Gauhati High Court
Niranjan Sutradhar vs State Of Tripura on 14 June, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006CRILJ3262, 2006 CRI. L. J. 3262, 2007 (1) AJHAR (NOC) 139 (GAU) (2006) 3 GAU LT 346, (2006) 3 GAU LT 346
Author: I.A. Ansari
Bench: I.A. Ansari
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J.
1. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 27-6-2005, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 13(2)/2004, the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, has dismissed the appeal and up-held the judgment and order, dated 10-2-2004, passed, in GR Case No. 444/2002, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Agartala, convicting the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) month.
2. While considering the present revision, it is pertinent to point out that accord-ing to the case of the prosecution, on 19-6-2002, at about 8.45 a.m. when one Hrishikesh Ghosh was raising boundary fencing along with his daughter, Anima Ghosh, a truck bearing registration No. TRL-1489 came with high speed, knocked him down and caused grievous injuries on his person. Hearing the cries of Anima, her mother, Jinu Rani Ghosh, rushed to the place of occurrence and found her husband lying injured in unconscious state. The injured was shifted to the hospital, where he was found to have suffered multiple fracture. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 333, IPC, for, the accused-petitioner was the one, who had, claimed the prosecution, driven the said vehicle rashly and endangered the personal safety of Hrishikesh Ghosh.
3. The accused-petitioner pleaded at his trial, not guilty to the accusations made against him under Sections 279 and 333 of the IPC.
4. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. The accused-petitioner was, then, examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and in his examination aforementioned, the accused-petitioner denied that he had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial.
5. Having found the accused-petitioner guilty of the offences aforementioned, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned hereinabove. The accused-petitioner preferred an appeal, but the same also having not yielded any favourable result to him, he is before this Court with the present revision.
6. I have heard Mr. S. Roy, learned Counsel for the accused petitioner, and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Tripura.
7. In the case against the accused-petitioner, besides the injured, two persons have been examined by the prosecution as eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence.
8. According to the evidence of P.W. 4, on 19-6-2000, at about 8.45 a.m., while he along with his daughter, Anima, was putting boundary fencing, vehicle No. TRL-1489, which was coming at a high speed, knocked him down. The evidence, so given by P.W. 4, remained, despite being cross-examined by the defence, wholly unshaken. This apart, his evidence receives material corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 3, neighbour of the said injured, and P.W. 8, daughter of the said injured. As far as P.W. 3 is concerned, her evidence is that on the day of the occurrence, when she was present near the gate of her house, she saw the injured putting boundary fencing and at that point of time, vehicle No. TRL-1489 came at a high speed and knocked him down. So far as P.W. 8 is concerned, her evidence is that while she along with her father was putting boundary fencing, a lorry came at a high speed knocked down her father and caused injuries on his person. The evidence of P.W. 3 and 4 also could not be shaken by the defence, though they too were cross-examined by the defence.
9. Coupled with the above, the evidence of the injured receive material corroboration from the medical evidence on record inasmuch the doctor (P.W. 5) has given evidence to the effect that he examined P.W. 4 on 19-6-2002, at GB hospital, and found fracture at lumber region and also fracture of 9th vertebrae.
10. From what have been pointed out above, it is abundantly clear that the vehicle No. TRL-1489 came at a high speed and the same knocked down P.W. 4 causing injuries on his person as indicated hereinabove. The question, now, is as to who the driver of the said vehicle, at the relevant point of time was ? In this regard, it is noteworthy that P.W. 6, who is, admittedly, the owner of the said vehicle, has given evidence to the effect that it was the accused, who had been engaged by him as a driver of the said truck and that on the day of the occurrence, it was the accused, who had taken out the vehicle from the house of P.W. 6. Thus, in the absence of anything showing to the contrary, it is abundantly clear that the vehicle, in question, was, at the relevant point of time, driven by the accused-petitioner, for, had someone, other than the accused-petitioner, driven the said vehicle, it was within the special knowledge of the accused-petitioner and he had the onus to show that not he, but someone else had driven the vehicle at the relevant point of time. Thus onus has not been discharged by the accused-petitioner.
11. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that it was the accused-petitioner, who had rashly driven the vehicle and caused injuries on the person of P.W. 4. On the basis of the facts so proved, conviction of the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC cannot be said to be bad or not sustainable in law. However, while considering the grievance of the accused-petitioner as regards the sentence passed against him, what attracts the eyes in that the learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the appeal, did not consider at all the propriety and/or justification of the sentence passed against the accused-petitioner. Viewed from this angle, the sentence passed against the accused-petitioner needs to be examined.
12. While considering the question of sentence passed against the accused-petitioner, it is pertinent to point that there was, admittedly, nothing on record to show that the accused-petitioner had been convicted of any offence in the past either under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or under any other penal provisions of law. In such circumstances, and, particularly, when the learned trial Court has assigned no reasons for imposing punishment of rigorous imprisonment of six months on the accused-petitioner, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be well served if the accused-petitioner is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.
13. For what have been discussed and pointed out above, while I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused-petitioner, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 15 (fifteen) days. With the modifications so made in the sentence passed against the accused-petitioner, this revision shall stand disposed of.