Sri Krishna Nandi Son Of Late ... vs The State Of Tripura
2023 Latest Caselaw 99 Tri

                                Page 1 of 6



                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                      _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                        CRL REV P No.44 of 2022
Sri Krishna Nandi son of late Sudhir Nandi resident of village-Barpathari,
P.O. Barpathari, P.S. P.R. Bari, District- South Tripura (Age-31 years).
                                                        ...... Petitioner(s)
                              VERSUS
The State of Tripura, to be represented by the learned Public Prosecutor,
Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, Agartala.
                                                        ......Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate, Mr. D. Paul, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) Date of hearing and Judgment : 20th January, 2023.

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. D. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

[2] The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-convict

against the judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, South

Tripura, Belonia in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2022 modifying the order of

conviction of the petitioner dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia in PRC.(SP) 01 of 2019 under Section

279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) and Section 187 of MV

Act.

[3] Brief facts are as under :

Case of the petitioner as revealed from the FIR is that on

18.11.2017 at about 2100 hours, the informant Sri Kartik Debnath along

with his fried Sri Raju Debnath were standing and gossiping at outside

the NH-44 road at Sagardhepa in front of Hrishyamukh road. The

petitioner was driving the vehicle bearing registration No.TR03H-0375

(Alto Car-800) in rash and negligent manner and dashed both the victims.

Resultantly, both the victims were injured and immediately shifted to

Jolaibari CHC. The informant was admitted there but Raju Debnath was

referred to Udaipur District Hospital in deteriorated condition. He was

again shifted to GBP Hospital from Udaipur for better treatment.

Subsequently, the informant lodged this instant case before O/C Baikhora

police station for investigation.

[4] On the basis of the FIR, Police registered Baikhora P.S Case

No.2017/BKR/075 under Sections 279, 388 & 427 of IPC. Subsequently,

the investigation was started and after completion of investigation, the

Investigating Officer filed charge sheet dated 30.11.2018 vide C/S No.71

of 2018 under Sections 279, 388 & 427 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V

Act against the petitioner. After taking cognizance, charges were framed

against the petitioner as he denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

[5] During trial the prosecution examined as many as 15

witnesses. The petitioner was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C as

he denied the incriminating materials and also denied to adduce defence

witnesses. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia

vide judgment dated 08.03.2022 convicted the petitioner under Sections

279 and 388 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act and sentenced the

petitioner to suffer S.I. for ten days and also sentenced him to suffer S.I.

for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable

under Section 338 of IPC, and in default to suffer S.I. for ten days and

was further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable

under Section 187 of M.V Act, and in default to suffer for five days.

[6] The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2022

against the judgment dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia to the learned Sessions Judge,

South Tripura, Belonia. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal

and modified the sentence to the effect that the petitioner would suffer

S.I. for one month and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable

under Section 279 of IPC and in default to suffer S.I. for three months

and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section

338 of IPC and in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days and was further

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under

Section 187 of M.V. Act and in default to suffer S.I. for five days.

[7] Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the

petitioner filed this present appeal seeking the following reliefs :

"(i) Admit the instant Criminal Revision petition U/S 397(1) read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia;

(ii) Issue notice upon the respondents;

(iii) Allow the Criminal Revision petition U/S 397(1) read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by setting aside the judgment dated 29.06.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia and setting aside the judgment dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia;

(iv) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble High Court considered fit and proper."

[8] Mr. Mr. D. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

contends that the petitioner did not commit the offence as he was not part

of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He further stated that

at the stage of deposition, none of the prosecution witnesses identified the

petitioner and subsequently as an afterthought the name of the petitioner

was included in the FIR and was falsely implicated. Counsel further

contends that there are discrepancies in the averments made by the

prosecution witnesses and further contends that the petitioner is a poor man

and does not have sufficient means to run his livelihood and also there is no

criminal antecedent against him and is not in a position to suffer

imprisonment for no fault of his own. Counsel for the petitioner further

asserts that none of the injured persons stated anything about the bicycle

and had it not been an afterthought, they would have at least mentioned that

there was a bicycle which was being driven by the driver recklessly and

dashed us. Subsequently, he prays for setting aside the judgment dated

29.06.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in

Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2022 modifying the order of conviction of the

petitioner dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South

Tripura, Belonia in PRC.(SP) 01 of 2019.

[9] On the other hand, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor contends that in a revision petition entering into the evidence is

not permissible. However, he contends that P.W.2 has specifically stated

that the said vehicle was driven by the petitioner and the witness has

identified the accused person after the accident. He submits that prior to the

accident, P.W.2 has seen the petitioner driving the vehicle and after the

accident, he became unconscious and regained his sense in the hospital. He

submits that even P.W.6 also identified the petitioner driving the vehicle

and, therefore, the discrepancies cited by the counsel for the petitioner are

very minor.

[10] After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, the

appeal is allowed to the extent that the petitioner shall pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and to pay

fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and

he is further directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section

187 of the M.V. Act.

[11] Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed and the

judgment dated 29.06.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South

Tripura, Belonia and the judgment dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia are modified to the extent

indicated above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.

[12] Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Dipesh