MD IMAN UDDIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM
LAWS(GAU)-2018-2-116
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on February 09,2018

Md Iman Uddin Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. - (1.) This revision is preferred challenging the legality and validity of the order in criminal appeal no.15(3)/2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj whereby the learned appellate Court has affirmed the order passed by the trial Court in G.R.Case No.1124/2002, wherein the accused petitioner has been convicted under Section 279/304 A IPC and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month U/S 279 IPC and R.i for two months U/S 304 A IPC.
(2.) So far as the prosecution case in brief is that on 13.12.2002 at about 12 noon one Situbala Namasudra while trying to board 407 passenger vehicle bearing registration No. AS.10/0539 fell down and the rear wheels of the said moving vehicle went over her both legs. Situbala Namasudra succumbed to her injuries on the way to SMCH Silchar where she was being taken immediately after the accident. On the facts the FIR was filed and after due investigation charge-sheet was laid against the accused petitioner. The accused appeared before the Court and stood the trial and denied the charge framed against him under Section 279/304A IPC. To bring home the charge the prosecution examined five witnesses and defence examined none. Plea of defence is total denial. At the conclusion of the trial the accused petitioner was found and held guilty under the aforesaid section of law and the appeal preferred was dismissed. Hence the present petition.
(3.) Heard the submission of learned counsel Mr. Talukdar on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P.Assam. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the deceased died because of her own contributory negligence and accused is not at all liable to be convicted as such. Supporting the order of conviction under challenge, the learned Addl. P.P. put forward his argument that the evidence of eye witnesses has clearly indicated the rush and negligent driving of the accused petitioner and it is not a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.