Tripura High Court
Sri Bibisan Debnath vs The State Of Tripura on 1 February, 2021
Page 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL. A. NO.38 OF 2019
Sri Bibisan Debnath
S/O Sri Khokan Debnath of
Rajapur, P.S. Santirbazar,
District-South Tripura.
........... Convict-Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
........... Respondent(s)
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
For appellant(s) : Mr. A. Acharjee, Advocate
For respondent(s) : Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 01.02.2021
Whether fit for reporting : NO
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (O R A L)
The instant appeal arises out of the judgment
and conviction and sentence dated 06.09.2019, passed by
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District,
Udaipur, in connection with case No.S.T 79(GT/U/) of
2014(T-1), whereby and whereunder the appellant has
been convicted under Sections 304A/338/337/279 of IPC
and sentenced him (a) to suffer RI for one year and to pay
a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for three
months for the offence under Section 304A, (b) to suffer RI
for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to
suffer further SI for two months for the offence under
Section 338 of IPC, (c) to suffer RI for two months and to
pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to suffer further SI for
one month for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and (d)
to suffer RI for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in
default to suffer further SI for ten days for the offence
under Section 279 of IPC. It was also directed that all the
sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.02.2014
at night about 2400 hrs. at Kalaban, Udaipur, on Garjee-
Tulamura Road under R.K. Pur P.S., Gomati District, the
accused-appellant was driving his vehicle bearing No.TR-
03-2563(Commander Jeep) rashly and negligently and
caused an accident wherein one person died.
3. The Officer-In-Charge, on being receipt of the
complaint lodged by one Ratan Jamatia, carried out
investigation. During the process of investigation, he
recorded the statements of the available witnesses under
Section 161 of CrPC, sent the body for post-mortem
examination, prepared the inquest report. On completion of
investigation, the investigating officer having found prima
facie case against the appellant had filed charge-sheet
under Sections 279/337/338/304 Part II of IPC.
4. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the case was
committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge which
was transferred to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions
Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur. Initially charges were
framed against the appellant under Sections 279/338/304
Part II and subsequently Section 304A IPC was added.
5. Trial was undertaken. In course of trial, the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge had examined as many as 28
numbers of witnesses. On closure of recording of evidence
of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant was examined
under Section 313 of CrPC where he pleaded to be innocent
when he was noticed about the incriminating materials and
evidences surfaced against him by the prosecution
witnesses. It is also necessary to be noted that the
appellant had adduced four numbers of witnesses including
him.
6. Having heard the learned counsels and
considering the materials on record, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge had held the appellant as guilty of
committing offence under Sections 304A/338/337/279 of
IPC and sentenced him as afore-stated. Hence, this appeal.
7. Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel
appearing for the convict-appellant as well as Mr. Sumit
Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-
State.
8. The owner of the offending vehicle was
examined by the prosecution as PW4, but PW4 did not state
about taking of leave by the appellant before the date of
accident. Defence also did not put any question to PW4
regarding taking of any leave by the accused from him
before the accident.
9. It is necessary to mention herein that the
appellant by way of adducing evidence on his behalf has
tried to project his case that at the time of accident he was
on leave and he was not driving the vehicle as alleged. As I
said earlier that no question was put to the owner from the
side of the defence denying the fact that he was on leave,
in my opinion, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has
correctly held that the appellant was not on leave on the
fateful night when the accident had occurred.
10. After going through the evidence of DWs, I find
that all the witnesses were his close relatives. The convict-
appellant had failed to bring any independent person to
support his claim that he was not driving the vehicle at the
relevant point of time.
11. The first informant, i.e. PW21 has specifically
stated that the deceased Amit Jamatia was his younger
brother who died in the accident in the night of 21.02.2014
at Kalaban. As per his evidence, he along with his younger
brother with other persons attended the marriage
ceremony of his sister by hiring commander jeep vehicle
bearing No.TR-03-2563 and at the time of return the said
vehicle met an accident at Kalaban as the driver-appellant
was inebriated and was driving the vehicle at excessive
speed, and in spite of being cautioned to drive slowly he did
not pay any heed.
12. After perusal of the depositions of PWs 12, 13,
16, 18, 24 and 26, who boarded the aforesaid offending
vehicle, it is found that all of them had corroborated the
said statements of PW21.
13. It is further revealed from the depositions of
PWs 16 and 24 that when the vehicle was in a running
condition, its front wheel came out of the axle which was
the main reason of causing the accident. The learned Addl.
Sessions Judge had also observed in his judgment that he
looked at the seizure list, by which the defaulting vehicle
was seized on 22.02.2014 and he found that at the time of
seizure two front wheels were detached. The place of
occurrence also remained undisputed as would be evident
from the hand-sketch map of the place of occurrence and it
appeared that the accident took place in mid-point of public
road and in opposite directions, i.e. front and back sides
there were tri-junctions. The evidence also had disclosed
that the accident took place at the turning point. The hand-
sketch map of the place of occurrence had further revealed
that just adjacent to the road there was lunga land covered
by jungles.
14. After careful perusal of the evidence and
materials on record, I find that none of the prosecution
witnesses had deposed that the appellant was driving the
vehicle rashly and negligently, which are the main
ingredients of punishing an accused under Sections
227/337/338/304A of IPC.
Mere statement that the vehicle was being
driven at a "high speed" does not be spoken of either
"negligence" or "rashness" by itself. Criminality is not to be
presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions.
I find that there is no such statutory exception pleaded in
the present case. In the absence of any material on the
record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" can
be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur".
15. In the instant case, in absence of any assertions
regarding rash and negligent driving, I find it difficult to
uphold the conviction and sentence, as imposed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge upon the appellant.
16. Having held so, the impugned judgment and
order convicting and sentencing the appellant as afore-
stated stands set aside.
It is informed that the appellant is on bail. As
such, he has been discharged from his bail bond. His surety
also stands discharged. Accordingly, the appellant is
acquitted.
17. The instant appeal stands allowed.
Send down the LCRs.
JUDGE
