Investigating Agency Should Find Relevant and Proper Evidence for the Court To Come to a Fair and Final Decision: Tripura High Court

Facts of the Case

Abdul Hossain Chowdhury is the son of Ful Miah Chowdhury and a resident of village Sonamura of Udaipur. On 6/04/2014, he registered an FIR with the Officer in Chief of RK Pur Police Station stating that when his father was travelling to Brahmabari from Sonamura Market on his bicycle at 9 am on 30/04/2014,  he was hit by an offending vehicle coming from the wrong side by the Accused Petitioner. Pedestrians on the road helped him to get to the hospital in the Petitioner’s vehicle. Further, Abdul Hossain was busy with his father’s treatment which is why the FIR was delayed. Petitioner’s vehicle was seized for the examination. Sub Inspector Subir Malakar prepared a hand sketch map of the area where the accident occurred. Other locations were pointed out separately.   

Arguments presented by the Petitioner

Learned Counsel, Mr D. Datta stated that the hand sketch map prepared by the Sub Inspector was not proper as it can’t give the exact location where the accident occurred. Also, the hand sketch map doesn’t show the definite position from where they can see the accident happening or not. The hand-sketched map wasn’t logically proved to be true or wrong. Further, the Courts below fell upon the conclusion of guilt of the Petitioner while not appreciating the facts that the judgments of the Courts below ought to be put aside

Arguments presented by the Respondent

- Advertisement -

Learner Counsel, Mr S. Ghosh stated, The petitioner is found guilty and convicted of rash and negligent driving by adequate and consistent facts. Further, he stated that a 53-year-old innocent man has suffered from a number of bone injuries because of driving irresponsibly on a busy road. The Petitioner is guilty of an offence. Mr Ghosh requests the Court dismiss the criminal review petition and sentence the petitioner.

Court’s Analysis

The Court did not believe the statements given by the accused in his cross-examination that he only shifted the injured person in his vehicle and then the traffic police held him for taking an injured person in the vehicle. It was further observed that the investigating agency did not investigate the case properly. The investigating officer did not cross-examine the other passengers in the vehicle. There were two eyewitnesses namely PW-1 Suman Debnath and PW-7 Parimal Debnath. PW-1 said he was standing outside the gate of his residence and he had seen the accident, but there is no record of the distance between the house gate and accident place. The same was with PW-7, he had seen the accident happening from his shop, but there is no record of the distance between the two destinations. No statutory evidence has been brought by the investigating agency.

Court’s Decision

- Advertisement -

The Court concluded that there is no proper evidence in the case. So, the charges could not be proved beyond doubt. The Petitioner was sentenced under Section 278 & 338 of IPC and now they are set aside. The Petitioner is free of charge. 

Click here to read the full judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

 

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

- Advertisement -

About the Author

Follow Us on Social Media

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

Other Posts from this Author

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -