Tripura High Court
Sri Debabrata Banik vs The State Of Tripura on 14 July, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL. REV P NO.54 of 2022
Sri Debabrata Banik,
S/o. Sri Amalendu Banik,
R/O. Vill:- I.C. Nagar, Madhya Para,
P.S.- Belonia, South Tripura.
......... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
The State of Tripura.
....... Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. G.A.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 14.07.2023
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
This present revision petition has been filed under
Section 401 read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C. to examine the
legality, validity, and propriety of the impugned judgment dated
17.06.2020 passed by the learned CJM, South Tripura District
Belonia in case No. PRC(SP)38 of 2016, wherein the learned Trial
Court convicted the petitioner under Section 279/338 of IPC and
under Section 187 of M.V. Act and also legality, validity, modifying,
and propriety of the impugned judgment dated 24.08.2022 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, District, Belonia in
Crl. Appeal No.01 of 2021.
2. The brief fact of this case is that on 10.12.2015 at
about 10 am, victim Nantu Sarkar was proceeding towards his paddy
field, and when he reached near the 'pakka' bridge adjacent to the
house of one Prankrishna Baidya, Belonia-Barpathari road, at that time,
the vehicle bearing No.TR-08-0279 being driven by the petitioner came
with excessive speed and when it tried to overtake one tipper truck, it
dashed him. After the accident, the petitioner fled away from the spot
with his vehicle. Due to the accident, the victim sustained injuries on his
waist, leg, and other parts of his body and nearby people shifted him to
Belonia Hospital, and from there he was referred to TMC, Hapania
Hospital, Agartala for better treatment. It is also alleged that when the
informant along with one Nripen Datta chased the offending vehicle,
they found it near Vivekananda Nursery. They tried to stop the vehicle
but the convict-appellant dashed their motorcycle and the informant
received injuries on his right hand. It is further alleged that the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle.
3. Based on the FIR, police registered Belonia P.S. Case No.
2015/BLN/150 under Section 279/338 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V.
Act. After investigation finding prima facie case, S.I. Ranjan Biswas filed
charge sheet dated 31.05.2016 vide C/S No. 29/2016 under Section 279
and 338 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act against accused Sri
Debabrata Banik being driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle
bearing No. TR-08-0279 (Maruti Alto 800).
After taking cognizance and supplying the prosecution
copies to the accused person, charges under Section 279 and 338 of
IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act have been framed against accused Sri
Debabrata Banik. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed
to be tried.
4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia
after evaluating the evidence, convicted the appellant for the offence
and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 2(two) months for the offence
punishable under Section 279 of IPC and to suffer R.I. for 1(one) year
for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. He was further
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence committed under
Section 187 of M.V. Act, in default, to suffer S.I. for five days with
further finding that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
17.06.2016 passed by the learned CJM, South Tripura Belonia in case
No.PRC(SP)38 of 2016, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura District, Belonia in Criminal
Appeal No.01 of 2021. The learned Appellate Court modified the
conviction under Section 338 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for
6(six) months instead of suffering RI for 1(one) year. But the learned
Appellate Court stated that there is no scope for any interference of
conviction made under Section 279 of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act.
6. Being aggrieved by the said impugned Judgment and
Order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the learned Appellate Court, the
petitioner has preferred this present revision petition and prayed for the
following reliefs:-
" a. Admit this revision petition;
b. Call for records;
c. Issue Notice upon the respondents and
d. After hearing of the parties and on perusal of the
evidence on record be pleased enough to set aside/quash the impugned
judgment and order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in Crl. Appeal No.01 of 2021 wherein and
whereby the Ld. Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and arbitrarily
upholding the orders of conviction and sentence dated 17.06.2020 passed
by the Ld. CJM Belonia, South Tripura in Case No.PRC(SP)38 of 2016
wherein the learned Ld. Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section
279/338 of IPC and section 187 of MV Act and Ld. Appellate Court finds
that Ld. Trial Court has rightly given the judgment and there is no scope
for any interference but he Ld. Appellate Court sentencing him to suffer
RI for 6(six) months.
AND
To pass any other appropriate order/orders as your Lordship
may deem fit and proper for the interest of justice."
7. Heard Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P., appearing
for the State-respondent.
8. Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the findings of the learned Courts below are
unreasonable, arbitrary, and unwarranted in law and facts and as such it
is not tenable in the eye of the law and is liable to be quashed and set
aside. Learned counsel has casted a shadow of doubt over the deposition
of prosecution witnesses and urged this Court to allow this appeal.
9. On the other hand, Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P.
appearing for the State-respondent stated that the impugned Judgment
as passed by the Court below is just and proper and needs no
interference.
10. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.
11. On careful perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident
from the investigation reports the accident has taken place on a bridge
and it is a 'pakka' permanent bridge with a dimension. The vehicle
driven by the petitioner had overtaken a tripper truck and the crime
vehicle had hit the complainant and caused injuries. Admittedly when it
is a bridge, overtaking is strictly prohibited and since the petitioner had
overtaken and caused the accident, it cannot be said that intentionally
the petitioner had caused injuries to the complainant. But an accident is
an accident which happens unintentionally. However, since the petitioner
has not taken proper care, and was not supposed the overtake the
vehicle on a bridge, this Court gives a finding against the petitioner.
However, as per the petitioner, the complainant has been awarded, a
sufficient amount under the Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation Act,
and more so Section 338 and 279 of IPC give a provision for punishment
of sentence or fine or with both and since the antecedents of the
petitioner do not indicate any rash and negligent driving or any criminal
background, this Court takes a lenient view and modifies the impugned
order and impose a fine of Rs.1000/- on the petitioner for the offence
committed as indicated above.
12. With the above modification of the impugned Judgment
and Order, this present revision petition stands disposed of. As a sequel
stay if any stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any also stands
closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMA Digitally signed
by RAJKUMAR
R SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2023.07.18
SINGHA 11:24:41 +05'30'
