SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 406

TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Not stated, J
Sri Kankaj Das – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition | Crl. Rev. P No.1/2017



Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr. S. Lodh
For the Respondents: Mr. Ratan Datta

The court affirmed the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death, establishing that the accused's recklessness was the primary cause of the victim's fatal injuries.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Conviction for negligent driving resulting in death - Petitioner convicted and sentenced for driving recklessly, resulting in fatal injury to a pedestrian, affirmed by lower courts - Appellate court upheld findings, stating evidence substantiated guilt. (Paras 6, 21, 22)

(B) Proof of Negligence - Evidence indicated that deceased was not at fault, while the accused's vehicle was driven recklessly - The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was satisfactorily met in this case. (Paras 5, 27)

Facts of the case:
The petition stems from a traffic incident on 17.5.2013, where the vehicle driven by the accused struck the victim, which led to fatal injuries, and was thereafter tried in lower courts for negligence leading to death.

Findings of Court:
The trial court and appellate court corroborated the earlier decision of the trial court, establishing that the accused was guilty of rash driving and directly responsible for the victim's death.

Issues: The main question was whether the trial and appellate courts correctly assessed the evidence to establish conviction for dangerous driving and negligence.

Ratio Decidendi: The courts determined that the evidence clearly exhibited the accused's culpability in the accident, emphasizing responsibility for maintaining safety on the roads. The threshold for proving negligence was satisfied through eyewitness testimonies. (Paras 28, 29)

Result: The criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of facts around the incident leading to the revision petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments by both sides concerning trial court's findings and evidence reliability. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. assessment of the evidence against the standards of negligence and culpability. (Para 22 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. final resolution of the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions. (Para 30)

1. This criminal revision petition, filed under S.397 read with S.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr. P.C herein), has been directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge of North Tripura judicial district, Crl. Rev. P No.1/2017. Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No.0000009 of 2016 whereby the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.05.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura in case No. PRC 266 of 2013 convicting the accused petitioner under S.279 and S.304A IPC and sentencing him to suffer S.I for 6(six) months and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation for offence punishable under S.279 and SI for 1(one) year and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation for offence punishable under S.304A directing that the sentences would run concurrently.

2. The brief facts which led to the filing of this petition are that Sri Ananta Acharjee, son of Late Amaresh Acharjee of Kadamtala, Dharmanagar lodged a written complaint with the Officer - in - Charge of Kadamtala police station on 20.05.2013 at 3.35 pm alleging, inter alia, that on 17.5.2013 at about 12 noon when his father Amaresh Acharjee was returning home, the speeding vehicle of the accused petitioner bearing registration No. TR - 02A - 2589 hit him from behind as a result of which his father received serious injuries and collapsed on the road. He was immediately taken to the nearby health centre at Kadamtala wherefrom he was first referred to Dharmanagar hospital and from there, he was taken to Kailashahar district hospital and ultimately to Silchar Medical College and Hospital. After his treatment in Silchar Medical College and Hospital he was brought back home where he succumbed to his injuries on 20.05.2013 at 12 noon.

3. Based on this FIR, Kadamtala PS case No. 41 of 2013 under S.279 and S.304 - A, IPC was registered and the investigation of the case was taken up.

4. Sri Padma Sen Chakma, Sub-Inspector of Police of Kadamtala police station was entrusted with the investigation of the case and Sri Chakma having completed the investigation submitted challan No.42 of 2013 dated 22/7/2013 against the accused under S.279 and S.304A IPC . The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate received the charge sheet, took cognigence of offence and summoned the bailed out accused to appear before the Court. When the accused appeared, the substance of acquisition in terms of S.251, Cr. P.C was explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

5. During trial as many as 12 witnesses were examined and seven documents (Exhibit - 1 to Exhibit - 7) were taken into evidence on behalf of the prosecution. At the closer of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused were explained to him. In reply, the accused petitioner pleaded innocence and claimed that the charges were foisted on him. Thereafter the learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence held that the accused petitioner drove his vehicle on public road recklessly and as a result of his rash driving, father of the first informant lost his life. The learned trial Judge having relied on the decision of the Apex Court in M.S. Grewal and another v. Deep Chand Sood and others : reported in (2001) 8 SCC 151 : (AIR 2001 SC 3660) and the decision in Dalvir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1677 held the accused petitioner guilty and sentenced him to suffer S.I for 6(six) months and fine of Rs.1000/- with defau



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top