Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 8117 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 29 October, 2025

                                                                         Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010122322014




                                                                   2025:GAU-AS:14492

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

                                Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./19/2014

            ASHUK CH. PAUL
            S/O LT. AKHAI CH. PAUL R/O RANGPUR, P.O. RANGPUR, P.S. SILCHAR,
            DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM




Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.R DHAR, MR.R DEV,MS.R RONGMAI

Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM
                                                                                     Page No.# 2/6

                                            BEFORE
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
                                           ORDER

29/10/2025

Heard Ms. R Rongmai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.

2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment and order dated 01.02.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Crl. A. No. 22/2012, dismissing the same and thereby, upholding the judgment dated 17.04.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi, in G.R. No. 166/2006, convicting the present petitioner under Sections 279/337/338/427 IPC and sentencing him accordingly.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24.02.2006, at around 6:30 in the evening, the present petitioner, driver of a bus, having registration No. AS-11-6272, being operated under ASTC by its owner, had driven his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner from Panchgram side towards Silchar, while carrying about 40 nos. of passengers and while taking a turn at Baghmara point, the petitioner, herein, failed to control the vehicle, resulting in it meeting with an accident, resultantly the bus fell into a 50 ft. deep pond nearby the road side. It was further projected that on account of the said accident, 22/24 persons traveling in the said vehicle received simple injuries and the vehicle was also badly damaged.

On completion of the investigation in the matter, police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 279/338/337/427 IPC against the accused person, herein.

The learned Trial Court on consideration of the materials brought on record was pleased to frame charge under Sections 279/338/337/427 IPC against the petitioner, herein, and the same on being read over and explained to him, the petitioner, herein, having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued.

During the trial, the prosecution had examined 6 (six) witnesses and thereafter, the petitioner, herein, was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Page No.# 3/6

On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment dated 17.04.2012 to convict the petitioner, herein, under Sections 279/338/337/427 IPC and sentenced him accordingly.

The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction by the learned Trial Court, assailed the same before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. A. No. 22/2012.

The learned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment dated 01.02.2013 to dismiss the appeal and thereby, uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

5. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased to draw the following conclusions:-

"(13) From the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6, it is clearly established that the number of the alleged vehicle is AS/11/6272. And from the statement of PW5, PW6 and from the statement of the accused person, it is alos established that the alleged accused person drove the vehicle. And from the evidence of the PW1, PW2, PW3 & PW4, the fact of the plying the moving vehicle in high speed also been established. PW2 even stated "The alleged Bus was driving in very high speed, though passengers asked to slow down the vehicle, but the driver did not pay attention and in the moving condition the alleged vehicle to provide space to other vehicle was turned down". And this stated fact of the PW3 remained un-rebutted. Defence argued that, there was a turning at the place of accident. If it would so, then it was duty of the accused person to take more care and precaution. In taking a curve turning the speed should be very low, where even a speed of 40-50 KM/Hour can increase the risk of accident to maximum. But the accused driver did not bother to listen to the passenger Page No.# 4/6

who asked him to make the speed less. Thus his conduct and act as proved by the prosecution witnesses are nothing but rash and negligent which created risk to the life of passengers of the alleged vehicle and damaged the properties of passengers as well as the Bus ..... And the injuries described by the witnesses have also not been cross examined. Hence, can be presumed, the fact of injuries stated by the witnesses remained un-rebutted and admitted by the defence. And held PW1 & PW2 received grievous injuries and PW3 & PW4 received simple injuries due to the act of rash and negligent driving of the accused person. The plea taken by the defence as recorded in the 313 statement of the accused person did not prove by adducing evidence. Hence, the plea of the defence remained unproved.

(8) From the discussion made above, it can be held that the prosecution has able to prove the guilt of the accused person and hence he is convicted U/S 279/337/338/427 IPC."

6. Basing on the said conclusions, the learned Trial Court proceeded to sentence the petitioner, herein, as follows:-

"Considering the above submission of the Defence, nature of the offence, involvement of risk, and of the opinion of the Court sentence of S.I. for (i) two months U/S 279 IPC and (ii) S.I. for two months U/S two months U/S 338 IPC and sentence of fine of Rs.300 for the offence U/S 337 IPC i/d S.I. for 7 days and Rs.200 for the offence U/S 427 IPC i//d another S.I. for 7 days would serve the purpose. All the sentences of imprisonment are concurrent in nature."

7. As noticed, hereinabove, the said conclusions as drawn by the learned Trial Court were upheld by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 01.02.2013 passed in Crl. A. No. 22/2012.

8. A perusal of the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court would bring to the forefront that the learned Trial Court basing upon the evidences adduced by PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 had drawn a presumption to the effect that the vehicle in question was being driven by the petitioner, herein, in a high speed. However, the evidences adduced by the PW3 and Page No.# 5/6

PW4 also brings on record the fact that the vehicle in question was at the relevant point of time, being driven at a speed of about 40 kms. per hour.

9. The learned Trial Court while proceeding to draw a presumption with regard to the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, herein, of the vehicle at the relevant point of time of its accident, had not taken into consideration the deposition of PW6, B.I. Majumder, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had examined the vehicle driven by the petitioner after it had met with the accident.

10. A perusal of the evidence adduced by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, more particularly, during his cross-examination, would bring to the forefront that the said vehicle might have met with the accident on account of a mechanical failure occasioning to its steering.

11. The petitioner, herein, during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had taken a plea that when he was taking a turn, the steering of his vehicle had got locked and had thereafter broken down for which he could not control the vehicle and the vehicle met with the accident. The said statement of the petitioner, herein, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. finds corroboration from the deposition of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, i.e., PW6.

12. It is a settled position of law that mere driving at a high speed would not automatically mandate a presumption to be drawn that the vehicle was also being driven in a rash and negligent manner. In the present case, in addition to the above position, there being materials brought on record, which demonstrated a mechanical failure occasioning to the steering of the vehicle, which may have resulted in the occasioning of the accident and the prosecution during the trial having not negated the said aspect of the matter, the benefit thereof has to be extended to the petitioner, herein.

13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the evidences coming on record having raised a reasonable doubt with regard to the manner in which the accident had taken place, the benefit necessarily being required to be extended to the petitioner, herein, the same would mandate an interference with his conviction under Sections 279/338/337/427 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Sections 279/338/337/427 IPC by the learned Trial Court stands set aside.

Page No.# 6/6

14. The impugned judgment dated 17.04.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi in G.R. Case No. 166/2006 and the judgment dated 01.02.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Crl. A. No. 22/2012 stand set aside. The petitioner is set at liberty. The bail bond executed by the petitioner, herein, stands discharged.

15. With the above observations and direction, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant