Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010193742013 2025:GAU-AS:14491 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./444/2013 NIKUNJA SARMA S/O LT. KAMASLESWAR SARMA R/O NO. 2 KALAIGAON, P.S. KALAIGAON, DIST. UDALGURI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.K BHATTACHARJEE, MR.B K GHOSH,MS.M BHATTACHARJEE,MR.J C BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 29-10-2025 Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State/ respondent. 2. The present revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 12- 08-2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Darrang, Mangaldai in Crl. Page No.# 2/11 Appeal 5(D)-1/2013 dismissing the same and thereby upholding the judgment dated 28- 02-2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldoi in G.R. Case No. 471/2007 convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 279/ 337/ 304A IPC and sentencing him accordingly. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Diganta Deka had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Mangaldoi Police Station on 25-05-2007, inter-alia, alleging therein that on 24-05-2007 his father and mother while were proceeding to their younger daughter’s house situated at Saru Areng by walking on their own side from village Howly Mohanpur at around 07:00 p.m., when they reached the place situated at a distance of approximately 100 meters from Areng Balika Primary School, the petitioner, herein, riding a Yamaha Libero motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-13A-1579 collided with his parents from the backside, resultantly his father expired on the spot and his mother sustained heavy injury and was under treatment. It was also stated in the FIR that the offending vehicle was being ridden without any laminated headlight. The police on receipt of the FIR, registered the same as Mangaldai P.S. Case No. 198/2007 under Section 279/ 338/ 304(A) IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Section 279/ 338/ 304(A) IPC. The learned Trial Court framed charge against the petitioner, herein, under Section 279/ 338/ 304(A) IPC. The charge on being read over and explained to the petitioner, herein, he having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued in the matter. During the trial, the prosecution had examined 07 (seven) witnesses and thereafter, the petitioner, herein, was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of the trial, Page No.# 3/11 the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 28-02-2013, on appreciation of the evidences coming on record, proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 279/ 337/ 304(A) IPC and sentenced him accordingly. The petitioner being aggrieved by his conviction by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 28-02-2013 assailed the same before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 5(D)- 1/2013. The said appeal was taken up for disposal by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Darrang, Mangaldai. The learned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record proceeded vide judgment dated 12-08-2013, to dismiss the same thereby upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court had failed to appreciate the evidences coming on record in its proper perspective. He submits that none of the witnesses had deposed anything specific about the rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner, herein. 5. He further submitted that mere riding the vehicle at a high speed, is not sufficient to draw a conclusion with regard to the vehicle also been driven in a rash and negligent manner. He submits that the evidences coming on record would only indicate that the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a high speed, however, it is not brought on record that the petitioner had also driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission relied on the decision of a Page No.# 4/11 coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Dibakar Dutta Vs. State of Assam reported in 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1167 and also a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Paila Sanyasi Rao Vs. State of A.P and Ors. reported in 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1043. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Sudhakar Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Thanjavur reported in 2023 0 Supreme (Mad) 3142. In view of the above premises, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the conviction of the petitioner under Section 279/ 337/ 304(A) IPC would be unsustainable and the same would mandate interference from this Court. 6. Per contra, Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. Assam submits that the evidences of PW-1 and PW-4 would bring to the forefront that the accident involved leading to the death of the victim Bhumidhar Deka and also injury to the PW-4 was on account of the rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner, herein, in driving the said vehicle and that too in a high speed. Mr. Goswami submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court had taken into account all the relevant circumstances involved and thereafter had drawn the conclusion in the matter with regard to the commission of the offence by the appellant, herein, under Section 279/ 337/ 304(A) IPC. To buttress the above submission, Mr. Goswami has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of James Vs. State of Karnataka (2024 INSC 1038). 7. In the above premises, Mr. Goswami submits that the order of conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 279/ 337/ 304(A) IPC would not mandate any Page No.# 5/11 interference. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. On a perusal of the evidences coming on record, it is seen that the PW-1 Deben Deka and PW-4 Nameswari Deka were the eye witnesses to the accident. Other witnesses had not seen the occasioning of the accident but had either heard about it and had come to the place after the occasioning of the said accident. At the outset it is to be seen that as to whether it was petitioner, herein, who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident. The evidence adduced by PW-1 brings to the forefront that it was the petitioner, herein, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident occasioning and the same is also corroborated by the evidences of PW-4 who had stated that she had seen the petitioner, herein, lying at the place of occurrence. The other prosecution witnesses had also identified the petitioner, herein, to be the person who was driving the motorbike at the time of occasioning of the accident in question. Accordingly, basing on the evidences coming on record, there is no doubt as to the fact that it was the petitioner, herein, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. 10. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court would examine as to whether the petitioner, herein, was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and as to whether the evidences coming on record establishes the commission of offence under Section 229/ 337/ 304(A) IPC, by the petitioner, herein. 11. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record in this Page No.# 6/11 connection, vide judgment dated 28-02-2013 had drawn the following conclusions: “26. As to the evidence adduced by P.W.1 Deben Deka and P.W.4 Nameswari Deka are concerned, it is evident that these two witnesses have duly explained their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and there is absolutely no basis to doubt the evidence adduced by P.W.4 Nameswari Deka as she herself had sustained injuries upon her right elbow and abrasion of the posterior part of upper thigh as stated by P.W.9 Dr. N.S. Tishya and as such, there is absolutely no reason as to why she should safeguard the person involved in the accident and unnecessarily implicate the accused Nikunja Sarma falsely in the present case. Moreover, it is evident from the evidence adduced by P.W.1 Deben Deka that the motor bike driven by the accused Nikunja Sarma had luckily not collided with him and thereafter collided with the deceased Bhumidhar Deka and his wife P.W.4 Nameswari Deka. Thus it is evident that the motor bike driven by the accused had crossed P.W.1 Deben Deka first and thereafter committed the incident in front of him. Thus P.W.1 Deben Deka is the best witness to say about the speed at which the accused drove the motor bike as the said motor bike had crossed him first and as because the incident had occurred in front of his own eyes. 27……………………………………………. 28. The defence side has not in any manner challenged the contention raised in the F.I.R. i.e. Exhibit-1 that the accused Nikunja Sarma had driven the motor cycle without any illuminated light and the fact that at the time of the incident it was not broad day light but darkness had started creeping in. 29. Thus, it can be safely concluded that on 24-5-07 at around 7 P.M. accused Nikunja Sarma had driven Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. AS-13-A 1579 at a very high speed without any Luminated head light at a time when it was not broad day light but darkness had started to cast its shadow at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. 30. The conduct of the accused Nikunja Sarma in driving Motor Cycle No. AS-13-A 1579 at a very high speed without any Luminated head light at a time when darkness was prevalent at the place of occurrence and colliding with the deceased Late Bhumidhar Deka and his wife P.W.4 Nameswari Deka goes to show that although the accused Nikunja Sarma had no deliberate intention to collide with the deceased and his wife yet then the act of the accused driving the motor bike at a very high speed can be termed as an over hasty act done without adopting due care and caution and without taking precaution to guard against causing of any injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular which ordinarily is expected of a prudent and reasonable man. Under such facts and circumstances I hold that accused Nikunja Sarma had driven Motor Cycle No. AS-13-A 1579 in a rash and negligent manner and thereby collided with the deceased Bhumidhar Deka and his wife P.W.4 Nameswari Deka.” Page No.# 7/11 12. The learned Appellate Court in the appeal filed, had vide judgment dated 12-08- 2013, in this connection, drawn the following conclusions:- “(17) In the instant case from the testimonies of the P.W.s it reveals that the P.W.1.2&4 (injured) the eye witnesses corroborating to each other have stressed on the point that the motor cycle was at a very high speed and as per P.W. 1 the motor cycle about to collide with him when it crossed him and knocked down the deceased and his wife. From the cross evidence of P.W.1 (eye witness) it reveals that the road was a PWD road and was not a high way where the accident occurred. Moreso, it reveals that the motor cycle passed away in between the deceased and the P.W.4 knocking down both the deceased and the injured in two different directions and the accused fell down from the motor cycle and it was also lying in the side of the road. So passing of the motor cycle in between the deceased and his wife itself gives a clear picture that motor cycle was driven in a very high speed and negligent manner that it passed in between the two pedestrian. It also reveals that the motor cycle was not using any luminated light though it was evening time. (18) Speed of a vehicle is not always determinative of the question whether the vehicle was driven rash and negligent manner. Vehicle driven at a speed of about 50 km in an empty road may not amount to rash and negligent driving, but driving of a vehicle in a crowed area even at 30 km may amount to rash and negligent driving. Thus in a high way road or in a free road or road in a perfect condition, the driver is justified in driving his vehicle at a normal speed. Here in the instant case it reveals from the cross evidence of the P W 1 that the road on which the accident occurred is not a high way and was near to school and it was a pitch road. So it is necessary to the drive the vehicle in a moderate speed. But as discussed above the motor cycle was not only in a very high speed but also was driven in a rash and negligent manner and same not only knocked down the deceased and his wife but also passed away in between them and the P.W.1 also specifically stated that it was in so high speed that it was about to collided with him. So all the circumstances pointed the figure towards the rash and negligent driving of he accused. (19) Further it is seen from the cross evidence of all the P.Ws that the defence did not cross examine the witnesses in regards to speed or rash and negligent driving as alleged against the driver but only denied that the motor cycle which caused the accident was not driven by the accused. But as discussed above all the P.Ws corroborating to each other deposed that the accused was the driver of the motor cycle who was also caught, by the local people and was handed over to police. From the evidence of I/O also it reveals that he arrested the accused person from the place of occurrence and also seized the motor cycle which was lying on the side of the road. Page No.# 8/11 (20) So from the detail discussion made above it is seen that the prosecution could establish a case against the accused U/S-279 IPC and the medical evidence also supports the fact that the death was caused for shock and haemorrahage for the alleged accident and thus it is seen that the case is well established against the accused U/S-279/304(A)/337 IPC.” 13. The conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court, extracted, hereinabove, would bring to the forefront that the offending vehicle was being driven, at the relevant point of time, by the petitioner, herein, rash and negligent manner leading to the occasioning of the accident. The evidence of PW-1 also brings to the forefront that force of the impact of the accident and he had deposed that the neck of the deceased Bhumidhar Deka got stuck between the wheel and the mudguard of the motorcycle and that he was dragged for some distance. He also had deposed that the motorcycle had come at a high speed and had not collided with him for a little. It is to be noted that the said accident had occasioned in front of the PW-1 who was just walking behind the deceased and PW-4. The above evidences clearly bring to the forefront, without any doubt, that the vehicle in question being driven at a high speed and that too in a narrow road, was admittedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner, herein, which lead to the unfortunate incident, resulting in the death of Bhumidhar Deka and causing injuries to PW-4, his wife. The evidences coming on record has revealed that the petitioner is guilty of having driven the vehicle on a public road in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. The petitioner, herein, during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had not brought on record any reasonable explanation when the incriminating materials were put to him. This Court, accordingly, is Page No.# 9/11 of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, has miserably failed to raise a reasonable doubt in the matter. The evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses have not been dislodged by the petitioner, herein. 14. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had not committed any error in drawing the conclusions, as drawn in the matter and no infirmity is found by this Court with regard to the conclusions so drawn. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 279/ 337/ 304(A) IPC would not mandate any interference. 15. In view of the above discussions, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 279/ 337/ 304(A) IPC, is upheld. This Court, at this stage, notices that the accident was committed by the petitioner, herein, on 24-05-2007, around 18 years have passed since the date of commission of the offence. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that on account of long lapse of time occasioning since the date of commission of the offence, the sentencing of imprisonment as awarded by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court would mandate a modification. 16. Section 279, Section 304(A) and Section 337 IPC being relevant, is extracted here- in-below:- Section 279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.- Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Page No.# 10/11 Section 304A. Causing death by negligence. Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Section 337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.- Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. A perusal of Section 279, Section 304(A) and Section 337 reveals that the punishment prescribed therein is of imprisonment, or with fine, or with both. While for Section 279, punishment prescribed is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. For Section 304(A) the same is prescribed for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. And for Section 337 the prescription of punishment is imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 17. The above being the position with regard to the punishment contemplated under Section 279/ 304(A)/ 337 IPC, this Court is of the considered view that on account of the long lapse of time, occasioning since the happening of accident, in question, ends of justice would be met, in the event the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Trial Court is modified and the same is converted to one of payment of fine. Accordingly, while the conviction of the petitioner, under Section 279/ 337/ 304(A) IPC is affirmed, the sentencing of the petitioner is modified and the petitioner is punished as Page No.# 11/11 under: (a) The petitioner would pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 (one) month for the offence under Section 279 IPC. (b) The petitioner would pay fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 (three) months for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. (c) The petitioner would pay fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 (fifteen) days for the offence under Section 337 IPC. 18. The petitioner shall now appear before the learned Trial Court within a period of 60 (sixty) days from today to deposit the said fine amount. 19. With the above observations and directions, the present revision petition stands disposed of. 20. The Registry to send back the TCR along with a copy of this order to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant