (PW-1) lodged the written FIR with the Officer in Charge of Ambassa police station alleging, inter alia, that at about 1 O'clock in the afternoon when his brother Ranjit Das along with Raju Dhar was on their way home from Ambassa on their three wheeler goods' carrier, the speeding vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No. TR 04 2146 hit their three wheeler carrier from the opposite direction and as a result, said Ranjit Das & Raju Dhar were seriously injured and when they were taken to Kulai hospital at Kamalpur, brother of the informant was declared dead and injured Raju Dhar was referred to GBP hospital at Agartala.
3. Based on his FIR, Kamalpur P.S. case No. 01 of 2015 under sections 279, 338 and 304 Part-II, IPC and sections 184 and 187 MV Act was registered and investigation was taken up.
4. The investigation was conducted by Sri Subimal Debnath, Sub Inspector of police of Ambassa police station who having completed the investigation submitted challan No. 05 of 2015 dated 31.01.2015 under sections 279, 338 and 304 Part-II, IPC and sections 184 and 187 MV Act against the petitioner.
5. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate received the charge sheet and took cognizance of offence punishable under sections 279, 338 and 304 Part-II, IPC in the case.
6. The court, however, decided to proceed against the accused for offence punishable under sections 279, 304A IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
7. During trial, as many as 11 (eleven) witnesses including the first informant and one of the victims of the accident were examined and 7 (seven) documents (Exbt. 1 to Exbt. 7/1) were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. At the closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In reply, he denied the charges and claimed that the case was foisted on him. He also declined to adduce any evidence in support of his defence.
8. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court having appreciated the evidence and having made reference to the relevant legal provisions and the decisions cited by learned counsel of the parties held the petitioner guilty and passed the following order with regard to his conviction and sentence:
19. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Dalabir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1667, I am not inclined to extend the benefit given under the Probation of Offenders Act. In that particular case it has been opined that leniency shown to the drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road mishaps. Later on, heard on the point of sentence.
20. Having considered all aspects, convict Sentu Rudrapal is hereby sentence to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for two years for commission of offence under section 304A of the IPC with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further simple imprisonment (S.I.) for the period of one month. No order of sentence is passed for commission of offence under section 279 of IPC in view of section 71 of IPC."
9. In appeal, the learned Add
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
