Tripura High Court
Shri Dilip Debnath vs State Of Tripura on 27 June, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.P.32 of 2023
Shri Dilip Debnath
............Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Tripura
...........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.D. Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. PP.
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment and order : 27.06.224
Whether fit for reporting : No.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. D. Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.
Ghosh, learned Addl.PP learned counsel representing the State.
[2] This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. read
with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 04.05.2023 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura,
Belonia.
[3] The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as reflected in the impugned
order of the Court below are that on 30.01.2014 at about 4 p.m. the informant
Sankar Malakar along with his son Samarjit Malakar were returning from Latua Tilla
market and got down from a vehicle in front of their house at Kusharghat and at that
time, one Commander Jeep bearing No. TR-03-2898 coming in a rash and negligent
manner from Baikhora side, dashed the son of the informant. Due to the accident,
the son of the informant sustained severe injuries on his person and he was
immediately shifted to Baikhora PHC for treatment and from there, he was referred
to TSD Hospital, Udaipur. The attending medical officer of TSD Hospital, Udaipur
considering the seriousness of his injuries referred him to AGMC & GBP Hospital,
Agartala wherein he succumbed to the injuries. It was also alleged that after the
accident the driver of the offending Commander Jeep fled away from the spot leaving
the injured. Thereafter, the informant lodged the case. On the basis of the FIR, police
registered Baikhora P.S. Case No. 05/2014 under Sec. 279/304(ii) of IPC and after
investigation finding prima facie case, charge-sheet was filed 15.04.2014 vide C/S
No. 17/2014 under Sec. 279, 304(ii) of IPC and section 187 of M.V. Act against
accused Sri Dilip Debnath. After taking cognizance and supplying the prosecution
copies to the accused person charges under Sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC and section
187 of M.V. Act have been framed against accused Sri Dilip Debnath, petitioner
herein. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
[4] During trial prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and the
trial court after evaluating the evidence, convicted the appellant for the offence under
Sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC and section 187 of M.V. Act. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with said decision of the learned trial court, the petitioner preferred
appeal before the Appellate Court (District & Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia)
being case No. Criminal Appeal 30 of 2019 but the same was dismissed by the order
dated 04.05.2023 in following manner:
"........18. So, in the totality of the evidence of the witnesses, I find no
impropriety in the judgment of learned trial Court justifying any interference
from this Court. I find no merit in the appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. The
convict-appellant is hereby directed to surrender before learned trial Court within
one month from today to undergo the sentence.
19. Send back the L.C. record along with a copy of this judgment."
[5] Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the
learned Court below, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking following
reliefs:
"a) Admit this revision petition;
b) Call for the records;
c) Issue notice upon the respondent;
After hearing of this parties and on perusal of the evidence on record be
please enough to set aside/quash the impugned judgement dated 04/05/2023
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2019 by the L.d. Session Judge, South
Tripura, Belonia where by Ld. Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld
the judgement and order passed by the Ld. Trial Court whereby Ld. Trial Court
convict the petitioner U/S 304 (A) of IPC sentencing him to suffer SI for 1(one)
year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer S I for 2 (two) months
for the offence punishable u/s 304 -a of IPC and also sentencing the petitioner to
pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 279 of IPC, in default to
suffer S I for 20 (twenty) days and he is further sentenced to pay of Rs. 500/-
for the offence under section 187 of M. V. Act in default to suffer for ten
days.........."
[6] Mr. D. Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that learned
Appellate court has committed manifest error while passing the impugned judgment
and upheld the order of the learned Trial court. He also submits that learned Trial
court as well as learned Appellate court only on presumption and without applying
judicious mind convicted the petitioner mechanically which is very unfortunate. He,
therefore, urges this Court to set aside the order impugned passed by the appellate
court below.
[7] On the other hand, Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. PP appearing for the
State opposes the said contention made by the learned counsel of the petitioner and
submits that there is not infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Court
below.
[8] Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and without
going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence as
awarded by the learned Court below to the petitioner herein under Section 304-A of
IPC be reduced to six months instead of one year. Hence, the sentence awarded to
the petitioner is reduced to six months instead of one year. However, all other
aspects of the order impugned shall remain unaltered.
With the above direction, the instant petition is disposed of. As a sequel,
miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall also stand closed.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi. G.
SABYASACHI GHOSH GHOSH
Date: 2024.07.03 17:46:08 +05'30'
