Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 124 (GAU)

Akal Mia v. State of Assam

2012-01-30

I.A.ANSARI

body2012
ORDER I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By judgment and order, dated 15.7.2003, passed, in GR Case No. 257/1995, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC and sentenced to pay, for his conviction under Section 279 IPC, a sum of Rs. 1000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days and also suffer, for his conviction, under Section 304A IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by this conviction and the sentences passed against him, the convicted person preferred and appeal, which gave rise to Criminal Appeal No.24(3)/2003. The appeal was, however, dismissed, on 18.12.2003, by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Karimganj, who, while maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner, under Section 279 IPC, reduced the sentenced, in respect of his conviction under Section 304 A IPC, to a period of six months of rigorous imprisonment. Still dissatisfied, the convicted person is before this Court with the present revision. I have heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. Z Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, be described thus : On 08.03.1995, in the afternoon, a bus bearing registration No. AMT 1016, was coming from the end of Patharkandi and proceeding towards Karimganj town at high speed, by the present petitioner, namely, Md. Akal Mia, the bus hit the son of the informant, PW1, who was standing by the side of the National Highway, waiting to avail a bus. When the father of the victim saw the bus, he gave signal asking the bus to stop, but the vehicle instead of stopping, knocked down the minor son of the informant. After the bus proceeded a little further, it was stopped by the members of the public and the driver was apprehended. The victim was taken to the civil hospital, Karimganj, where he was declared dead. On receiving information, in this regard, a GD entry was made by the police and on completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, under Sections 279/304(A) IPC, against the accused-petitioner. 3. At the trial, particulars of the offences, under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC, were read out and explained to the accused-petitioner who pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined, altogether, four witnesses including the Investigating Officer. 3. At the trial, particulars of the offences, under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC, were read out and explained to the accused-petitioner who pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined, altogether, four witnesses including the Investigating Officer. The accused-petitioner was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. 5. On finding the accused guilty of the offences as indicated above, the learned trial Court convicted them accordingly and passed sentences against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentences passed against his, the accused preferred an appeal, which was disposed of by reducing his sentence of imprisonment as indicated above in respect of his conviction under Section 304(A) IPC, while maintaining the sentence passed against him. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentences passed against him, the petitioner has, now, come to this Court with the present revision petition. 6. While considering the present revision, it needs to be noted that PW1, who was the informant of this case, has given evidence to the effect that on the day of occurrence, he had gone to his friend's house along with the members of his family in response to an invitation. On his way to home, he was standing by the side of National Highway along with the members of his family waiting for arrival of a bus so that he can avail the bus to take him back to his house and at the time when he was so waiting for arrival of bus, he saw a vehicle coming at a high speed. It is in the evidence of PW1 that though he gave signal to stop the bus so that he can have the bus, the offending vehicle was crossing at a great speed and while crossing, knocked down the minor son, namely, Debojit Saha. It is also in the evidence of PW1 that the vehicle knocked down coming by the wrong side of the road and soon after the minor boy fell down and lost his sense. PW1 has also deposed that the accident gave rise to an uproar to the locality. His son was immediately shifted to Karimganj Civil Hospital, where he declared dead. PW1 has also deposed that the accident gave rise to an uproar to the locality. His son was immediately shifted to Karimganj Civil Hospital, where he declared dead. 7. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW1, PW2, whose house is admittedly situated at the place of accident, has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, he came out of his house and when he was standing near his shop, he saw a bus coming at a very high speed and PW1 standing by the side of the road with his wife and son and he also noticed PW1 giving signal to the bus to stop, but the bus kept moving at a very high speed and knocked down the son of PW1. PW1's son fell down on the ground and he (PW2) went and poured water on the injured and as far as people of the locality was concerned, they stopped the vehicle. 8. Though both the PW1 and PW2 were put to cross-examination by the defence, nothing of significance was elicited from their evidence to show that any part of their evidence was found unbelievable or unreliable. In fact, it was not even suggested to them that the vehicle, in question, was not involved in the said accident and/or that the accused-petitioner was not the one, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. 9. It is in the cross-examination of PW7 that there were altogether 6/7 persons waiting for the bus to come. When so many people were standing by the side of the road and there was a child, the accused-petitioner ought to have driven the vehicle cautiously. The duty, which was cast on the accused-petitioner to drive the vehicle cautiously, was not followed by the accused-petitioner. There was, thus, it is abundantly clear, complete negligence in driving the vehicle by the accused-petitioner. This inference gets strength from the fact that the unshaken evidence on record as given by the evidence is to the effect that despite the signal being given by the PW1 to the vehicle, the vehicle was driven at very high speed and it knocked down the son of PW1. The evidence on record, thus, speaks loud and clear that there was complete negligence on the part of the accused-petitioner in driving the vehicle, which resulted into the death of the accused-petitioner. 10. The evidence on record, thus, speaks loud and clear that there was complete negligence on the part of the accused-petitioner in driving the vehicle, which resulted into the death of the accused-petitioner. 10. In the circumstances indicated above, the question is as to what offence, if any, the accused-petitioner has committed. Section 279 IPC makes it clear that Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 11. In the case at hand, the evidence on record, as already discussed above, clearly prove that the vehicle was being driven by the accused-petitioner on the National High Way, which is a public way, in a very negligent manner endangering human life and he was, thus, liable to be convicted under Section 279 IPC. 12. As far as Section 304(A) IPC is concerned, this penal provision makes it clear that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 13. In the case at hand, the accused-petitioner, as already discussed above, has driven the vehicle negligently and caused thereby the death of the informant's son, which though not amount to culpable homicide, the fact remains that having caused the death of informant's son by his negligent driving, the accused-petitioner was clearly proved to have committed the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. The conviction of the accused-petitioner was, therefore, under Section 279 IPC and 304(A) IPC was wholly correct being inconsonance with the evidence on record and the law relevant thereto. 14. As far as sentence passed against the accused-petitioner for his conviction under Section 279 IPC is concerned, the same has not been interfered with by the learned appellate Court and this Court sees no reason to interfere with the same. 15. 14. As far as sentence passed against the accused-petitioner for his conviction under Section 279 IPC is concerned, the same has not been interfered with by the learned appellate Court and this Court sees no reason to interfere with the same. 15. So far as the sentence passed against the accused-petitioner under Section 304(A) IPC is concerned, the same has already been reduced by the learned appellate Court from one year to six months and in the face of the evidence on record, that the innocent child died out of the negligent driving of the accused-petitioner, this Court does not find that the accused-petitioner has been able to make out any case warranting interference with the sentence, which has already been reduced by the learned appellate Court. 16. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not find any merit in this revision and this revision, therefore, fails and shall stand disposed of. 17. The accused-petitioner is hereby directed to surrender forthwith to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, so as to suffer the sentence of imprisonment passed against him. Send back the LCR.