Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010122582014 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./42/2014 MD. HASEN ALI S/O LT. TONI BEPARI R/O VILL- BHURAGAON, P.O. and P.S. BHURAGAON, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM 2:MD MOJIBUR RAHMAN S/O LT. HUSSAIN ALI VILL- LACHARIBARI P.S. MAYONG P.O. BHURGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78241 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S ALIM, MRS.M BEGUM,MR.B HUSSAIN,MR.D ZAKARIA Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 13-10-2025 Heard Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/8 2. The present revision petition is instituted assailing the judgment and order dated 26-11-2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Crl. Appeal No. 29/2013, upholding the judgment and order dated 16-07-2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon in GR. Case No. 1333/2010, convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 279/ 304(A) with the further stipulation that the fine amount, if realised, be paid to the informant. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06-12-2010 at around 02:00 p.m., one Mahendra 295 DI Turbo Super (MKM) tractor was ploughing the paddy field of Md. Indadul Islam. Due to negligent driving by its driver one minor Musahidul Islam who was waiting near the tractor was hit by it, resulting in his death. Md. Mojibur Rahman, the father of the deceased lodged an FIR in this connection. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered Mayong P.S. Case No. 124/2010 under Section 279/ 304(A) IPC, against the present petitioner who was the driver of the said tractor. On conclusion of the investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Section 279/ 304(A) IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaion framed charges under Section 279/ 304(A) IPC against the petitioner, herein and the same on being read over and explained, the petitioner, herein, had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, accordingly, a trial ensued in the matter. The prosecution, during the trial, examined 06 witnesses. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court upon considering the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment and order dated 16-07-2013 to convict the petitioner, herein, Page No.# 3/8 under Section 279/ 304(A) IPC. Upon such conviction, the petitioner, herein, was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 (six) months with fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 (one) more month. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16-07-2013 passed by the learned Trial Court, assailed the same by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 29/2013 before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon. The learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased to uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the said appeal. The learned Appellate Court, however, further observed that in the event, the fine as imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Trial Court is realised, the same is to be paid to the informant, as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also considered the materials available on record. 6. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment and order dated 16-07-2013 to draw the following conclusions:- “First for the sake of convenience, let us decide whether the accused person can be held guilty U/S 304(A) of the IPC From the evidence of the informant Md. Mojibur Rahman (PW.1) we find that on 6.12.2010 at about 2 pm his son Musahidul Islam was knocked down by a tractor while he was returning from the school in the paddy field in result of which Page No.# 4/8 Musahidul Islam died on the spot. PW.I heard that the accused Md. Hasen Ali was driving the said tractor at the relevant time of the incident Now, let us find whether the evidence of the informant Md. Mojibur Rahman (PW.1) has been corroborated by the evidence of other P.Ws to sustain conviction U/S.304(A) of the IPC PW.4 Md. Imdadul Islam is an independent eye witness and his evidence is that at the relevant time he was ploughing near the place of occurrence and he saw Musahidul Islam was running to board a moving tractor when he tell under the tractor and was cut into pieces. During cross, PW.4 stated that the incident took place as the driver of the tractor got down from the running tractor without stopping it. This piece of evidence of PW.4 is aptly corroborated by the Investigating Officer (PW.6). PW.6 Md. Jamal Sufi (the Investigating Officer) testified that at the relevant time the deceased wanted to drive the tractor and for that the driver (accused person) got down from the tractor by jumping to let Musahidul Islam to drive the tractor in running condition and in that process. Musahidul Islam fell under the tractor and was cut into pieces PW.6 also testified that after the incident the driver (accused person) went away from the place of occurrence to a nearby village wherefrom the tractor was seized by him (PW.6) PW.6 (the Investigating Officer) proved the Seizure List as Ext.2 and his signature as Ext.2(1) respectively. From this piece of evidence we find that the accused person i.e. Hasen Ali being the driver of the tractor was aware of the risk and its consequence while jumping from the running tractor PW.5 Innash Ali who also ploughing in the paddy field near the place of occurrence, after hearing the alarm went to the place of occurrence and saw a tractor going away. PW.5 also saw the body of Musahidul lying scattered in several pieces in the paddy field. PW.2 Md. Abdul Ali also heard that a tractor knocked down his nephew Musahidul Islam due to which Musahidul Islam died. Thus, from the evidence of eye witness (i.e. PW.4) and from the evidence of Investigating Officer (PW.6), we find that the incident took place as the accused Hasen Ali being the driver of the tractor jumped down from it in running condition to let Musahidul Islam to drive it. The incident would not have occurred had the accused stopped the tractor first and then allowed Musahidul Islam to drive it. Again, the accused Md. Hasen Ali allowed the victim/deceased Musahidul Islam to drive the tractor without proper verification whether the deceased Musahidul Islam had licence to drive the vehicle. The act of the accused person proves gross negligence on the part of a driver. I have taken judicial notice of the Post Mortem Report of the deceased Musahidul Islam which is kept with the Case Record.” 7. Basing on the said conclusions, the learned Trial Court proceeded to hold that the Page No.# 5/8 petitioner, herein, had driven the tractor negligently at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, the petitioner, herein, was convicted under Section 304(A) IPC. Having drawn the said conclusion, the learned Trial Court had examined the as to whether the petitioner, herein, can be held to be guilty under Section 279 IPC. On perusal of the evidence coming on record, the learned Trial Court found that the offence was not committed on a public way but on a private paddy field and accordingly, held that the provisions of Section 279 IPC to be not attracted and accordingly, acquitted the appellant from the offence under Section 279 IPC. The appellant having been convicted under the provision of Section 304(A) IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 (six) months along with fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 (one) month. 8. This Court has carefully perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court and on perusal of the same finds that the conclusions so drawn by the learned Trial Court has been so drawn strictly basing on due and proper examination of the evidences coming on record. The evidences coming on record has brought to the forefront that the appellant was negligent in driving the tractor and had jumped there-from when the same was still in running condition resulting in the victim falling under the tractor and being cut into pieces and the body of the victim so cut being scattered all over the paddy field. This Court finds that the negligence on the part of the petitioner, herein, in driving the said tractor has been established by the prosecution in the matter. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 304(A) IPC would not mandate any interference. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment and order dated 16- Page No.# 6/8 07-2013 passed by the learned Trial Court would not mandate any interference. 9. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court would now examine the judgment and order dated 26-11-2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court. This Court finds that the learned Appellate Court upon considering the evidence coming on record had examined the contentions raised before it by the petitioner, herein. The learned Appellate Court upon due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions:- “12. On perusal of the evidence of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, it is found that the body of the deceased was cut into pieces and scattered throughout the paddy field. Scattering of the body of the deceased into pieces gives rise the inference that accused driver was negligent in driving the tractor. Because, accused could have stopped the tractor immediately while the deceased fell under it, but it was not done. Evidence also reveals that accused got down from the running tractor and allowed the deceased to board, while the tractor was running. This fact also gives rise the rashness and negligence of the accused. From the prosecution evidence, it is found to be a consistent fact that accused/appellant drove the vehicle and Musahidul Islam died when he tried to board the running tractor, after the accused got down by jumping. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the deceased died due to his fault, when he tried to board the tractor and slipped from it. On careful scrutiny of above evidence, it is found that by jumping down from the running tractor, accused allowed the deceased to board the running tractor, which is a negligent act on the part of the accused/appellant and due to said negligent act of the accused, Musahidul Islam died. If we peruse this piece of evidence from another angle, it appears that, deceased would not have tried to board the running tractor, if the accused would not got down by jumping. So, it is crystal clear that the incident took place due to rash and negligence of the accused/appellant. It is the rule of law that in a case under Section 304(A) I.P.C., intention and knowledge are not required to be proved by the prosecution, but rash and negligence must be proved. From the above discussion and reasons stated, I have found that the prosecution has able to prove the rash and negligence of the accused/appellant in committing the offence. There is nothing in the evidence to hold that the incident took place either due to mechanical defect of Page No.# 7/8 the tractor or due to fault of the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the G.D. entry was not mentioned in the ejahar and extract copy also not submitted. But from the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that non mentioning of the G.D. Entry No. caused prejudice to the accused, particularly when he failed to disprove his involvement in the said occurrence.” 10. Accordingly, the learned Appellate Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner, herein, and dismissed the appeal. However, the Appellate Court directed that if the fine amount as awarded by the learned Trial Court, if realised, be paid to the informant. 11. I have perused the conclusion drawn by the learned Appellate Court and find that the same to be based on due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record. The evidences coming on record having demonstrated the rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner, herein, in driving the tractor in question, resulting into death of a minor, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment and order dated 26-11-2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court would not mandate any interference. 12. This Court having noticed that the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, having drawn its respective conclusions in the matter basing on due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record finds that the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 304(A) IPC would not mandate any interference. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304(A) IPC is upheld and the appellant is now required to undergo the sentencing as awarded in the matter by the learned Trial Court. 13. The appellant shall now surrender before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Page No.# 8/8 Morigaon within a period of 01 (one) month from today for undergoing the sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 16-07-2013. 14. With the above observations and directions, the present revision petition stands disposed of. 15. Registry to send back the TCR with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant