Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 73 (TRI)

Sanjoy Paul v. State of Tripura

2014-02-13

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16th January, 2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 125(4) of 2007 whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the judgment & order, dated 26.09.2007, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur in G.R. Case No. 209 of 2005 convicting the accused of having committed offences punishable under sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. In respect of the offence punishable under section 279 of I.P.C., the petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 1(one) year with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for a period of 1(one) month. For the offence punishable under section 337 of I.P.C. the petitioner was also sentenced to suffer RI for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo further R.I. for a period of 1 (one) month. This is a case of rash and negligent driving where the allegation is that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver (the present petitioner) which resulted in grievous injuries to the persons travelling in the vehicle. 2. There are four eye-witnesses who have been examined in the case. They are P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5. All of them stated that they were travelling in the auto rickshaw being driven by the accused. P.W.1 states that when the petitioner was trying to overtake another auto rickshaw, suddenly it fell into a ditch and as a result, the passengers suffered injuries. P.W.2 states that when the driver of the auto rickshaw was trying to overtake another auto rickshaw the vehicle overturned on the side of the road. P.W.4 states that while the auto rickshaw was giving way to another auto rickshaw that was being overtaken by another auto rickshaw, it fell down in the paddy fields. The fourth eye-witness P.W.5 states that when the auto rickshaw was trying to overtake another auto rickshaw plying in the same direction, the auto rickshaw overturned and fell in a nearby field. The fourth eye-witness P.W.5 states that when the auto rickshaw was trying to overtake another auto rickshaw plying in the same direction, the auto rickshaw overturned and fell in a nearby field. Therefore, what is proved is that the petitioner who was driving the auto rickshaw tried to overtake another auto rickshaw and during this process of overtaking his vehicle overturned. 3. This may be negligence in a civil case but does it amount to rash and negligent driving within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code? The answer has to be no. There is a lot of difference between negligence and rash and negligent driving. Not one of the witnesses has stated that the vehicle was being driven in a rash manner or that it was at a high speed. Section 279 of the I.P.C. reads as follows: 279. Rash driving or riding on a public way - 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. A bare reading of the section shows that before a person can be convicted under the section, the prosecution must prove that the vehicle was being driven in a manner which was so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. The manner of the accident has to be shown to be highly rash and negligent. Both rashness and negligence have to be proved. Only then can a person be convicted under section 279 of I.P.C. No doubt it is not necessary that the witnesses must use the words 'rash and negligent'. If what is stated by the witnesses is sufficient to draw an inference of rash and negligent driving then the Court can draw such an inference but in this case the witnesses do not even remotely indicate that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The witnesses are the prosecution witnesses and even if their statements are accepted as the gospel truth no case of rash and negligent driving is made out. The witnesses are the prosecution witnesses and even if their statements are accepted as the gospel truth no case of rash and negligent driving is made out. Therefore, I have no hesitation in setting aside the judgments of both the Courts below. The petitioner is accordingly acquitted. Bail bonds discharged. The criminal revision petition is disposed of.