Details - Dhemaji District Judiciary

DISTRICT:- DHEMAJI.
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGITRATE, FIRST CLASS:DHEMAJI.
PRESENT:-MR. AJOY KR. BASUMATARY;
B. Sc.(Hons), B.A.(c). LL.B. AJS.
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, 1 ST CLASS
DHEMAJI.
GR. Case No.911/2008(GMK); U/S-279/338/304 (A) IPC
PRC No.-281/11; in connection with GMK. P/S.C/No.180/08.
The State of Assam……..Complainant.
-V-
Md. Karim Ali……….…...Accused Person.
COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION:- Mrs. B. Dutta Bhuyan,
Ld. Addl. P. P.(Assam),
Mr. Prasanta Konch.
Ld. Asstt.P.P, Assam.
COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED :- Mr. Munin Dihingiya.
Ld. Advocate, DMJ.B.A.
Date Of Evidences:-31-10-2011, 23-11-2011 & 22-02-2011.
Date Of Argument:-11-05-2012.
Date Of Judgment:-11-05-2012.
Date of Judgment Delivered:-11-05-2012.
J – U – D – G – M – E – N – T
1) The accused person stands charged for the offences of Section-
279/338/304(A) IPC, in connection with GMK. P.S. Case No-180/2008,
upon the Ejahar of Shri Jogendra Medok.
2) The Prosecution story, in brief is like that the complainant had
lodged an ejahar stating that on 26-09-2008 at about 11am when his

2
uncle/‘Khora’-Benudhar Medok was returning home, on the way at
Gogamukh weekly market road in front of Senapati Printing Press, the
accused/Md. Karim Ali hit the complainant’s uncle from backside with a
TVS bike bearing Regd. AS-01:P/4998 which he was driving rashly and
negligently. The victim/uncle was seriously injured in the incident and then
he was taken to Guwahati for better medical treatment but later on he
succumbed to his injuries on 05-10-2008.
3) The First Information Report (FIR in short herein after) about the
incidence was registered. Then the GMK. Police had investigated into the
case and after completion of its usual investigation, submitted the Charge-
sheet against the accused, U/S-279/338/304(A) IPC against the accused.
4) The Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken the cognizance on the
alleged charge-sheeted offences of the case by accepting the Charge-sheet
and then I received the case records on being transferred for disposal on
01-08-2011.
5) Finally, the accused appeared before the court in pursuance of
summons of the court, thereafter he was also allowed to remain on bail
bond. Then the necessary copy of the case records was furnished to the
accused as per requisite of Section-207 Cr. P. C before initiating trial and
on finding a prima-facie case for presuming that the accused had
committed the alleged charge sheeted offences, I explained and read out
the particulars of the alleged offences to the accused; to which the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The formal charge on the
offences of Section-279/338/304(A) IPC also was framed against the
accused. Then the prosecution was directed to lead their evidences in the
case.
6) POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:-
i) Whether or not, the accused had on 26-09-2008 at about 11 am at
Gogamukh weekly market, in front of Senapati Printing Press driven his
bike bearing Regd. No.-AS/01-P/4998 on the public road in a rash and
negligent manner so as to endanger human life.

3
ii) Whether the accused person had on 26-09-2008 at about 11am at
Gogamukh weekly market, in front of the above mentioned printing press
caused injury to the complainant’s uncle/Benudhar Medok by knocking
him down with his vehicle, AS-01 P-/4998 by driving it rashly and
negligently or not.
iii) Whether the accused person had knocked down the
complainant’s uncle by driving his bike AS-01P/4998 rashly and
negligently and caused death to the complainant’s uncle/Binudhar Medok
or not.
7) THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES ARE AS FOLLOWS:-
To prove its case the prosecution examined altogether 05(five) witnesses,
Viz,-
i) PW1-----------Shri Keshab Das,
ii) PW2-----------Shri Jogendra Medok,
iii) PW3-----------Shri Rameswar Ram,
iv) PW4-----------Shri Raghu Das,
v) PW5/I.O------Shri Raja Sarkar.
The Exhibited Documents in the case are as follows:-
i) Exhibit No.1-------------Seizure list of the bike.
ii) Exhibit No.2-------------FIR, dated. 01-10-2008.
iii) Exhibit No.2-----------Charge-sheet, Dtd.30-06-2011.
The accused person was also examined U/S 313 Cr. P. C. where he
has totally denied about his rash and negligent driving in the incidence. He
deposed that he had no fault in the alleged accident. The victim had
himself suddenly come in front of his bike and met with the accident.
However he declined to adduce his defence evidences in the case.
8) DISCUSSION, REASONS AND DECISION THEREON:-
I have taken all the above mentioned points together for discussion,
reasons and for decision. I have heard the submissions of the Learned
Counsels for the State and the accused on the incidence of the case. The
contention of the accused side is that the accused is totally innocent. Ld.
Defence counsel/ Mr. Dihingiya submitted that the complainant’s uncle

4
was in a hurry himself and came in front of the accused; the incident took
place due to the deceased’s fault only. There is no eye witness of rash and
negligent driving by the accused in the case. In the present situation, the
conviction of the accused person will be unsafe and if he is convicted, it
would completely amount to the denial of justice. Thus Ld. Defence
Counsel has prayed accordingly for the acquittal of the accused.
On the contrary, the Ld. Prosecution counsel appearing for the State
has given submissions with regard to the evidences of the complainant and
submitted that PW2/complainant is an eye-witness of the rash and
negligent driving of the accused. Thus, she claimed the conviction of the
accused person.
9) Now, keeping in mind the submissions of both the sides, I have gone
through the entire evidences very carefully and found that this case is
basically based on the evidences of PW2 only. PW2 is not an independent
witness of the case, the deceased was his uncle.
Apparently, on the Exhibit No.2/FIR, it is seen that there are some
ingredients of rash and negligent driving. The informant had also disclosed
the name of the accused and the Regd. No. of the involved vehicle. Now, it
is to be seen, whether the FIR has been corroborated by the prosecution
witnesses or not.
10) Coming to the evidences of the PW1, he has stated that he had not
seen the incident and he had heard about the accident and that the victim-
injured was taken away to the hospital only from other people/Raghu Das
(PW4). Furthermore, he deposed that he had not even seen the seizure of
the involved bike but he admitted that Ex.-1(1) is his signature in the
seizure list Ex-1. Thus it is found that PW1 is not witnessed the accident of
the case.
11) PW3 and PW4 have stated that they had not seen the occurrence of
the incident. They are only hearsay witnesses of the incident. Thus I have
not found any substantive proof and corroborative evidences as to show

5
that the accused person was driving rashly and negligently when he hit the
deceased with his bike.
12) During the evidences of PW2, he deposed that he had seen the
occurrence of the incident. The deceased/uncle was aged about 40-45 years
at the time of his death. The accused drove the TVS bike speedily and
knocked his uncle down from the backside and due to which his uncle got
seriously injured on his head and became senseless. PW2 was nearby his
uncle/deceased and then the victim was taken initially to the Gogamukh
Hospital, then to Lakhimpur Hospital and thereafter to Guwahati but
unfortunately he succumbed to his injuries after about 7 days at Dispur
Polyclinic Hospital.
So far as the FIR is concerned, it can be used as a piece of
corroborative evidence. But in the present case, it is seen that the Ex-2/FIR
has not disclosed anything about the PW2/informant having really
witnessed the case.
13) PW5 is the I/O. He has deposed that on 04-06-11 he was posted at
Gogamukh P/S and on that day he was endorsed for the investigation of
the case by the O/C concerned for partly pending investigation of the case
only. He had only collected the PM Report of the deceased and then filed
the Charge sheet U/S-279/338/304(A) IPC against the accused by showing
the accused as on bail. The Exhibit No. 3 is the C/S and Exhibit No.-3(1)
is his signature. He deposed that the case was initially investigated by his
predecessor I/O, A.S.I./Shri. D.R. Barman. He is a formal witness only and
the prosecution examined him instead of examining main I/O who had
actually recorded the deposition of the witnesses. Apparently it is clear that
the complainant’s uncle expired due to the alleged incident of the case. The
incidence took place in broad day light in front of a printing press, on the
road during Gogamukh weekly market and yet the prosecution/I.O. failed
to bring any eye-witness of the incidence.
14) Generally in an accident case, by seeing the place of the incident
itself, it is possible to assume to some extent how the incident had

6
occurred. In the present case, I have not found any Sketch map and the
prosecution side had also not exhibited the same as to show how exactly at
what place the incident took place.
15) It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond all shadow
of doubts against the accused. It is a cardinal rule of a criminal case for
reaching out to the conviction of a guilty person.
In the present case, the prosecution cannot claim a conviction
based upon the testimony of the complainant/PW2. He has exaggerated in
the prosecution case. The PW5 is the formal witness only and others had
not witnessed the accident at all. I have not found any substantial evidence
and corroborative evidence which shows that the accused was driving
rashly and negligently. The prosecution has totally failed to establish its
case against the accused person.
16) In the light of the above discussed noticeable facts, evidences of the
case; I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to
establish its case against the accused. Consequently, the accused
person/Md. Karim Ali is acquitted from the charges of the case. His bail
bond surety is cancelled forthwith hereof.
The accused person is set-free.
17) The I/O is directed to hand over the seizure article(s) and original
document(s) to its owner(s) in due course of time as per law.
18) The Judgment signed, sealed and delivered in the open court in
presence of the accused and the Ld. Addl. P. P. on 11-05-2012.
19) The case is disposed off accordingly on contest.
(A. K. Basumatary, AJS)
JMFC, Dhemaji.
********************************************************