Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 197 (UTT)

Dharmendra v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-07-11

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this revision is made to the following:- “(i) Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2006, passed in Criminal Case No.1250 of 2004, State vs. Dharmendra, by the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun (for short, “the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 279 IPC and sentenced to one month imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-; under Section 338 IPC sentenced to two months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and the revisionist has been convicted under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to 06 months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/-. (ii) The judgment and order dated 22.12.2009, recorded in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2006, Dharmendra vs. State, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. By it, the judgment and order dated 31.07.2006, passed in the case has been upheld.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows. On 30.08.2004, deceased, a girl of 13 years of age was standing on the left side of a road at 10:30 in the morning when a vehicle bearing Registration No. UA12-0414, driven by the revisionist hit the deceased. Due to this collusion the deceased sustained injuries. She was taken to hospital but, she died. A report was lodged, based on which, Case Crime No.70 of 2004, under Section 279, 338, 304-A IPC was lodged at Police Station Raiwala, District Dehradun. Investigation was carried out and the Investigating Officer prepared site plan, inquest of the deceased. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 31.08.2004 at Doon Hospital, Dehradun. According to the doctor, the cause of the death was hemorrhage shock as a result of injuries described following blunt force trauma. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 279, 338, 304 IPC against the revisionist. The revisionist was read over the accusations. According to him, the accident did not take place due to his error. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined six witnesses namely, PW1 Dr. Hemant Bhardwaj, PW2 Dhanpal Singh, PW3 Vinod Singh, PW4 Anil, PW5 SI Chandan Singh and PW6 Uttam Singh. 5. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”). According to him, the accident did not take place due to his mistake. 6. Hemant Bhardwaj, PW2 Dhanpal Singh, PW3 Vinod Singh, PW4 Anil, PW5 SI Chandan Singh and PW6 Uttam Singh. 5. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”). According to him, the accident did not take place due to his mistake. 6. After hearing the parties, by the judgment and order passed in the case the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinbefore. The judgment and order dated 31.07.2006, passed in the case has been unsuccessfully challenged by the revisionist in the appeal. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel would submit that there have been great contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The place of incident was not established. It doubts the prosecution case. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that there is no illegality in the impugned judgments. 9. It is a revision. The scope of revision is quite restricted. In revision, the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment are examined. Appreciation of evidence is beyond the scope of revision unless the finding is perverse i.e. without any weight of evidence. Evidence is also appreciated in the cases where material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has invited the Court’s attention to the statement of PW2 Dhanpal Singh. He has stated that the victim was with her mother whereas, according to him, the other witnesses i.e. PW2 Dhanpal Singh, the informant has stated that the deceased was all alone at the time of incident. In addition to it, it is argued that the place of incident is not established because according to PW3 Vinod Singh and PW4 Anil, the place of incident is different than what is shown in the site plan. 11. PW1 Dr. Hemant Bhardwaj, conducted the postmortem of the victim. He has proved the postmortem report. According to him, the cause of death was hemorrhage shock as a result of injuries, sustained by the victim. According to him, the time of death was 30.08.2004 at about 03:00 PM. 12. PW2 Dhanpal Singh, is the father of the victim. He did not see the incident. He was told about the incident by the witnesses. Thereafter, he reached at the place of incident & took his daughter to the hospital. He has lodged the report Ex.A2. According to him, the time of death was 30.08.2004 at about 03:00 PM. 12. PW2 Dhanpal Singh, is the father of the victim. He did not see the incident. He was told about the incident by the witnesses. Thereafter, he reached at the place of incident & took his daughter to the hospital. He has lodged the report Ex.A2. In his cross-examination, he had stated that on the previous night the deceased has stayed in her aunt’s house. She was returning from there to her house. She was all alone. She was not accompanied by her brother. 13. PW3 Vinod Singh and PW4 Anil, both are eyewitnesses. According to them, they were having tea near the place of incident, when the accident took place. They witnessed it. 14. PW5 SI Chandan Singh is the Investigating Officer, he submitted the charge-sheet. He did not prepare the site plan but, he proved it. According to him, it was prepared by the former Investigating Officer, Devendra Singh Chauhan. He has also proved the other documents. PW6 Uttam Singh is a witness of inquest. 15. It is true that according to PW3 Vinod Singh, at the time of incident the deceased was along with her mother. Her mother was standing on the other side of the road. As stated, it is also true that according to PW2 Dhanpal Singh, the deceased was all alone at the time of incident. This variation in the statements of the witnesses is not significant. The courts below have analysed the evidence on material particulars and recorded the findings. 16. According to the site plan, the deceased was not standing on the road. She was on the kaccha part of the road near a tree. The vehicle came much wrong side on the kaccha and hit the deceased. Both PW3 Vinod Singh and PW4 Anil have been asked about the place of incident. There appears to be no material contradictions in on the statements. Even otherwise, the site plan has been proved by PW5 SI Chandan Singh. He has not been asked anything about the site plan. He has not been asked, as to where the accident took place? 17. According to the witnesses, after the incident the deceased left the vehicle on the place of incident, even he did not took the deceased to the hospital. He was identified by the witnesses. He has not been asked anything about the site plan. He has not been asked, as to where the accident took place? 17. According to the witnesses, after the incident the deceased left the vehicle on the place of incident, even he did not took the deceased to the hospital. He was identified by the witnesses. It is not the case of the revisionist that he was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time and if it is so, he has not come forward, as to why the accident took place? Why did he took the vehicle on the extreme left on the kaccha and killed the deceased? In his statement recorded under Section 251 of the Code and under Section 313 of the Code, he has repeated only one line that the accident did not take place due to his mistake. In the instant case, there is evidence of two eye-witnesses PW3 Vinod Singh and PW4 Anil. Apart from it, the site plan itself speaks of the situation that the accident did not take place in the mid on any part of the pacca road, it was on the kaccha road. The deceased was standing extreme left on the kaccha road, where she was hit. 18. In view of it, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the revisionist. There is no error or illegality in the impugned judgments. Therefore, the revision deserves to be dismissed. 19. The revision is dismissed.