LAWS(GAU)-2010-10-13

RATAN KANTI KAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

Decided On October 01, 2010
RATAN KANTI KAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TRFPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 28/2/2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal 32(2)/2001 upholding the conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Agartala with modification in the sentence to suffer imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer R. I. for one month under Section 304 A IPC.

(2.) I have heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P. Bhattacherjee along with Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. P. Ps. appearing on behalf of the State of Tripura/Respondent.

(3.) MR. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the name of driver of the accident vehicle has not been mentioned in the FIR, nor has the identity of the petitioner been established. The prosecution convicted the petitioner only on the basis of suspicion which is not sustainable under the law. The conviction and sentence, in question, are therefore, liable to be set aside and the petitioner is to get the benefit of doubt and he should be acquitted on benefit of doubt. He submits that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot take the place of proof. The learned Courts below, according to him, should have taken the presumption of innocence in favour of the petitioner for want of sufficient proof against him. On the question of omission to mention in the FIR, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following decisions-