Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 703 (GAU)

Panna Lal Paul v. State of Tripura

2011-08-23

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2011
JUDGMENT A.K. Goswami, J. 1. This petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, has been filed by the Petitioner, challenging the judgment and order, dated 16.08.2002, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in Case No. Criminal Appeal No. 14(1)/2001, confirming the conviction of the Petitioner, under Sections 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code, 1860, as recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, vide judgment and order, dated 02.03.2001 in G.R. Case No. 222/1999. However, by the aforesaid judgment and order, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the sentence imposed upon the Petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, was altered from three months each to a period of one month each for both the offences. The learned Sessions Judge had effected one more modification to the order of the learned trial Judge to the extent that the sentences in respect of both the offences, which were to run consecutively as per the order of the trial Judge, has been directed to run concurrently. 2. I have heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State of Tripura. 3. The prosecution case in brief, is that, on 02.03.1999, one Sanjib Biswas lodged an Ejahar before the Officer In-charge, East Agartala Police Station, stating that, while he was proceeding in his motor cycle along the Assam-Agartala main road, a speeding Maruti Van with Registration No. TR(TEM)01-9289, coming from the opposite direction, knocked him down, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on different parts of his body and his motor cycle had also been damaged. 4. After completion of investigation, a prima facie case under Sections 279/338/427 Indian Penal Code, 1860 having been found against the Petitioner, charge sheet was submitted and, thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 279/338/427 Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5. During trial, prosecution examined five witnesses including the informant, who was examined as PW.1. Defence adduced No. evidence. 6. On conclusion of trial, after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court recorded a finding that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the accident. 5. During trial, prosecution examined five witnesses including the informant, who was examined as PW.1. Defence adduced No. evidence. 6. On conclusion of trial, after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court recorded a finding that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the accident. The learned trial Court, having regard to the materials on record, more particularly, the Injury Report, exhibited as Exbt.-4, also concluded that the injuries sustained by the informant (PW.1) was simple in nature and, accordingly, had convicted the Petitioner, under Section 337 Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned trial Court also came to the conclusion that the offence under Section447 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not made out and, accordingly, the Petitioner was acquitted of that charge. As has been noted earlier, in view of the findings recorded, the learned trial Court convicted the Petitioner under Sections 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the aforesaid offences with a further direction that the sentences are to run consecutively. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner was partly allowed by modifying the sentences from three months to one month each under both the Sections, with the direction that the sentences were to run concurrently. 7. Mr. Deb, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, does not assail the findings recorded by both the Courts below with regard to rash and negligent driving of the Petitioner. He submits that the accident had taken place way back in 1999 and furthermore, it is apparent from the materials on record that the informant did not suffer any serious injury and that the injuries suffered by him were simple in nature. He strenuously argues that, having regard to the long lapse of time, No. useful purpose would be served, if the Petitioner is to suffer imprisonment now. He passionately argues that, ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of imprisonment is altered to one of fine, which is permissible in law. 8. Mr. He strenuously argues that, having regard to the long lapse of time, No. useful purpose would be served, if the Petitioner is to suffer imprisonment now. He passionately argues that, ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of imprisonment is altered to one of fine, which is permissible in law. 8. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Tripura, submits that, although the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not assailed the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court with regard to rash and negligent driving by the Petitioner, evidence on record would clearly demonstrate that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On the question of sentence, the learned Special Public Prosecutor also contends that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, perhaps, imposition of fine for the offences would be in furtherance of justice. 9. The accident had taken place more than a decade back. The informant was admitted in the G.B. Panth Hospital on 19.03.1999 at 4.00 pm and he was discharged from the hospital on 21.03.1999. The injuries sustained by him were simple in nature. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am also of the considered opinion that, at this distance of time, imprisonment of the Petitioner for the offences under Sections 279/337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not warranted. 11. Accordingly, it is ordered that, for the conviction under Section 279 Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Petitioner is punished with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only and for the conviction under Section 337 Indian Penal Code, 1860, he is punished with fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred)only. The fine shall be deposited before the learned trial Court within a period of 2(two) months from today. 12. Consequently, the impugned sentences, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, is modified to the extent indicated above. It is also made clear that, if the fine, as directed, is not paid within the aforesaid period of two months, the sentences imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, dated 16.08.2002 shall be restored. 13. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. 14. The Lower Court Records be transmitted forthwith.