Tripura High Court
Farid Uddin @ Fasani vs The State Of Tripura on 1 July, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.P. 12 of 2024
Farid Uddin @ Fasani
---Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Majumder, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. PP.
Date of hearing and date of
judgment and order : 01.07.2024.
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Heard Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also
heard Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. PP appearing for the state.
[2] This is application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC for
setting aside the judgment dated 13.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2023 by
the Ld. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar.
[3] The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as reflected in the impugned
order of the court below are that on 16.12.2019 at around 6.30pm the wife of the cousin
brother of the informant o Fulurani Goswami (the victim) had gone to Kadamtala CHC
and therein when she alighted from vehicle, at that time, the driver of vehicle named and
style as "Alto" bearing registration No.TR-05-C-0722 knowing fully well that he may
cause the death of any person reversed the said vehicle by driving it in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the victim with the rear end of the vehicle and smashed her
against the wall of the circular structure present in the hospital with intent to kill her. It is
further alleged that due to such incident the victim sustained grievous injuries and was
admitted at Kadamtalla CHC from where considering the gravity of her injuries she was
referred to Dharmanagar District Hospital wherein she expired. On receipt of the written
ejahar the then OC of the Kadamtala PS, registered the same as Kadamtala PS Case
No.2019 KDL 069 dated 16.12.2019 under Section 279/427/304 (Part II) of the India
penal code. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed before the court below. On receipt of the
case record, the learned court below was pleased to offer fresh bail to the accused person.
Thereafter, both sides were heard on the question of framing of charge and the contents of
charge under section 279/427/304 (Part II) of IPC read with Section 184/187/181 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was read over and explained to the accused to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
[4] During trial prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and the trial
court after evaluating the evidence, convicted the petitioner under Section 427, 304A, 279
of the IPC and also under Sections 184, 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the
following manner:
In the result the accused person namely Farid Uddin @ Fasani (A1) is
hereby acquitted of the contents of charge framed against him u/s. 304 (Part II) of
I.P.C and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
In the result the accused Farid Uddin @ Fasani (A1) is hereby convicted
of the contents of charge framed against him u/s. 427 of I.P.C and he is sentenced
to undergo R.I. for a term of one year along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to
undergo R.I. for three months.
In the result the accused Farid Uddin @ Fasani (A1) is hereby convicted
of the contents of charge framed against him u/s. 304A of IPC and he is sentenced
to undergo R.I. for a tenn of two years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to
suffer R.i: for three months.
In the result the accused Farid Uddin @ Fasani (A1) is hereby convicted
of the contents of charge framed against him u/s. 279 of IPC but since the offense
under Section 304A of I.P.C is an aggravated form of offense under Section 279
of I.P.C, a separate sentence is not passed for offense punishable under Section
279 of 1.P.C.
In the result the accused Farid Uddin @ Fasani (A1) is hereby convicted
of the contents of charge framed against him u/s. 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 and he is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a term of six months along with fine
of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for fifteen days.
In the result the accused Farid Uddin @ Fasani (A1) is hereby
convicted of the contents of charge framed against him u/s. 187 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and he is sentenced to S.I. for a term of three months along
with fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer S.I. for fifteen days.
[5] Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the learned
court below, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief(s):
(i) Admit the revision petition;
(ii) Issue notice upon the respondent
(iii) Call for the lower courts record, &
(iv) After hearing the both sides, set aside the impugned judgment/order dated 13.12.2023
passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, in Criminal Appeal
No.04 of 2023, preferred by the present petitioner and affirmed the order of sentences
dated 16.06.2023 passed by the Ld. Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura,
Dharmanagar in Case No.ST (T-2) 16 of 2021 sentenced the petitioner under Section
279/304A/427 of IPC and release the accused petitioner on bail till the final disposal
of the revision petition;
(v) Suspend further proceeding of impugned judgment/order dated 13.12.2023 passed by
the Ld. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar;
(vi) After hearing both the sides, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by
the Ld. Courts below.
[6] It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions
Judge should have set aside the order of the sentence passed by the Ld. Trial Court as the
Ld. Trial Court had failed to apply its judicious mind in appreiciation of evidence on
record and accordingly arrived at a wrong conclusion and as such, the judgment dated
13.12.2023 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in respect of
present petitioner is liable to be set aside.
[7] It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that other witnesses
of the case as cited by the prosecution could not support the prosecution case in any
manner as per law and the Ld.Court below as well as IO of the case did not cite the actual
witnesses who are best witness to this case to prove the case as per law and the present
petitioner in the formation of intention such as accident occurs or any other incident took
place and it this circumstances, it is very much established that no offence was constituted
by the present petitioner in that relevant time as alleged by the complainant and as such
the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court as well as Ld. Appellate Court is
liable to be set aside.
[8] On the other hand, Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl.PP appearing for the state
opposes the said contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits
that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below and
further prayed to dismiss the petition.
[9] Having gone through the record and also having considered the submission
as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the said
accident which led to the demise of the victim was occurred due to the negligence of the
petitioner herein. It would be an inappropriate act on the part of this court, if such
incidents are seen leniently. Therefore, considering the intensity of the case, the sentence
given to the convict-petitioner by the leaned court below under Section 304A to undergo
RI for a term of two years along with fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer R.I for three
months is reduced to 6 months.
[10] It is made clear that the modification has been made only with regard to the
Section 304A and the rest part of the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2023 by the Ld. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar
remains unaltered.
[11] In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition stands partly
allowed. As a sequel miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
DIPAK Digitally signed by
DIPAK DAS
DAS Date: 2024.07.03
16:59:06 +05'30'
