Dismissed¶49

Dhruba Jyoti Borah v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC10 Nov 2025Crl.Rev.P./473/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision dismissed; Gauhati High Court; Justice Kaushik Goswami; Sections 279/338/304(A)/427 IPC; rash and negligent driving; fatal road accident; City Bus AS 03 E 0155 vs Tata ACE AS 04 AC 0814; NH-37 Teok; limited revisional jurisdiction Sections 397/401 CrPC; concurrent findings of courts below; conviction and sentence affirmed; sentence six months simple imprisonment fine Rs. 5,000/- default 45 days; PW-4 independent eye witness; Dhruba Jyoti Borah; Sessions Judge Jorhat Criminal Appeal No. 20/2014; SDJM Jorhat G.R. Case No. 1253/2011; bail bond cancelled; TCR returned.

What did the court decide?

Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is limited; this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as a third court of facts unless there is manifest illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice. ¶45

Dhruba Jyoti Borah Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings convicting the accused petitioner under Sections 279/338/304(A)/427 IPC recorded by the trial court and the appellate court suffer from any illegality, perversity or error warranting interference in revision. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

¶45

Ratio / Principle

There is no infirmity or illegality in the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the first two courts.

¶45

Key takeaways

The independent eye witness (PW-4), who had no reason to falsely implicate the accused petitioner, categorically deposed to having seen him driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, causing the accident that led to the death of the deceased.ratio¶44
Considering the gravity of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default, 45 days' simple imprisonment) is not excessive or disproportionate.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Kaushik Goswami, J.) dismisses criminal revision petition Crl.Rev.P./473/2014 filed by Dhruba Jyoti Borah challenging his conviction under Sections 279/338/304(A)/427 IPC for rash and negligent driving causing death in an accident of 21.08.2011 on NH-37 near Teok, wherein the City Bus he drove allegedly knocked down the Tata ACE driven by the deceased Pabitra Gogoi. Holding that the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is limited and that the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence as a third court of facts absent manifest illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice, the Court finds no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat (judgment dated 12.03.2014, G.R. Case No. 1253/2011) and the Sessions Judge, Jorhat (judgment dated 09.09.2014, Criminal Appeal No. 20/2014), relies on the categorical testimony of independent eye witness PW-4, holds the modified sentence of six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default, 45 days' simple imprisonment) not excessive or disproportionate, affirms the conviction and sentence, directs the accused to surrender and cancels the bail bond, and orders return of the TCR.

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010128122014

2025:GAU-AS:15248

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./473/2014

¶6

DHRUBA JYOTI BORAH

¶7

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O INDRESWAR BORAH R/O VILL- SORUMAINA PARIA GAON, P.S. TEOK, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, STATE OF ASSAM.

¶10

2:SRI SURAJ GOGOI R/O BOLOMIA GAON JANJI P.S. GOURISAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S KAKOTI, MR.S BORTHAKUR,MR.R HAZARIKA,MR.J ROY

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,PP, ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/7

¶14

– B E F O R E –

¶15

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶16

For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. R Hazarika, Mr. J Roy,

¶17

Ms. S Kakoti, Mr. S Borthakur Advocates.

¶18

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M P Goswami, APP for the State;

¶19

Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A

¶20

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 11.11.2025

¶21

Whether the pronouncement is of the

¶22

operative part of the judgment ? : No.

¶23

Whether the full judgment has been

¶24

Pronounced : Yes.

¶25

Page No.# 3/7

¶26

J UDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶27

Heard Mr. R Hazarika, learned counsel for the accused petitioner. Also heard Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.

¶28

2 . The instant criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.09.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2014, whereby the appeal filed by the accused petitioner was partly allowed and the sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 years under Section 304 (A) of the IPC as has been awarded vide judgment dated 12.03.2014 passed in G.R. Case No. 1253/2011 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat under Sections 279/338/304(A)/427 IPC has been modified to simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another 45 days.

¶29

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the informant, PW-1 lodged an FIR before the Teok Police Station on 24.08.2011 to the effect that on 21.08.2011 at about 4.00 PM his elder brother Pabitra Gogoi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) while was driving his Tata ACE vehicle bearing registration No. AS 04 AC 0814 from Teok to Sivasagar side and upon reaching near Blue Heaven Dhaba situated near Jhanji Hahchora, Teok on the National Highway-37, one City Bus vehicle bearing Registration No. AS 03 E 0155 which was coming from the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and

¶30

Page No.# 4/7

¶31

negligent manner knocked down the said Tata ACE vehicle, for which the deceased received grievous injuries and later on succumbed to his injuries at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital.

¶32

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that the other passengers who were traveling in the said vehicle also received grievous injuries on their person and were also examined at Teok FRU. It is the further allegation of the prosecution that the accused petitioner drove the said City Bus rashly and negligently and the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent act of driving.

¶33

5 . Accordingly, the case was registered under Sections 279/338/304(A)/427 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and thereafter, the trial of the case commenced.

¶34

6 . During trial, in order to prove its case, prosecution examined altogether 13 witnesses. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court found the accused petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 279/338/304(A)/427 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

¶35

7 . Being aggrieved, an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 20/2014 was preferred by the accused petitioner before the appellate court and the appellate court after re-appreciating and analyzing the evidence was pleased to uphold the conviction as awarded by the trial court, however, reduced the sentence from 2 years of simple imprisonment under Section 304 (A) of IPC to simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for another 45 days.

¶36

8 . Situated thus, the present criminal revision petition has been filed.

¶37

Page No.# 5/7

¶38

9 . Mr. R Hazarika, learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the evidence on record does not warrant conviction of the accused petitioner and both the two courts erred in law and in facts in convicting the accused petitioner. He further submits that the two courts failed to note the serious contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and as such, the impugned conviction is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the two courts brushed aside the serious discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the accused petitioner has not been identified by the PWs as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle (City Bus) and the rash and negligent driving of the accused petitioner has not been proved. He further submits that the PW-6 deposed in his evidence that he has not mentioned the injuries in the medical report. He further submits that there is no material under Sections 279/338/304(A)/427 IPC against accused petitioner and hence, the conviction is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶39

10 . Per contra, Mr. M P Goswami, learned APP, supports the impugned judgments and submits that the injured witnesses’ testimony and the testimony of the independent eye witnesses are cogent and trustworthy, duly supported by the surrounding circumstances and that both the two courts have concurrently recorded well reasoned findings based on evidence.

¶40

11 . I have given my prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.

¶41

12 . It appears that the trial court and the appellate court upon appreciation of the evidence of the two injured witnesses, PWs- 2 & 3 and the eye witness (PW-4) and other witnesses, have found the prosecution version to be

¶42

Page No.# 6/7

¶43

established beyond reasonable doubt.

¶44

13 . The testimony of the independent witness (PW-4) who had no reason to falsely implicate the accused petitioner has been found convincing and natural. He has categorically deposed that he has seen the accused petitioner driving the offending vehicle on the date of the occurrence. It has clearly come out from the evidence of the said prosecution witness that the accused petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, for which the accident occurred, leading to the death of the deceased.

¶45

14 . It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is limited. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as a 3^rd court of facts, unless there is manifest illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice. A careful perusal of the materials on record goes to show that there is no such infirmity or illegality in the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the first two courts.

¶46

15 . As regards the sentence, it appears that though initially the trial court had sentenced the accused petitioner to undergo 2 years of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 (A) IPC, however, the appellate court modified the same to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another 45 days. Considering the gravity of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence imposed upon the accused petitioner cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate.

¶47

16 . For the forgoing reasons, this Court finds no illegality, impropriety or perversity in the impugned judgments of the two courts warranting interference

¶48

Page No.# 7/7

¶49

in revisional jurisdiction. The instant criminal revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶50

17 . The conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner as recorded by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat vide judgment dated 12.03.2014 passed in G.R. Case No. 1253/2011 and thereafter, modified by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat vide judgment dated 09.09.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2014, hereby stand affirmed.

¶51

18. The accused petitioner shall surrender to serve the remaining sentence, if any. The bail bond, if furnished, stands cancelled.

¶52

19 . Return the TCR.

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

Comparing Assistant

Dhruba Jyoti Borah v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruba Jyoti Borah v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nilo Kanta Doley Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Smti. Somari Panna and 2 Ors. Vs National Insurance Company Limited and 2 Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Deepak Harizan @ Dipak

Md. Nur Siddique Ali Vs State of Assam

Mridu Paban Nath Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Kartik Das Vs the State of Assam