Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 14 (TRI)

Jadu Nandan Saha v. State of Tripura

2014-01-15

U.B.SAHA

body2014
JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J.:- This revision petition is filed by the convict petitioner, Shri Jadu Nandan Saha, challenging the judgment and order dated 12.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 31(3) of 2003, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, West Tripura, Agartala (Court No. 5) dated 30.07.2003 passed in G.R. No. 993 of 2001, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections279/338/304A of the IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/338 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for one month for each of the offences. 2. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the convict-petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.12.2001 at about 11-35 hours, a written complaint was lodged by one Parimal Roy with the Jirania police station stating inter alia that the informant along with others boarded a Canter bus bearing No. TR-01-1402 at Teliamura for going to Agartala. At about 10-30 hours the bus reached Khamarbari and suddenly fell on the road side ditch resulting injuries to many passengers. It is further stated that one of the passengers succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. He has also stated that in his complaint that the vehicle was run by the driver rashly and negligently for which the accident was caused. The said complaint was registered as Jirania P.S. Case No. 107/2001. 4. After receipt of the complaint the case was investigated and finally the charge sheet was submitted against the convict-petitioner under Sections 279/338/304A of the IPC. Upon receipt of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken under Sections 279/337/304A of the IPC and, accordingly, proceeded with the trial. 5. To prove the accusation, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. On completion of recording of evidences, the convict-petitioner was examined under Section313 of the Cr.P.C. The convict-petitioner did not produce any witness in support of his defence and the case of the convict-petitioner was of total denial. 6. 5. To prove the accusation, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. On completion of recording of evidences, the convict-petitioner was examined under Section313 of the Cr.P.C. The convict-petitioner did not produce any witness in support of his defence and the case of the convict-petitioner was of total denial. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the evidences on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced him as stated supra. Against the said order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 31(3) of 2003. Thereafter, the said appeal was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. After hearing the parties the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide judgment dated 12.01.2005 and the said judgment ultimately has been challenged before this Court in the instant revision petition. 7. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the convict-petitioner in his usual fairness submits that the convict-petitioner is not in a position to make out any case for setting aside the judgment impugned herein so far conviction is concerned, but at the same time it would not be proper for the Court to send the convict-petitioner for suffering the sentence after about 10 years from the date of initial conviction, rather it would be proper to modify the sentence from imprisonment to fine. 8. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the occurrence took place in the year 2001 and by this time more than 12 years have elapsed. Thus, it would be proper to modify the sentence maintaining the conviction as the convict-petitioner was all along on bail. 9. As Mr. Deb, in his usual fairness, has submitted that this is not a fit case where the conviction of the accused-petitioner can be set aside, this Court though has re-examined the evidences, but is not extracting the same in the judgment. 10. This Court has gone through the evidences on record as well as the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. According to this Court, learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court properly considered the evidences on record. Mr. 10. This Court has gone through the evidences on record as well as the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. According to this Court, learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court properly considered the evidences on record. Mr. Deb has also fairly submitted that the convict-petitioner will not be able to make out any case for setting aside the order of conviction. Thus, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to interfere with the order of the learned appellate Court, wherein the learned appellate Court affirmed the order of the learned trial Court. But this Court is of the considered opinion that it would meet justice if the conviction is upheld and the sentence is modified keeping in mind that the petitioner was on bail since the date of occurrence and it would also not be proper to send him again to jail after about a decade. 11. Therefore, the interest of justice would be met, if the convict-petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine instead of sentence to jail as awarded by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court. Accordingly, it is ordered that the sentence to suffer R.I. for three months for commission of offence under Section 304A of the IPC is modified to a sentence of payment of fine of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) and the remaining sentences passed by the learned trial Court are maintained. The petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) and another Rs. 1,000/- as ordered by the learned trial Court, i.e. in total Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) within a period of three months from today and in default of payment of fine money, he shall undergo R.I. for one year. The fine money, if realized, shall be paid to the husband of the deceased Sabita Debbarma (Jamatia), i.e. Shri Bhusan Roy Jamatia of Mohanpur. 12. 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) within a period of three months from today and in default of payment of fine money, he shall undergo R.I. for one year. The fine money, if realized, shall be paid to the husband of the deceased Sabita Debbarma (Jamatia), i.e. Shri Bhusan Roy Jamatia of Mohanpur. 12. Before parting with the case, this Court would like to observe that the number of motor accidents is multiplying enormously and many lives are taken away due to vehicular accidents, particularly for the negligence of the drivers of the vehicle, who drive heavy vehicles as well as heavily loaded vehicles like lorry and jeep and in many cases, the victims are either small school going children or senior citizens who make house on the road on a number of occasions during the day time. It is high time for the State Government to come up with some strategy so that the number of vehicular accidents can be decreased and the life of pedestrians can be saved. 13. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. 14. Send down the lower court records immediately. 15. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Director General of Police, Tripura.