Libertatem Magazine

Tripura HC Upholds Trial Court’s Decision in Conviction for Rash and Negligent Driving

Contents of this Page

The Accused Petitioner filed a case for revision of the Sessions Court’s judgment. The Sessions Court convicted the Petitioner funder section 304 of IPC for causing the death of the victim through rash and negligent driving.

Facts of the Case

The present petition was a revision petition against the judgment of the Sessions Court in 2016. The judgment sentenced the Petitioner, Kankaj Das, with the sentence of imprisonment for 6 months, and fine of Rs 1000. The Petitioner, Kankaj Das was convicted for rash and negligent driving, in 2016. The case was initially appealed in the Sessions Court, before the present revision petition.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner

The Petitioner’s Counsel stated that the Sessions Court had erred in sentencing the Accused Petitioner. He contended that the requirements of Section 304 of IPC relating to death by accident were not fulfilled. The Counsel claimed that this act was a mere accident and there was no adequate proof to convict the Petitioner. He claimed that to prove mens rea for negligent and rash driving, multiple factors were to be considered, apart from speed. For instance, the width of the road, and the density of traffic. He justified the same with the cases of Shakila Khader v. Nausheer Cama, and State of Karnataka v. Satish.

The Counsel stated that investigations were not conducted properly, and the examinations of witnesses were not done adequately. The Counsel concluded his submissions with these reasons. 

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent

The learned Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the state in the matter. Their main contentions were that the Trial Court and the Sessions Court examined evidence properly and followed due procedure. The Prosecutor pointed out that in case there was any discrepancy regarding witness examinations, it was minor and ought to be ignored. The counsel stressed that there has been an increase in the number of accidents due to rash and negligent driving. The counsel concluded the arguments urging the Court to dismiss the revision petition.

Decision of the Court

The Court examined the witness in detail. The court upheld the decision of the Trial Court and believed that there was no reason for revision. Subsequently, they dismissed the petition and directed the Accused-Petitioners to serve their sentence.

Click here to read judgment is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can 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.

About the Author