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.

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 and 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 S.279 and S.304 - A, IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 2 (two) years and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation under S.304 - A, . No separate sentence was awarded for his conviction under S.279, .

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 and 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 hospit - al at Agartala.

3. Based on his FIR, Kamalpur P.S. case No. 01 of 2015 under S.279, S.338 and S.304 Part - II, IPC and S.184 and S.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 had completed the investigation submitted challan No. 05 of 2015 dated 31.01.2015 under S.279, S.338 and S.304 Part - II, IPC and S.184 and S.187, MV Act against the petitioner.

5. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate received the charge sheet and took cognizance of offence punishable under S.279, S.338 and S.304 Part - II, IPC in the case.

6. The court, however, decided to proceed against the accused for offence punishable under S.279, S.304 - A, 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 S.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:
"18. Owing to the above, accused Sentu Rudrapal is hereby convicted under S.279/304 - A, IPC .
19. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Dalabir Singh v. 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 com