Conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-II requires proof of intent; insufficient evidence necessitates reclassification to negligence under Section 304A, resulting in a lesser sentence.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for convict-petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

2. This present petition has been filed under Section-397 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 read with Section-401 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Case No. Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2019 under Section-374 of Cr. P.C. and thereby upholding the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.01.2019 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura District, Dharmanagar, in case No. ST/T-2/18/2015 convicting the accused petitioner and sentencing him to suffer RI for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.

3. The factual backdrop of the case, in a nut shell, is that on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sri Rajen Nath to the effect that on 11.07.2014 at about 1800 hrs. while the father of the complainant was proceeding towards Kali Temple located at Dighalbag Chowmuhani on foot at that time, one white colour Tata Nano car bearing registration No. TR-02-D-0457 which was coming from opposite direction in a excessive speed dashed to the father of the complainant.

4. After receiving the aforesaid written complaint, O.C. Dharmanagar P.S. registered with Dharmanagar P.S. Case No. 71 of 2014 under Section-304 Part-II of IPC. After completion of investigation, I.O. of the instant case has submitted charge sheet against the present petitioner under Sections -279/304 Part-II of IPC and Sections-196/187 of M.V. Act.

5. After filing of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken of offence and after fulfilling all formalities, the case was committed to be learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, and the charge was framed. In course of evidence, the learned trial Court examined as many as 16 prosecution witnesses in connection with aforesaid case. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused-person was examined under Section-313 of Cr. P.C. to which he denied the veracity of all the prosecution evidences and claimed to be tried.

6. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned Court below passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence convicting the accused as aforestated. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar being Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2019 under Section-374 of Cr. P.C. But, the learned Sessions Judge most arbitrarily and erroneously upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court below.

Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.08.2019, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court.

7. Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that both Courts below have committed error both in law and facts and the findings arrived at by both the Courts are illegal, erroneous and perverse against the law and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. The courts below without proper appreciation of evidences on record and also without application of judicious mind convicted the petitioner only on the basis of surmise and conjuncture. Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his case has submitted that the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence on