AYNAL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 10. 05. 2007, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2006, by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner and upholding thereby the judgment and order, dated 13. 09. 2006, passed, in GR Case No. 308/1997, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Barpeta, whereby the accused-petitioner stands convicted under Section 279 and Section 304a of the IPC and sentenced to suffer, for his conviction under Section 304a IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months and to undergo, for his conviction under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two months, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) I have heard Mr. P. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

(3.) THE accused-petitioner pleaded not guilty, when the substance of accusations made under Sections 279 and 304a IPC were read over and explained to him at the trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of their case. The accused-petitioner was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. While the defence did not dispute the fact that Aynal Haque met with the death as a result of the injuries sustained by him on being knocked down by the said truck driven by the accused-petitioner, the defence did assert that the said death was accidental inasmuch as the said deceased ran from one side of the road to the other carrying a bundle of cucumber on his head and while attempting to cross the road, dashed against the body of the said truck, which was driver by the accused. The accident, thus, occurred due to the fault of the deceased and not because of any rash and/or negligent driving of the said vehicle by the accused-petitioner. In support of its case, the defence did not, however, adduce any evidence.