Sanjib Kumar Nath vs The State Of Assam
2021 Latest Caselaw 3454 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010121652012




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                              Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./362/2012

            SANJIB KUMAR NATH
            S/O LT. MAHENDRA NATH R/O KAWAIMARI, GHATUA THELAMARA P.S., IN
            THE DIST. OF SONITPUR, ASSAM,



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM




Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS.A MAHANTA

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R J BARUA

:: BEFORE ::

                    HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN


       Date of hearing             :     02.12.2021.


       Date of judgment            :     14.12.2021.
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/5



                             JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. D. P. Chaliha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. U.P. Chaliha, Advocate. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the State/respondent.

2. By filing this petition under Section 401 read with 397 of the CrPC, the petitioner is assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 20.08.2011, passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Sonitpur, in connection with the G.R. Case No.327/2007, which was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, vide order dated 07.06.2012, in Criminal Appeal No.24(S-3)/2011.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 01.03.2007, one Martin La Munda lodged an FIR in the Charduar Police Outpost, alleging that on 27.02.2007, at about 9:00 a.m., a 709 bus bearing Regn. No.AS-12-A-7275, which was running in a very high speed, towards Biswanath Chariali from Tezpur in a negligent manner and knocked his daughter Lalita La Munda, aged 24 years. As a result of the accident, his daughter sustained severe injuries on her person. It was further alleged that at first she was admitted in the Kanaklata Civil Hospital but later on she was referred to Guwahati for advance treatment.

4. On receipt of the FIR, the Charduar Police Outpost G.D. Entry No.129, dated 03.03.2007 has been made, which was later on registered as the Tezpur P.S. Case No.147/2007, under Section 279/338 of the IPC. During the investigation, the statement of the witnesses was recorded, arrested the accused and he was enlarged on bail and seized the offending vehicle and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet under Section 279/338 of the IPC.

Accused faced the trial and denied the charge mentioned above.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and defence examined none. At Page No.# 3/5

the conclusion of trial, accused was held guilty and convicted under Section 279/338 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default simple imprisonment for 10 days, for committing the offence under Section 279 of the IPC; for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC, the accused person is sentenced to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default simple imprisonment for 10 days.

6. Being aggrieved, the accused/convict preferred an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.24(S-

3)/2011, before the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur. The learned appellate Court, after hearing the parties and perusal of the record, partly allowed the appeal by directing that the substantive sentences of Rigorous Imprisonment, under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC, will run concurrently, which was imposed by the learned trial Court, whereas the period of sentence as well as the fine amount remained the same.

Challenging the above findings, accused petitioner is before this Court, with the present revision petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner although has challenged the prosecution case that the charge is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt but has also made his alternative submission is to consider the length of litigation that has been undergone by the petitioner since day of institution of the case in the year 2007. It has been urged before the court taking note of nature of the offence and the sentence inflicted coupled with the length of litigation as well as the status of the accused petitioner who is a driver by profession, it would serve the cause of justice if sentence is converted only to the fine, as after 15 years of the occurrence sentencing a person to detention for an offence which was not committed intentionally but accidentally.

8. Also heard the submission of the learned Addl. P.P. Mr. R.J. Baruah who has also admitted about the long litigation faced by the petitioner.

Page No.# 4/5

9. I have carefully gone through the record and examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The victim herein was a young girl of 24 years at the time of occurrence and she has stated that due to the fault of the driver who drove the vehicle in a high speed, she sustained injury on her right leg and although she medical treatment was provided after the incident but her leg was amputated for the said accident. Three other witnesses i.e. PW-3 to PW-5 were the eyewitnesses to the occurrence and they had lent support to the case of the victim girl and there is no any material omission and contradiction to disbelieve their evidence. PW-1 is the informant who lodged the FIR on being informed about the incident. The medical officer PW-7 on examination of the victim has also gave the medical report that the injury sustained by the victim is grievous in nature, as there was fracture of her leg bones with extensive soft tissue laceration and vascular damage. The medical officer however has not stated about the amputation of the leg of the victim girl, which may have subsequently done.

10. All the eyewitnesses along with the victim girl has stated about the running of the vehicle by the driver in a high speed who fled away after the incident without responding the victim girl. Although running a vehicle with speed is not the sole criteria to assess the rash and negligent driving of a vehicle but same is one of vital factor of all factors. But however in the present case the place of occurrence is a public place and the people were road, driving of vehicle in a high speed can be termed as a rash driving within the purview of Section 279 IPC. Though the medical report also supported about the grievous injury sustained by the victim girl and in view of such sustainable evidence on record, the conclusion arrived by the trial court about the guilt of the accused under Section 279/338 IPC appears to be proper, which again upheld by the appellate court.

11. In view of the above, no interference is called for so far as regard the conviction of the accused person. Now, it is to be noted that the victim girl although has stated about the amputation of the right leg for the occurrence but no such medical report is brought on record in support of the same. She has also stated in cross-examination that they have preferred for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the injuries she Page No.# 5/5

sustained. That being so, she can be granted adequate compensation by the competent authority.

12. So far as the sentence part is concerned, it is to be noted that the accused person is a driver of a public vehicle and he is under long litigation and submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner to bestow, some leniency can be considered, as the occurrence is of 15 years back.

13. Having regard to the matters on record, as discussed above, this court is of the opinion that imposition of sentence of detention at this stage will serve no purpose. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction under Section 279/338 IPC, the accused is sentenced to fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, S/I for 1(one) month under each sections of law.

14. The petitioner will deposit the fine before the trial court within one month from the date of passing of this judgment and order.

15. The revision petition is allowed to the extent as indicated herein above.

Return the LCRs forthwith.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant