Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 298 (TRI)

Babul Das v. State of Tripura

2014-07-28

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- 1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the Judgment dated 12.04.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2010 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner and upheld the Judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura dated 10.02.2010 convicting the appellant for having committed an offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months. 2. Normally, this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is very reluctant to interfere in pure findings of fact. However, when those findings of fact are based on no evidence or total misreading of evidence then this Court would be abdicating its judicial functions if it did not interfere in the matter. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was driver of one canter Truck bearing No. TR-01-A-1879 and that he was driving the Truck at a very high speed and knocked down one Sohel Miah in the school field as a result of which Sohel Miah sustained serious injuries. Sohel Miah was then taken to the hospital, Belonia from where he was referred to Tripura Sundari District hospital, Udaipur and finally to the G.B. hospital, Agartala where he died on the same date itself i.e. on 17.02.2006. 4. The accused was charged with having committed offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) IPC. The learned trial Court after discussing the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC because the accident did not occur on a public way. However, it held the accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC. 5. The sole question is whether the accused was guilty of committing rash and negligent driving. The only relevant evidence is of P.W. 7 who was the eye witness to the occurrence and his statement is as follows:- “About two and half years back one day at about 5/5.30 p.m. I found one Dumper vehicle dashed one Suel Miah from his behind rashly and negligently as a result of which he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. At the time of such accident I was present there at about 15 to 20 cubits. At the time of accident the said vehicle was driven by one Babul Das who is present today and identified.” 6. Even if the examination-in-chief is taken at its face value, all it proves is that the Dumper vehicle being driven by the accused hit Sohel Miah from behind. No doubt this witness has said that the Dumper vehicle hit Sohel Miah from behind rashly and negligently. However, just using the words rash and negligent is not sufficient. Who was rash and negligent? The witness does not even say that the vehicle has being driven in a rash and negligent manner. If he says that, that would also not be sufficient in my view. The witness only has to set out what he has seen taking place. Whether the driving was rash and negligent is a finding which the Court has to arrive at on the basis of the evidence led by the witnesses. The witness does not say that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed. He did not say how the driver of the Dumper was at fault. His only allegation is that the vehicle dashed the deceased from behind very rashly and negligently. This in my view is not sufficient to prove rash and negligent driving. Merely copying the words of the statute in the statement of the witness is not sufficient. 7. The time has come when the State must seriously think of having trained and encadred Public Prosecutors. It is apparent that the Public Prosecutors do not understand how the case has to be conducted. He did not ask the witness how the accident had taken place. If the circumstances of the evidence are set out then the Court can come to a conclusion as to whether the driving was rash or negligent or not. What is rash and negligent act has to be decided on the basis of the evidence by the Court. Merely because the witness says that the act is rash and negligent is not sufficient unless he also states the facts which made him come to the conclusion that the driving of the driver was rash and negligent. If the evidence of P.W. 7 is discarded, there is no other evidence. Merely because the witness says that the act is rash and negligent is not sufficient unless he also states the facts which made him come to the conclusion that the driving of the driver was rash and negligent. If the evidence of P.W. 7 is discarded, there is no other evidence. Therefore, I have no hesitation to set aside the Judgments of both the Courts below. 8. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed and the Judgments of both the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted.