Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2248 (ALL)

Dinesh Chandra Rawat v. State of U. P.

2017-09-21

SATYA NARAIN AGNIHOTRI

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Instant criminal revision has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, in Criminal Appeal No.254 of 2008, which was filed against the judgment and order passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, in Criminal Case No.1400 of 1999, arising out of Case Crime No. 671 of 1998, Under Section 279/304-A, IPC, Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow, whereby learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, hold guilty to the accused revisionist, Dinesh Chandra Rawat, under Section 304-A and was sentenced six months imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-and under Section 279 IPC the revisionist was also sentenced two months imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine the revisionist shall further undergo one month additional imprisonment. Learned Magistrate further directed that both the sentence shall run concurrently. 2. The fact given rise to this revision are as under: 3. On 12.12.1998 at 5.10 P.M. in the evening complainant Sri Hem Chendra Chaudhary was coming back for his home along with his wife Smt. Anita Chaudhary and his son Master Prateek Chaudhary and when they were at the point of turning at the white house situated on the ring road, revisionist accused came rashly and negligently driving truck No.U.T.Z7439 and dashed his son Master Prateek Chaudhary. 4. After the occurrence of vehicular accident complainant P.W.1 Sri Hem Chandra Chaudhary carried away his seriously injured son Master Prateek Chaudhary to the hospital situated at Mahanagar Lucknow, where doctor declared him brought dead. Later on complainant Sri Hem Chendra Chaudhary brought the dead body of his son deceased Mater Prateek Chaudhary at his house and made a complaint in Police Station Mahanagar. It is further pleaded by the prosecution that the accused revisionist Sri Dinesh Chandra Rawat was caught hold by the general people at the place of occurrence with offending vehicle No. U.T.Z.7439. 5. Accused revisionist in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations leveled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. 6. 5. Accused revisionist in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations leveled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. 6. Prosecution examined P.W.1, complainant Sri Hem Chendra Chaudhary, who supported the narration version of prosecution and stated on oath that on 12.12.1998 at about 5.10 P.M. he alongwith his wife and deceased son was coming back with Tampo and after alight up from Tampo when they were reached near the place of occurrence the small bridge of a Nala and was going on footpath of unmateled area of the road, accused revisionist came with truck No. U.T.Z7439 rashly and negligently driving and dashed his son Master Prateek Chaudhary, who got serious injury on his head and other part of the body. He further narrated on oath that he carried away his seriously injured son to Mahanagar Hospital where doctor declared him dead. Later on he brought the dead body of his son to his house. 7. P.W.2 Smt. Anita Chaudhary, is the mother of deceased, who supported the statement of P.W.1. 8. P.W.3 Dr. Sri Ram Ji Lal Saxena, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Master Prateek Chaudhary stated on oath that at the time of postmortem of the body of Master Prateek Chaudhary, he found following antimortem injuries on the person of deceased. “1. Lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 2 c.m.x bone deep on left scalp, 6 c.m. above from left ear. 2. Lacerated wound 7 c.m. x 2 c.m.x brain deep on occipital region in the centre, brain is coming out from the wound. 3. Multiple abrasion in an area of 10 c.m. x 4 c.m. on left side face just adjacent to left ear. 4. Multiple abrasion 11 c.m. x 7 c.m. on right side chest, 2 c.m. below clavicle. 5. Multiple abrasion 6 c.m. x 4 c.m. on left side chest, 3 c.m. below clavicle. 6. Lacerated wound 8 c.m. x 6 c.m. x bone deep on right side upper arm just above elbow joint. 7. Multiple abrasion in an area of 10 c.m. x 5 c.m. on left side upper arm, 9 c.m. below top of shoulder. 8. Multiple abrasion 6 c.m. x 3 c.m. in left armpit." Doctor further opined that these injures may be caused in vehicular accident on 12.12.1998 at about 56 P.M. 9. 7. Multiple abrasion in an area of 10 c.m. x 5 c.m. on left side upper arm, 9 c.m. below top of shoulder. 8. Multiple abrasion 6 c.m. x 3 c.m. in left armpit." Doctor further opined that these injures may be caused in vehicular accident on 12.12.1998 at about 56 P.M. 9. P.W.4, Sub-inspector, Dravin Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer stated on oath that he conducted inquest report of the deceased Master Prateek Chaudhary and also prepared relevant papers for autopsy of the dead body of deceased. He further narrated on oath that he has visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and after conclusion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-revisionist. 10. Learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow and learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, after considering the arguments of both the parties and having gone through the evidence and considering the fact and circumstances of the case, hold guilty to accused revisionist. Thus there are concurrent opinion of two courts. In these circumstances, this Court under revisional jurisdiction does not postulate to reappreciation of the evidence, but that should be appreciated in the light of the limitation on the right to go in appeal. 11. P.W.1 complainant Sri Hem Chandra Chaudhary, P.W.2 Smt. Anita Chaudhary, who are the father and mother of the deceased and were with the deceased at the time of vehicular accident, supported the statement of each other and proved unerringly that accused revisionist was driving truck No. U.T.Z.7439 rashly and negligently and he dashed his son Master Prateek Chaudhary, who got serious injuries on his person and died due to injuries. 12. Learned counsel for accused revisionist tried and requested for the reappreciation of evidence. 13. I do not find it possible to reappreciate the evidence in this case, because both learned court’s below hold guilty to the accused revisionist, but I would like to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the light of above noted observation in paragraph 10. 14. P.W.1 and P.W.2 supported the statement of each other, while P.W.3 Dr. Sri Ram Ji Lal Saxena proved that the injuries which were found on the dead body of Mastar Prateek Chaudhary may be caused on 12.12.1998 at about 56 P.M. in a vehicular accident. 15. 14. P.W.1 and P.W.2 supported the statement of each other, while P.W.3 Dr. Sri Ram Ji Lal Saxena proved that the injuries which were found on the dead body of Mastar Prateek Chaudhary may be caused on 12.12.1998 at about 56 P.M. in a vehicular accident. 15. P.W.4, Sub-inspector, Dravin Kumar Singh, who has conducted the investigation and prepared site plan stated on oath that he has prepared the site plain which is annexure5. According to the site plan deceased Mastar Prateek Chaudhary alongwith his parents was walking on the left side of the road on earthen part of the road, while accused6 revisionist was coming from the opposite direction and he had drive truck gone in the extreme left direction of the road and dashed Mastar Prateek Chaudhary and caused grievous injuries to him, due to which Mastar Prateek Chaudhary has died. 16. Learned counsel for accused revisionist submitted that according to P.W.1 and P.W.2 the accused revisionist was not known to them despite of this the identification was not carried out by the prosecution as per law. 17. There is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for accused revisionist, because both the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 stated on oath that accused revisionist was nabed by the public in general who were present at the place of accident and accused revisionist was handed over to the police personal who were present near the place of accident and accused revisionist was produced in the police station by the police personal. Both the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 narrated on oath that after some time of the accident on that very day they came to know the name of accused revisionist. Thus there was no need for identification of the accused revisionist. When the accused revisionist was nabbed at the place of accident. 18. Learned counsel for accused revisionist further submitted that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of the deceased, that’s why the conviction of the accused revisionist would not have been based on the evidence of highly interested witnesses. 19. I am afraid to accept the submission of learned counsel for the accused revisionist, because P.W.1 and P.W.2 both narrated on oath that they do not know the name of those persons who have nabed the accused revisionist and the offending vehicle at the place of occurrence. 19. I am afraid to accept the submission of learned counsel for the accused revisionist, because P.W.1 and P.W.2 both narrated on oath that they do not know the name of those persons who have nabed the accused revisionist and the offending vehicle at the place of occurrence. Since the persons who have apprehended the accused revisionist were not known to complainant, how there identity be ascertained by the complainant. In these circumstances, if no independent witness was available, then it hardly adversely effect the theory of prosecution. 20. In my opinion it is but natural, because the son of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was grievous injured in a vehicular accident, that’s why it is not necessary and possible for them to inquire the name of those persons who have nabed the accused revisionist. 21. Learned counsel for accused revisionist further submitted that the vehicular accident took place due to the negligence of Mastar Prateek Chaudhary. 22. I unable to accept the preposition of learned counsel for accused revisionist, because this question was already considered by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow and learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, in their judgments categorically and in the matter of accident under Section 304A and 279 IPC the contributory neglagence had no relevance. 23. Learned counsel for accused revisionist submited that the said accident was caused by another vehicle and accused revisionist was falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 24. I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for accusedrevisionist, because no evidence has been tendered by the accused revisionist regarding the animosity between the complainant and the accused revisionist. 25. These two witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were cross-examined by the accused revisionist, but nothing has been extracted regarding the enmity with the accused revisionist. No other point raised by learned counsel for accused revisionist. 26. In view of the above discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the revision, I do not find any irregularity, illegality, in the judgments and order of both learned court's below. Hence revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Consequently the revision is dismissed. 27. Let this judgment be notified to the learned trial Judge for compliance within a month. The report of compliance shall transmit to this Court within one and half month from the date of judgment. 28. Hence revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Consequently the revision is dismissed. 27. Let this judgment be notified to the learned trial Judge for compliance within a month. The report of compliance shall transmit to this Court within one and half month from the date of judgment. 28. The record of learned subordinate court be sent forthwith.