The Tripura High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice S. G. Chattopadhyay observed mere driving of a vehicle at a high speed or slow speed does not lead to an inference that negligent or rash driving had caused the accident resulting in injuries to the complainant. In fact, speed is no criteria to establish the fact of rash and negligent driving of a vehicle.( Sri Biswajit Ghosh vs The State of Tripura)
Facts of the Case
In this case a face-to-face collision took place between two motorbikes according to the informant, the motorbike drove by Amar Deb collided with the motorbike driven by Biswanit Ghosh which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of such a collision between the motorbikes, drivers of both the motorbikes got seriously injured. It was alleged by the informant that the accident occurred as a result of the careless driving of the said motorbikes.
The petitioner was booked for the offenses punishable under section 279, 338 & 304A IPC and 184 M.V. Act.
Petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition challenging the judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhalai affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamalpur by judgment and order whereby the trial Court imposed sentence on the petitioner.
Contention of the Parties
Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of information lodged by Rakhal Ch. Das (PW-1) the case was registered against both the drivers of the motor bikes involved in the accident. Since one of the accused has died, charge sheet has been filed against the other accused namely, Biswajit Ghosh. Accordingly to learned counsel, for argument’s sake even if the evidence of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-11 are believed, accused cannot be held guilty because, they have given no evidence in support of rash and negligent driving. Counsel submitted that materials available on record do not justify convict and sentence of the accused for rash and negligent driving.
Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that prosecution evidence with regard to the charge of rash and negligent driving against the accused is so consistent that the concurrent findings of the courts below do not call for any interference in revision. Learned counsel, therefore, urged for dismissal of the instant petition.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The Court at the very outset observed, “It would appear from the evidence of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-11 who allegedly witnessed the accident that each of these witnesses stated that the accident occurred because accused Biswahit Ghosh was driving his motor bike at a high speed. In the case of Mrs. Shakila Khader and Ors Vrs. Nausheer Cama and Others: reported in (1975) 4 SCC 122, the Apex Court observed that speed is not the only criteria for deciding rashness and negligence on the part of the driver.”
The court further observed that similar observation was made by the Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka Vrs. Satish; reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493, which is as under:
“Merely because the truck was being driven at a “high speed” does not bespeak of either “negligence” or “rashness” by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by “high speed”. “High speed” is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what is meant by “high speed” in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Th Court observed that in the present case, the Investigating Officer did not make any investigation to ascertain about the width of the road, its position, density of the traffic at the material place and the exact location of the offending vehicle and those of the witnesses and the deceased at the time of accident to present a complete picture before the Court to know actually how the accident took place and who was responsible. In absence of such evidence it would be unsafe to hold the petitioner guilty merely on the evidence that the offending vehicle was at a high speed and a person lost his life in the accident.
The court disposing of the petition opined that, “In view of what is discussed above, this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to establish the charges of rash and negligent driving against the petitioner by adducing sufficient, convincing and reliable evidence. Resultantly, the revision petition stands allowed and accused is acquitted of the charges brought against him. His bail bond stands discharged. The criminal revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
