FARID MIAH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. arises from the judgment and order dated 30.5.96 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 20(2) of 1996, thereby upholding the conviction recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279/337/427 IPC, but modifying the sentence to six months R.I. for the offence under Section 279 IPC, three months R.I. for the offence under Section 337 IPC (to run concurrently) and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 427 IPC, in default to suffer two months S.I. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur by his judgment and order dated 12.3.96 in G.R. Case No. 100/1995 convicted the accused- petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 279/337/427 IPC and passed the sentence to one year R.I. for the offence under Section 279 IPC, three months,R.I. for the offence under Section 337 IPC and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 427 IPC, in default to suffer three months' S.I.

(2.) On 11.5.95 at about 8.00 p.m. while Smt. Manju Sinha (PW-1) along with her daughter Smt. AmbalikaKar (PW-8)were travelling in a rickshaw driven by AH Ashrab Miah (PW-7) they were knocked down near Gada Chowmohani by an Ambassador car bearing registration No. TRA-2119 being driven by the present accused-petitioner in a rash and negligent way from the opposite direction, as a result of which the passengers as well as the rickshaw puller sustained severe injuries and the Rickshaw was also completely damaged. The injured were shifted to hospital. Thereafter police registered R.K. Pur P.S. Case No. 90/95 dated 11.5.95 under Section 279/338 IPC on getting the F.I.R. and after completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet and after trial the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 279/337/427 IPC as noted above and on appeal the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction though slightly modified the sentence imposed by the trial Court.

(3.) Mr B. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner raised only one point in the present revision petition. According to the learned senior counsel, there was no legally admissible evidence against the accused for commission of the crime. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the plea of the accused-petitioner was that he was not the driver of the offending vehicle. According to the accused, as per his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. one Hafiz Miah was driving the vehicle when the accident happened. Mr Das has also submitted that this explanation/statement made by the accused-petitioner is fully supported by the statement of the rickshaw puller himself (PW-7). Taking me through the judgment of the Courts below, statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and also the statement of the witnesses, particularly the statement of Ali Ashrab Miah (PW-7), the learned senior counsel has submitted that PW-7 in his deposition stated that the Hafiz Miah was the driver of the vehicle. It is true, in his statement before the Court, PW-7, who was the rickshaw puller of the rickshaw on which PW-1 and PW-8 were travelling, stated that he was knocked down by a taxi bearing No. TR-2119 which was corning at an abnormal high speed and he fell down on the ground and his right hand and right leg were injured and he lost his sense, but subsequently he learnt that the driver was one Hafiz Miah. Before the Court he: also stated that he could not identify the accused person (petitioner) due to his poon eye sight. The learned counsel alsoi has submitted that all the witnesses produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution only testified regarding offence, damage caused to the rickshaw and injury caused to the passengers and the rickshaw puller as noted above.