A conviction under criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was lacking in this case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

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 driver had no fault at all.

(iii) The appellate Court did not take into consideration the age and antecedents of the accused and other relevant factors while deciding the quantum of sentence.

[3] The factual background of the case is as under:

Swapan Bhowmik of Laxmichara, Baikhora lodged a written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Baikhora police station alleging that an Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.TR-03-A-3040 hit his younger brother Parimal Bhowmik from his back when his brother was walking to Baikhora bazaar from home. Immediately after the accident, his brother was brought to AGMC and GBP Hospital, Agartala in critical condition. It was alleged by the informant that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

[4] Based on the said FIR, Baikhora Police Station Case No.12 of 2014 under Sections 279 and 338 IPC was registered and the case was taken up for investigation. Having completed investigation police submitted charge sheet against the accused for having committed offence punishable under Section 279 and 338 IPC.

[5] Initially trial commenced in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class where the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr. P.C. Accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation. Prosecution witnesses were then summoned by the trial court.

[6] In the course of trial, as many as eight prosecution witnesses were examined and four documents were introduced as Exbt.1 to Exbt.4 on behalf of the prosecution. After the recording of prosecution evidence was over, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken up the trial of the case in his court. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. He pleaded innocence and claimed that the charge was foisted on him. Accused petitioner declined to adduce any evidence on his defence.

[7] The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on appreciation of evidence held that on the material day when the victim was going to the house of his sister at Baikhora from his home, the offending vehicle hit him from behind and caused fatal injuries to him. The trial court held that accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle which could be avoided by a careful driving. Learned Trial court held the accused petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Section 279 and 338 IPC, but he sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid only for the offence committed under Section 338 IPC. No separate