Bijoy Kar v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC12 Oct 2025Crl.Rev.P./48/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision; Section 279 IPC; Section 304(A) IPC causing death by negligence; rash or negligent driving; bus fell into flood water; road submerged under flood water without identification marks; Algapur P.S. Case No. 59/2004; GR Case No. 369/2004; Crl. Appeal No. 55/2010; Sessions Judge Hailakandi; conviction affirmed; sentence reduced to period already undergone; lapse of time; accused aged around 56 years; benefit of Section 360 CrPC and Probation of Offenders Act declined by courts below; Gauhati High Court; Bijoy Kar v. State of Assam; decided 13-10-2025.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Sections 279/304(A) IPC maintained; sentence modified and limited to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner; Registry directed to send back the TCR to the Trial Court with a copy of the order. ¶¶65

Bijoy Kar Vs the State of Assam — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 26-11-2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Crl. Appeal No. 55/2010, affirming the petitioner's conviction, calls for interference in the present revision petition. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

The conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court were based on a due and proper appreciation of the evidence, and the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279/304(A) IPC does not mandate any interference.

¶¶57

Ratio / Principle

The conclusions of the learned Appellate Court were also based on due and proper appreciation of the evidence with no infirmity, and the judgment and order dated 26-11-2013 does not mandate any interference.

¶¶57

Key takeaways

While maintaining the conviction under Sections 279/304(A) IPC, the sentence is modified and limited to the period of imprisonment already undergone, considering the lapse of time since the offence and the petitioner's age of around 56 years.ratio¶¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.), Crl.Rev.P./48/2014, Bijoy Kar v. The State of Assam, decided 13-10-2025: Criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 26-11-2013 of the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Crl. Appeal No. 55/2010, affirming the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279/304(A) IPC for driving a bus carrying passengers into flood water on a submerged road at Bakrihawar Pt-IV without identifying the road or taking precaution, resulting in the death of one passenger and injuries to others. Held: the conclusions of the Trial Court (judgment dated 11-11-2010) and of the Appellate Court were based on due and proper appreciation of evidence; the conviction does not mandate interference. Considering the lapse of time since the commission of the offence and that the petitioner is aged around 56 years, the sentence was modified and limited to the period of imprisonment already undergone. Revision petition disposed of; TCR to be sent back to the Trial Court.

Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010184322014

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./48/2014

¶6

BIJOY KAR

¶7

S/O LT. KHOGENDRA KUMAR KAR R/O GAURANGO POLLI WARD NO. 1 DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.J LASKAR, MS.M DEB,MR.D F A AHMED

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, ,

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 13-10-2025

¶15

Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma,

¶16

learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State respondent.

¶17

The present revision petition is instituted assailing the judgment and order dated

¶18

26-11-2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Crl. Appeal No. 55/2010

¶19

Page No.# 2/8

¶20

dismissing the same, by affirming the judgment and order dated 11-11-2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi in GR. Case No. 369/2004.

¶21

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Sub-Inspector Sri Ranjit Kumar Bordoloi of Algapur Police Station had lodged an FIR on 06-07-2004, inter-alia, stating therein that on 29-06-2004 during the evening while he was on patrolling duty at Chiparsangan, one bus bearing registration No. AS-24/1068 with passengers suddenly came from Chiparsangan side towards Janaki Bazar tri-junction along the National Highway fell down in the flood water at Bakrihawar Pt-IV, resulting into death of one passenger, namely, Khirod Mohan Das Purkayastha and causing grievous and simple injuries to other passengers in the said bus. The Police, on 06-07-2004, registered the said FIR as Algapur P.S. Case No. 59/2004, under Section 279/ 337/ 338/ 304(A) IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 279/ 337/ 338/ 304(A) IPC.

¶22

The Trial Court framed charges under Section 279/ 337/ 338/ 304(A) IPC against the petitioner, the same on being read over and explained, the petitioner, herein, had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, accordingly, a trial ensued.

¶23

During the trial, the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶24

On conclusion of the trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, was pleased vide judgment and order dated 11-11-2010, to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 279 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 (one) month with a fine of Rs. 100 (Rupees One

¶25

Page No.# 3/8

¶26

Hundred), in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 (ten) days. The petitioner, herein, was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 (one) year with a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) under Section 304(A) IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 (one) more month.

¶27

Being aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the judgment dated 11-11-2010 passed by the Trial Court before the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi by instituting Crl. Appeal No. 55/2010. The Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment dated 26-11-2013 to dispose of the said appeal. However, the Appellate Court set aside the sentencing of the petitioner under Section 279 IPC. The sentencing of the appellant under Section 304(A) IPC by the learned Trial Court was upheld.

¶28

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also considered the materials available on record.

¶30

The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment and order dated 11-11-2010 to draw the following conclusions:-

¶31

“18. The identity of the accused stands established. P.W.7 Faruk Ahmed Laskar who was the passenger of the ill-fated bus clearly and unequivocally stated that accused Bijoy Kor was driving the said bus and this fact has not been disputed by the defence. The road was sub-merged with flood water. There was no identification mark to identify the road under the flood water. The accused drove the bus carrying passengers on the road sub-merged with flood water, without identifying the road. The accused did not take sufficient precaution to prevent

¶32

Page No.# 4/8

¶33

accident while plying vehicle in the midst of flood water. The defence took the plea that as there was no Prohibition Order from the side of the District Administration, therefore, the accused drove the said vehicle on the road sub-merged with water and in result the bus fell into water and was completely sunk. The passengers somehow escaped except one passenger who was trapped by water in the bus and died.

¶34

From the aforesaid evidence it is found that while driving the vehicle the accused/driver was not taking any precaution to prevent the accident. He drove the vehicle without identifying the road which was at that time sub-merged with flood water. It is found from the evidence on record that the accused drove the vehicle negligently without identifying the road.”

¶35

Basing on the said conclusions, the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, as follows:-

¶36

“23. It is not expedient to deal with the convict/accused person either u/s 360 of Cr.P.C. or under the Probation of Offenders Act as because the traffic accident has been going on more and more everyday. More people died in accident than in any other desease. If the accused person (convict) is dealt with under the said provision of law and release him forthwith, without any punishment, the impact on the society at a large will be bad. It is the time to control traffic accident. Hence, the convicted accused shall be dealt with under the provision of law as per above observation.

¶37

Heard the convicted accused on the point of sentence which he is expected to receive. The accused person has stated that recently his father has expired and he has two daughters, prosecuting their studies, therefore, he does not intend to undergo with imprisonment.

¶38

Considering the nature and circumstances of the case and considering the version of the accused person on sentence which he expects to receive, I take a lenient view in case of punishment, just to set an example in the society. I sentence the accused person to undergo with RI of 1(one) month with a fine of Rs. 100/-(Rupees one hundred) u/s 279 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine he shall undergo with RI of 10(ten) days more. Further, the accused person is sentenced to undergo with RI of 1(one) year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) u/s 304(A) IPC and in case of default of payment of fine he shall undergo with SI of 1(one) month more. The period of detention which he has

¶39

Page No.# 5/8

¶40

already undergone during investigation and trial stage, be set off against the period of sentence.”

¶41

Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted Crl. Appeal No. 55/2010

¶42

before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi. The learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, vide judgment and order dated 26-11-2013 was pleased to draw the following conclusions:-

¶43

“21. The driver of the offending Bus drove the vehicle with full of passengers through the submerged road; where there was no identification stick on both sides. Although Defence has taken the plea that as the road was submerged by flood water, the District Administration ought to have closed the road or to fix identification stick on both sides of the road, but for not taking the said measures by the District Administration, the driver/accused should not take risk to cross the submerged road on his own way by driving the Bus; full of passengers. Index A in Ext. 1 indicates the place of occurrence and Index C indicates the National Highway No. 154 and Index D and E indicate the paddy field on both sides of the road. The sketch map reveals that the vehicle completely left the road and went towards the extreme side of the road and fell down in to the water and got sunk. The accused/driver did not take any pre caution and drove the vehicle negligently without identifying the road, which was under water.

¶44

On scrutiny of the materials on record, it is found that at the time of incident, accused drove the involved vehicle and the place of occurrence was submerged. That being so, the driver ought to have proceeded through the submerged National Highway without properly identifying the road, that too with full of passengers more. The degree of care required in a particular case depends on the surrounding circumstances

¶45

Sec. 279 is attracted if the manner of driving is so rash or negligent as to endanger human life. To constitute an offence under Sec. 279/304(A) or 337/338, proof of criminal rashness or negligence is essential, which is found in the present case in view of the materials on record. A person driving a vehicle is under a duty to control the vehicle and he is prima facie guilty of negligence if the vehicle leaves the road and got capsized on the extreme side of the road side ditch and got sunk. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and pre caution, which is essential to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular. It is for the

¶46

Page No.# 6/8

¶47

driver to explain the circumstances under which the vehicle comes to leave the road and got capsized in the road side ditch.

¶48

In the instant case, the defence plea is of simply denial and when he was asked as to whether he has anything else to state or to adduce any evidence, he denied to adduced evidence and stated that he was pressurized by the passengers to ply the vehicle on the submerged road and it was getting dark and as such after proceeding a short distance, the vehicle got capsized but the said explanation of the driver is not satisfactory and acceptable.

¶49

The Ld. TM. relying on a decision reported in AIR 2007 SC 2376 has observed that rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and it may cause injury.......... The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequence. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise the reasonable and proper care and pre caution to guard against the injuries.”

¶50

Basing on the said conclusions drawn, the learned Appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal, in the following manner:-

¶51

“26. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observation, it is found and held that the Ld. Trial Magistrate has not committed any error or illegality in convicting the accused/appellant relying on the materials on record. The sentence under Sec. 279 is lesser than the punishment under Sec. 304(A) and hence sentencing him under Sec. 304(A) of the IPC., which is higher than other offence, would be legal and proper. Regarding sentence, accused/appellant was heard on the quantum of sentence and the Ld. TM. assigning reasons rightly declined to extend the benefit of Sec. 360 of CrPC. or under Sec. 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed by the Ld. TM. for offence under Sec. 304(A), IPC. can not be said to be harsh. The sentence recorded under Sec. 279, IPC. is set aside.”

¶52

This Court has carefully perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court

¶53

vide judgment dated 11-11-2010 in the light of the evidences coming on record. On such

¶54

consideration, this Court finds that the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court have

¶55

been so drawn basing on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on

¶56

Page No.# 7/8

¶57

record and no infirmity, therein, is found. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 279/ 304(A) IPC by the learned Trial Court would not mandate any interference. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court has carefully perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 26-112013. On a close perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court, this Court finds that the same to have been so drawn basing on due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record and no infirmity is found to exist therein. This Court, accordingly, is of the considered view that the judgment and order dated 26-11-2013 would not mandate any interference. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court finds that the appellant, herein, was sentenced under Section 304(A) IPC.

¶58

Provisions of Section 304(A) IPC being relevant, the same is extracted, here-inbelow for ready reference:-

¶59

304A. Causing death by negligence. -Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

¶60

A perusal of the provision of Section 304(A) IPC would bring to the forefront that the

¶61

same mandates a punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

¶62

Considering the lapse of time occasioning in the matter since the commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein, and also considering the fact that the petitioner, at present is aged around 56 years, this Court is of the considered view that the sentencing of the petitioner, herein, as awarded by the learned Trial Court would mandate a

¶63

Page No.# 8/8

¶64

modification. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, herein, under Section 279/ 304(A) IPC, the sentencing of the appellant is limited to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, the sentencing of the petitioner is modified by limiting to the same to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant, herein.

¶65

With the above observations and directions, the present revision petition stands disposed of.

¶66

Registry to send back the TCR to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action.

¶67

JUDGE

¶68

Comparing Assistant

Bijoy Kar v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijoy Kar v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jahidul Islam Vs the State of Assam

Jakaria Ahmed Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam

Pratima Thkuria and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Md. Fazlur Rahman Vs State of Assam and Anr.

Md. Rafiqur Rahman Choudhury Vs Musstt. Rukia Begum

Md. Sayedur Rahman Vs the State of Assam