Nazrul Islam vs State Of Assam

This is a Criminal Revision Petition, filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment

and order, dated 19.02.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup in Criminal Appeal No. 31/2008 upholding the judgment

and order, dated 23.06.2008 in GR Case No. 636/2000, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup convicting and sentencing the

accused-revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) month under Section 279 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for a

period of 3 (three) months under Section 304(A) of the IPC and to pay the compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/-.

I have heard Mr. A Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner as well as Mr. NK Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

appearing for the State respondent.

I have also perused the LCR including the evidence on record.

On perusal of the evidence on record, it appears to be an undisputed fact that the deceased died on being hit by the Tata Sumo vehicle which was

driven by the accused-revision petitioner at the relevant point of time. The occurrence took place near Kamakhya Gate is also an admitted position.

The informant is the son of the deceased and he came to know about the occurrence after 2 (two) days only, and therefore, naturally, he has no

independent knowledge about the occurrence.

The PW2 is having a Hotel nearby the place of occurrence and he saw that the deceased was hit by a vehicle. He came to the place of occurrence

and found the deceased dead.

The PW3 turned hostile and he has not implicated the accused-revision petitioner.

The PW4 deposed that the deceased was hit by a vehicle while she was crossing the divider of the road. According to him, the vehicle driven by

the accused-revision petitioner was behind a 407 Mini Truck. The 407 Mini Truck applied its break suddenly and the vehicle behind it driven by the

accused-revision petitioner then hit the deceased resulting in her death.

The PW5 deposed that the Tata Sumo vehicle driven by the accused-revision petitioner had knocked the deceased while trying to overtake the 407

Mini Truck ahead of his vehicle.

The PW2 only deposed that the Tata Sumo vehicle which hit the deceased was in high speed.

From the evidence above, it appears that it is an admitted position that the victim died due to the accident caused by the Tata Sumo vehicle driven

by the accused-revision petitioner. The account of the incident by the eye-witnesses, i.e. PW4 and PW5, taken together and cumulatively appears to

be pointing to the guilt of the accused-revision petitioner of his carelessness in driving the vehicle at the place where there was a divider on the road.

There is absolutely no dispute as to the fact that the accident took place while the deceased was about to cross the road through the divider. The

normal course of action for a driver is to slow down the speed of the vehicle in and around the divider/crossing. There is no such evidence on record

except the statement of the accused-revision petitioner made under Section 313 of the Cr.PC that his vehicle was in slow motion at the relevant time

of the occurrence.

Considering the evidence in its entirety, in the considered view of this court, the accident took place due to rash and negligence driving by the

accused-revision petitioner. However, considering the materials on record, it appears to this court that if on both counts, i.e., under Sections 279 and

304(A) of the IPC, instead of substantive punishment, if punishment in the form of fine is imposed that will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly,

while upholding the order of conviction of the learned trial court, the punishment is reduced to fine of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- respectively under

Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days and 1 (one) month respectively on

each count. The sentence is also modified accordingly. No order as to compensation also as awarded by the courts below.

The accused-revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial court to undergo the sentence within 1 (one) month from the date

of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

This criminal revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Send back the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.