Back
S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Sukanta Paul @ Suman – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
By means of filing this criminal revision petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 04.06.2020 passed by the Session Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2020. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia by his judgment and order dated 11.12.2019 passed in Case No. PRC(SP) 91 of 2014 convicted the petitioner under Section 279 and 338 IPC and sentenced him to R.I for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation for offence punishable under Section 338 IPC without passing any separate sentence under Section 279 IPC. The learned Session Judge by the impugned judgment modified the sentence to R.I for three months and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
[2] Aggrieved petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment passed by the learned Session Judge by means of filing this criminal revision petition mainly on the following grounds:
(i) The appellate Court did not take into consideration the infirmities appearing in the prosecution evidence.
(ii) The appellate Court did not appreciate the fact that the road conditions and mismanagement of traffic movements were wholly responsible for the said accident and d
A conviction under criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was lacking in this case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
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 ....
The main legal point established is the application of the principles of rash and negligent driving under the Indian Penal Code, supported by consistent evidence and interpretation of relevant legal ....
The scope of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited to addressing manifest errors or legal bar against proceedings, emphasizing that revisional courts cannot review evidence as appellate court....
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.
Conviction for causing death due to negligence was overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and failure to properly admit key evidentiary documents.
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
