HARIPADA PAUL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. N. Guha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Spl. PP appearing for the State-respondent. This petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. in short) is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2004 as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, South Tripura, in Crl. Appeal No. 24(3) of 2004.

(2.) By that judgment and order dated 11.10.2004, learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, South Tripura affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.08.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Udaipur, South Tripura convicting and sentencing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and in default of making payment of fine to suffer SI for one month and he was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and in default of making payment of fine to suffer SI for another 15 days and he is also sentenced to suffer RI for one year for commission of offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the same offence and in default of making payment of fine he was directed to suffer SI for another one month.

(3.) Ms. Guha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment of conviction is affected by two incurable defects. (1) The identification of the driver has not been established by any legal evidence and (2) the statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been treated as a substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of returning the judgment of conviction.