“9. It would be pertinent to mention here that one of the injured persons Sadhan Tripura appears to be the owner of the truck bearing No.TR-03-C-1842. The FIR was lodged by his son Rahul Ch. Tripura on the date of the accident itself. The contents of the complaint have been quoted hereinabove. The contents of the FIR clearly show that Rahul Ch. Tripura had stated that his father along with 30/35 other persons were travelling in the truck to attend a CPI(M) meeting. From the police record, it is apparent that the meeting was to be addressed by Sri Jitendra Choudhury, the then Forest Minister of the State. In this FIR, it is not stated that Rahul Ch. Tripura came to know about the accident from somebody else. The FIR is written in such a manner as if Rahul Ch. Tripura himself was present and knew all the facts of the accident. Here it would also be pertinent to note that Sadhan Tripura, father of Rahul Ch.Tripura is the owner of the truck in question. Therefore, he could not have made a mistake about the truck number or the fact that the vehicle involved was a truck. 4(four) days later, Rahul Ch. Tripura changed his statement and got his statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. in which he stated that on 26.12.2012 his father along with 10/14 persons was travelling to attend a CPI(M) meeting by Mini bus bearing No.TR-03-1284. He states that he heard about this accident from the people who were attending the public meeting convened by the CPI(M) party. However, no names of such person were given. While appearing in Court Rahul Ch. Tripura again improved his statement and stated that he was informed by Sri Haricharan Tripura and Sri Lakhidhan Tripura and other villagers about the accident. The statement of Rahul Ch. Tripura does not inspire confidence. He is obviously a liar. In the FIR it was not stated that he had come to know about the accident from any other person. Thereafter, he got his statement recorded after 5(five) days in which he not only changed the number of the vehicle but the vehicle was changed from a truck to a bus. It is apparent that because the truck was owned by none else than his father and because his father was also travelling in the truck, he realized or must have been legally advised that the burden to pay the compensation would not fall upon the Insurance Company because passengers cannot be carried in a truck which is a goods vehicle and, therefore, this false story was set up that a bus was involved.
