Charge Framed Against Accused Must Be Established Beyond Any Shadow Of Doubt, Suspicion However Grave Not Proof: Tripura High Court

The observation came from Justice T. Amarnath Goud:

"The way the prosecution has projected the case and being found serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements in course of trial, it would be very difficult for this Court to believe the projected case against the petitioner. It is settled proposition of law that the charge framed against the accused-person has to be established and proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Suspicions, however, grave in nature, should not amount to prove."

The observation was made while allowing a revision petition against a judgment passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, partially upholding the judgment passed Magistrate court which convicted the petitioner under under Sections 279 (Rash driving or riding on a public way) and 338 (Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of IPC and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act.

The petitioner was accused of driving in a rash and negligent manner, dashing the complainant's mother from his two wheeler.

Before the High Court, the Petitioner argued that both the courts below have erred in the matter of correctness inasmuch as a "simple accident" does not constitute main ingredients of Sections 279/ 338 IPC unless the vehicle is in high speed or is driven in a manner which is dangerous to the public. The respondent "miserably failed" to establish said ingredients, the Petitioner argued.

It was averred that from the vehicle inspection report, no damage on the offending vehicle was found, which suggests that the vehicle was not in high speed or rush. It was further contended that the investigating officer did not endeavour to procure the evidence of shop owners of the place of occurrence.

Agreeing with the Petitioner, the High Court noted,

"The Appellate Court ought to have been come to a conclusion that the proceeding before the learned Court below was vitiated by non-affording the natural justice to the petitioner as there was no specific documentary evidence with regard to the probabilities as to when and how the accident has been occurred...The way the prosecution has projected the case and being found serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements in course of trial, it would be very difficult for this Court to believe the projected case against the petitioner."

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Case Title : Sri Goutam Das v The State of Tripura

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment