CASE NO:- GR 393/08
Under sections- 279/337 IPC
State
- VS -
Md. Mofidul Islam.
Present: - Sri Biprajit Roy.
A.J.S.
For Prosecution: - Mr. N. Nazmul Islam………….....…Ld. Addl.PP.
For accused: - Mr. Anowar Hussain…………………....Ld. Advocate.
Evidence Recorded on: - 17-08-10, 02-06-11.
Argument Heard on: - 21-01-13.
Judgment Delivered on: - 21-01-13.
JUDGMENT
The case of the prosecution is that the informant Jamal Mondol had
lodged an FIR in the Lakhipur police station stating that on 02-05-08 at
about 11-00 a.m. his son Sukkur Ali, aged about 15 years was coming
towards Lakhipur by an auto-rickshaw bearing no. AS-18A/3856 but due
to rash or negligent driving of the driver of the auto-rickshaw his son fell
down from the auto-rickshaw and sustained injuries.
The FIR was received by the o/c of Lakhipur police station on 03-
05-08 and registered a P.S. Case no. 66/08 under sections 279/338 of the
IPC. The case was investigated and after the investigation charge-sheet
was submitted under sections 279/337 of the IPC against the accused
person namely Mofidul Islam.
The copies of relevant documents as required under section 207
Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused persons. Particulars of offences
under sections 279/337 IPC were read over and explained to the accused
person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution examined 03(three) witnesses. The defence plea is
of denial.
2
The accused person was examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
and in the course of examination he stated that he is innocent.
Point for determination:
The point for determination in this case is as follows:
(i) Whether the accused person committed the offences as alleged
by the informant?
Discussion, decision and reasons:
The pw-1 Jamal Mondol stated that he did not see the accident.
Hearing about the accident he came to Lakhipur Hospital and saw his
son in an injured condition. In cross-examination he admitted that he did
not know how the accident occurred. The pw-2 Sukkur Ali is the victim
of the accident. He stated that one Tata Sumo dashed with the autorickshaw
and as a result he fell down and sustained injuries. Then the
driver of the auto-rickshaw took him to hospital. The pw-3 Nur
Mohammad stated that on the date of occurrence along with his brother
Sukkur Ali he was also going by the same auto-rickshaw. He stated that
one Indica car dashed with the auto-rickshaw and his brother fell down
and sustained injuries. He also stated that the driver was driving the autorickshaw
with care.
Section 279 IPC requires the following ingredients to be
established by the prosecution:
(1) The accused was driving a vehicle or riding;
(2) He was doing so on a public way;
(3) He was also doing so rashly or negligently;
(4) The act of driving or riding was to endanger human life or
was likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
The essential ingredients of section 337 IPC are as follows:
(1) Accused did some act;
(2) He did it rashly or negligently;
(3) The act endangered human life or personal safety of others;
(4) Hurt was caused to some person in consequence thereof.
From the above discussion it is clear that the one of the essential
ingredients of the sections 279/337 is rashness or negligence.
Criminal Negligence is gross and culpable neglect or failure to
exercise that reasonable and proper care to guard against injury to the
public generally or to an individual in particular which having regard to
Case No. 393/08
all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the
imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that dangerous
consequences will follow, but with the hope that they will not follow and
with the belief that sufficient precautions have been taken.
Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that
dangerous consequences will follow, but, in circumstances which show
that the actor has not exercised the caution that was incumbent upon him.
Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the
knowledge that it is so and that it may cause injury but without the
intention to cause injury or knowledge that it will be probably caused.
The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such act with
recklessness or indifference as to the consequence.
In determining whether a person was negligent or rash, the standard
of reasonable care is that which is reasonably to be demanded in the
circumstances. In the instant case the evidence on record makes it clear
that the auto-rickshaw driver was driving the auto-rickshaw with care as
stated by the pw-3 Nur Mohammad. The evidence on record also makes
it clear that the auto-rickshaw was not damaged though it was alleged
that another vehicle dashed with it. From the above evidence the accident
itself become doubtful. The accused in his examination under section
313 Cr.P.C stated that the victim was actually sitting in the backside of
the auto-rickshaw and fell down from there in sleep and no such accident
as alleged had taken place.
From the materials on record and the discussion made above it is
clear that the allegations of rashness or negligence are not established by
the prosecution. In absence of the elements of rashness or negligence, the
charges under sections 279/337 IPC cannot succeed. Hence the accused
person is found not guilty and accordingly acquitted and set at liberty
forthwith.
His bail bond stands cancelled.
Given under my hand and seal on this day of January 21, 2013.
Addl. CJM
Goalpara, Assam.
