Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 418

TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Arindam Lodh, J
Bibisan Debnath v. State of Tripura
Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. A. Acharjee
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Debnath

Sufficient evidence of rashness or negligence is required to uphold a conviction under IPC Sections 304A, 338, 337, and 279.

Headnote:The appellant was convicted under Sections 304A, 338, 337, and 279 of the IPC for causing an accident that resulted in death. The offence occurred on 21.02.2014, with the appellant driving a vehicle recklessly. The court found insufficient evidence of rashness or negligence, thereby overturning the conviction. The court emphasized that mere high speed does not establish criminal driving. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The appellant was convicted under IPC Sections 304A, 338, 337, and 279 for causing a fatal accident due to alleged rash and negligent driving (!) (!) . - The prosecution's case alleged the appellant was driving recklessly and negligently, causing the accident and death of one person (!) . - The appellant claimed he was on leave at the time of the accident, but this was not supported by evidence from the vehicle owner (!) (!) . - Witnesses stated the accident occurred because the front wheel came out of the axle while the vehicle was in motion (!) . - The court found insufficient evidence that the appellant was driving rashly or negligently, which are essential ingredients for conviction under the cited IPC sections (!) . - Mere driving at a "high speed" does not, by itself, establish "negligence" or "rashness" (!) . - The principle of "res ipsa loquitur" (the thing speaks for itself) could not be invoked in the absence of specific assertions regarding rash and negligent driving (!) . - The conviction and sentence were set aside due to the lack of sufficient evidence of rashness or negligence (!) (!) . - The appellant was acquitted of all charges (!) . - The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order were set aside (!) .

What is the required evidence to uphold a conviction under IPC Sections 304A, 338, 337, and 279?

What is the legal implication of mere high speed in establishing criminal driving?

How to prove rashness or negligence in a vehicular accident case?

Table of Content
1. details about the conviction and case history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. prosecution's arguments and witness statements. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. discussion on evidence and need for rashness/negligence. (Para 14 , 15)
4. final ruling and acquittal of the appellant. (Para 16 , 17)

1. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment and conviction and sentence dated 06.09.2019, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur, in connection with case No.S.T 79(GT / U / ) of 2014(T - 1), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under S.304A / 338/337/279 of IPC and sentenced him (a) to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for three months for the offence under S.304A, (b) to suffer RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer further SI for two months for the offence under S.338 of IPC, (c) to suffer RI for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to suffer further SI for one month for the offence under S.337 of IPC and (d) to suffer RI for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer further SI for ten days for the offence under S.279 of IPC. It was also directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.02.2014 at night about 2400 hrs. at Kalaban, Udaipur, on Garjee - Tulamura Road under R.K. Pur P.S., Gomati District, the accused - appellant was driving his vehicle bearing No.TR - 03-2563(Commander Jeep) rashly and negligently and caused an accident wherein one person died.

3. The Officer - In - Charge, on being receipt of the complaint lodged by one Ratan Jamatia, carried out investigation. During the process of investigation, he recorded the statements of the available witnesses under S.161 of Cr.P.C., sent the body for post - mortem examination, prepared the inquest report. On completion of investigation, the investigating officer having found prima facie case against the appellant had filed charge - sheet under S.279/337/338/304 Part II of IPC.

4. On receipt of the charge - sheet, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge which was transferred to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur. Initially charges were framed against the appellant under S.279/338/304 Part II and subsequently S.304A IPC was added.

5. Trial was undertaken. In course of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had examined as many as 28 numbers of witnesses. On closure of recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant was examined under S.313 of Cr.P.C. where he pleaded to be innocent when he was noticed about the incriminating materials and evidences surfaced against him by the prosecution witnesses. It is also necessary to be noted that the appellant had adduced four numbers of witnesses including him.

6. Having heard the learned counsels and considering the materials on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had held the appellant as guilty of committing offence under S.304A / 338/337/279 of IPC and sentenced him as afore - stated. Hence, this appeal.

7. Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the convict - appellant as well as Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondent - State.

8. The owner of the offending vehicle was examined by the prosecution as PW4, but PW4 did not state about taking of leave by the appellant before the date of accident. Defence also did not put any question to PW4 regarding taking of any leave by the accused from him before the accident.

9. It is necessary to mention herein that the appellant by way of adducing evidence on his behalf has tried to project his case that at the time of accident he was on leave and he was not driving the vehicle as alleged. As I said earlier that no question was put to the owner from the side of the defence denying the fact that he was on leave, in my opinio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document