Partly allowed

Pradip Basumatary v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC4 Jan 2022Crl.Rev.P./32/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In revision under Section 401 CrPC, the Gauhati High Court upheld the conviction of a driver guilty of rash driving and causing injury. The Court remitted the sentence to fines only, deeming imprisonment unnecessary after 21 years of litigation, while maintaining the convictions under IPC sections.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; imprisonment sentence modified to fines only; on default, simple imprisonment for specified periods.

Pradip Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/1

¶2

GAHC010113462015

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./32/2015

¶5

PRADIP BASUMATARY

¶6

S/O LT. MILITARY BASUMATARY VILL- SHANTINAGAR, DUDHNOI DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR

¶9

2:ABDUS SWAHIED ASI DUDHNOI P.S. P.O. DUDHNOI DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H DAS,

¶11

MR. H. GOGOI AND MS.J SULTANA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B. SARMA, ADDL. P.P., ASSAM.

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶15

JUDGMENT & ORDER

¶16

Date : 04-01-2022

¶17

Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.

¶18

Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the State/respondent.

¶19

2. By filing this petition under Section 401 read with 397 of the CrPC, the petitioner is

¶20

assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 27.02.2004, passed by the learned Chief

¶21

Page No.# 2/5

¶22

Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, in connection with the G.R. Case No.488/2000, under Sections 279/337/338/427 of the IPC, which was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, vide order dated 30.11.2006, in Criminal Appeal No.10/2004.

¶23

3. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 02.07.2000 at around 11:00 a.m., the Tata Sumo bearing Regn. No. AS-01/H-8743, which was driven by the accused Pradip Basumatary from Krishnai towards Dudhnoi, collided head on with the Maruti Van bearing Regn. No. AS18/3467, proceeding from the opposite direction, resulting grievous injury to the driver of the Maruti Van, Sri Amulya Rava and simple injury to the other two passengers namely Smt. Prabhati Boro and Smt. Arpana Khaklary and also resulted in severe damage to both the vehicles.

¶24

4. On receipt of the FIR, filed by ASI Abdus Swaheed, the Dudhnoi P.S. Case No.61/2000, under Sections 279/337/338/427 of the IPC was registered. During the investigation, the statement of the witnesses was recorded, arrested the accused and he was enlarged on bail. The I.O. also seized the vehicles involved with the accident, prepared the seizure list of the same and the I.O. also made the necessary arrangement for mechanical examination of the vehicle and after completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the present accused/petitioners under Sections 279/337/338/427 of the IPC.

¶25

5. The accused faced the trial and denied the charge mentioned above.

¶26

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and defence examined none. At the conclusion of trial, the accused was held guilty and convicted as follows:

¶27

(i) to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default R.I. for another 15 days, under Section 279 of the IPC;

¶28

(ii) to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default R.I. for another 15 days, under Section 337 of the IPC;

¶29

(iii) to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default R.I. for another 15 days, under Section 338 of the IPC; and

¶30

(iv) to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default R.I. for another

¶31

Page No.# 3/5

¶32

15 days, under Section 427 of the IPC.

¶33

All the sentences was ordered to run concurrently and out of the fine amount, realized from the accused person, 50% of the same was ordered to paid to the PW.5, Amulya Rava as compensation.

¶34

7. Being aggrieved, the accused/convict preferred an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.10/2004, before the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara. The learned appellate Court, after hearing the parties and perusal of the record, dismissed the appeal being devoid of merit, without any cost and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court was affirmed.

¶35

8. Challenging the aforesaid concurrent findings, accused petitioner is before this Court, with the present revision petition, on the ground inter alia that, the learned appellate Court erred in law in upholding the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, that there was no ingredients to warrant conviction under Sections 337/338/427 IPC, that the learned Appellate Court failed to apply its judicial mind in appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective, etc. and prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned judgment and order, after hearing the parties.

¶36

9. I have carefully gone through the evidence on record, adduced by the prosecution.

¶37

10. The victim herein is a driver by profession and while he was driving the Maruti Van bearing Regn. No. AS-18/3467, along with the passengers, the accident took place. The PW.5 along with co-passengers sustained injuries.

¶38

11. The PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 although did not see the exact occurrence but arrived at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident and found the PW.5 in injured condition and with their aid and assistance, the injured was shifted to the Hospital for medical treatment. These three witnesses had categorically stated that due to collision between the two vehicles, there was damage in the front side of both the vehicles. These witnesses however could not specifically state as to for which fault, the accident took place.

¶39

12. PW.4 is one of the injured in the incident, who has also stated in his evidence that while they were travelling in the Maruti Van, driven by Amulya Rava/PW.5, there was a collision between the vehicle driven by the PW.5 with another Tata Sumo vehicle, coming from the opposite side. He also sustained some injury.

¶40

Page No.# 4/5

¶41

13. The other witnesses i.e. PW.6 (the I.O.), PW.7 (the Doctor) and the PW.8 (the mechanic), all are formal witnesses. PW.6 has stated about the receipt of the FIR, investigation of the case and submission of the charge sheet against the accused person.

¶42

14. The PW.7, who examined the PW.4, PW.5 and one Arpana Khakhlari (not examined by the prosecution) has stated that on examination of the PW.5, he found bone fracture of right tibia stibula. Further examination of the other injured Prabhati Boro and Arpana Khakhlary, he found lacerated injury on right ear and forehead of both the persons. According to him, the injury sustained by Amulya Rava is grievous in nature and others are simple. Ext.6 is the medical report.

¶43

15. PW.8 examined both the vehicles and gave is findings about the condition of the vehicles that there was severe damage to both the vehicles vide Ext.7, the medical report.

¶44

16. Thus in the instant case, save and except the injured himself, there was no other eye witness of the occurrence but the evidence of the two injured i.e. PW.4 and PW.5 indicates that due to rush and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo, the accident took place. Although there is no other eye witness to the occurrence but the impact of the damage to both the vehicles, where the vehicle ran by the accused/petitioner is a heavy vehicle, extensive damage has been occurred to both the vehicles and such a reckless driving come within the purview of Section 279 of the IPC.

¶45

17. The medical report supported that the PW.5 sustained grievous injury (fracture of the right leg), whereas other injured sustained simple injuries on their person.

¶46

18. In view of the materials on record, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, about the guilt of the accused under Sections 279/337/338/427 of the IPC, appears to be proper and the learned appellate Court has rightly upheld the same.

¶47

19. In view of the above maters on record, no interference is called for, so far as regards the conviction of the accused/petitioner. However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court also noted that the present petitioner being a driver of a private vehicle, has also suffered a lot for the long litigation for about 21 years and he deserves some leniency.

¶48

20. Having regard to the matters on record, as discussed above, this court is of the opinion

¶49

Page No.# 5/5

¶50

that imposition of sentence of detention at this stage will serve no purpose. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction under Section 279/338/427 IPC, the accused is sentenced to fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, S.I. for 1 (one) month under each sections of law and under Section 337 IPC, the accused is sentenced to fine of Rs.500/- and in default, S.I. for fifteen (15) days under the said section of law.

¶51

21. The petitioner will deposit the fine amount before the trial court within one month from the date of passing of this judgment and order.

¶52

22. The revision petition is allowed to the extent as indicated herein above.

¶53

23. Return the LCRs forthwith.

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

Comparing Assistant

Pradip Basumatary v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Basumatary v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradip Doley Vs the State of Assam

Jayanta Dihingia and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Litsong Rongphar and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Mobarak Ali and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Dhajya Jyoti Gogoi and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Rana Singha Vs the State of Assam and Anr.