Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 321 (TRI)

Parul Bala Das v. State of Tripura

2014-08-07

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J :-- 1. This revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No. 37(4)/2005, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.08.2005, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in G.R. Case No. 249 of 2001. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. C.S. Sinha, for the petitioner and learned counsel, Ms. S. Deb Gupta, for the State-respondent. 3. The accused Paritosh Das was tried in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in connection with G.R. Case No. 249 of 2001 for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/304A of IPC. The allegation was that on 19.09.2001 the accused Paritosh Das was driving a Truck vehicle bearing No. AS-01C 4489 through Assam Agartala Road and at Panisagar, in front of Gitanjali Hotel, because of rash and negligent driving, a minor boy, namely, Biplab Das, aged about 3 years, was ran over. The vehicle was detained by the police and the accused petitioner was arrested. 4. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate found the accused petitioner guilty of the charge under Sections 279/304A of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and also to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. On an appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, by impugned judgment dated 25.01.2006 upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, and hence, this revisional application. 6. Learned counsel, Mr. C.S. Sinha, appearing for the petitioner very fairly submitted that there is evidence on record that the accused petitioner was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident. But there is nothing that on any earlier occasion any such accident occurred in the hand of the accused petitioner and so, a lenient view may be taken in respect of the punishment and at least the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act may be given to the accused. 7. Learned counsel, Ms. But there is nothing that on any earlier occasion any such accident occurred in the hand of the accused petitioner and so, a lenient view may be taken in respect of the punishment and at least the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act may be given to the accused. 7. Learned counsel, Ms. S. Deb Gupta for the respondent submitted that road accident has become a regular affair and lives are taken away because of the whimsical rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and so, there cannot be any further lenient view. 8. In a revisional application this Court is to see the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment/order impugned and the regularity of the proceedings of the Courts below. This Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence on record unless it is clearly shown that there was perverse finding given by the trial Court and the appellate Court. Since the finding of the trial Court as well as appellate Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, I find nothing to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court, which is affirmed by the appellate Court. In respect of punishment, as I find, the trial Court has taken a lenient view. 9. The Supreme Court has categorically held in the case of Dalbir Singh V. State of Haryana & ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 1677 that when automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain deterrent element in sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and frolic. 10. In my considered opinion, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court rightly did not apply the provision of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, as it appears, the accused has suffered a long mental pain and agony from the date of accident, i.e. 19.09.2001. 10. In my considered opinion, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court rightly did not apply the provision of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, as it appears, the accused has suffered a long mental pain and agony from the date of accident, i.e. 19.09.2001. So, considering all aspects, I think R.I. for six months and payment of a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for 15 days shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, the accused petitioner Paritosh Das is sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further S.I. for 15 days. 11. With this modification of sentence, the criminal revision application stands disposed of. 12. Send back the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment.