Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 215 (UTT)

Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-07-21

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : (i) The judgment and order dated 04.05.2010, passed in Criminal Case No.596 of 2009, State Vs. Surendra Singh, by the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 279, 337, 304A and 427 IPC and, (ii) The judgment and order dated 09.03.2011, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2010, Surendra Singh Vs. State, by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun (“the appeal”). By it, the judgment and order dated 04.05.2010 passed in the case has been confirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 3. Briefly stated, according to the prosecution case, on 08.04.2004, PW2 Virendra Singh Bhandari, on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. HR-07-2631, was returning to his home. With him was his uncle Raghuveer Singh as pillion rider. As soon as he reached at Susva River Bridge, a roadways bus bearing Registration No. UP-15Q-9647 (“the bus”), came in a very fast speed from behind and without blowing horn hit the motorcycle from behind, due to which his uncle Raghuveer Singh sustained injuries. The motorcycle was also damaged. The injured was admitted to the hospital. Thereafter, a report of the incident was lodged by the PW2 Virendra Singh Bhandari on the same day at 11:00 in the night. The FIR is Ex. A-1. 4. It is the prosecution case that, subsequently the deceased died in a hospital at Chandigarh. His inquest was prepared. It has been proved by PW5 Govind Singh. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the revisionist. That is how the proceeding of the case was instituted. 5. The revisionist was read over the accusation at the stage of 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). According to the revisionist, he did not hit the motorcycle. His vehicle was not involved in any accident. 6. In order to prove its, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses, namely, PW1 Chatar Singh, PW2 Virendra Singh Bhandari, PW3 SI M.T. K.C. Tamta, PW4 SI Nirvikar and PW5 Govind Singh. 7. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code. According to him, the witnesses have given false evidence. He denies any accident having been committed by the vehicle driven by him. 8. 7. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code. According to him, the witnesses have given false evidence. He denies any accident having been committed by the vehicle driven by him. 8. The court below, after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 04.05.2010, passed in the case, convicted and sentenced the revisionist, as stated above. The judgment and order dated 04.05.2010, has been unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal. Hence the revision. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that though the scope of revision is quite restricted, but there is no evidence, which may prove the accusations against the revisionist. He would submit that there is no evidence, which may connect the bus with the offence; it is highly improbable that a bus hits a motorcycle and the person on the wheels on the motorcycle would not receive any injury. The motorcycle was also not damaged from behind, which is highly improbable; the postmortem report has not been proved; the doctors have not been examined to even say that the deceased died due to injury sustained by him in any motorcycle accident. 10. Learned State Counsel would submit that PW2 Virendra Singh has supported the prosecution case and inquest also supported the prosecution case. 11. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Undoubtedly, in a revision, the scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned judgment. Appreciation of evidence may also be undertaken if the finding is perverse i.e. against the weight of evidence or if the material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered. 12. PW1 Chatar Singh, in the instant case is the scribe of the FIR, which, according to him, has been written at the instance of PW2, Virendra Singh Bhandari. The only witness of the fact is Virendra Singh Bhandari. According to him, on the date of incident, at 8:00 P.M., when he was riding a motorcycle, the motorcycle was hit from behind by the bus. The bus was moving very fast and without blowing any horn, it hit the motorcycle, due to which his uncle sustained injuries and subsequently died in hospital at Chandigarh. 13. PW3 KC Tamta inspected the motorcycle and the bus involved in the accident. The bus was moving very fast and without blowing any horn, it hit the motorcycle, due to which his uncle sustained injuries and subsequently died in hospital at Chandigarh. 13. PW3 KC Tamta inspected the motorcycle and the bus involved in the accident. With regard to the motorcycle, he made the following observations: “Clutch wire broken; front head light, parking light damaged; front mud guard damaged; leg guard bend.” 14. PW4 SI Nirvikar is the Investigating Officer (“IO”). He simply proved the chargesheet. According to him, he interrogated the witnesses of the inquest and no other witness was examined by him. Even, he did not prove any other document prepared by other Investigating Officer. 15. PW5 Govind Singh is a witness of the inquest. 16. In the impugned judgment passed in the case, at page 3, 4th paragraph, the court has observed that it was the revisionist to prove that he did not commit the offence and he was not present at the place of incident and his vehicle was not involved in the accident. Does it mean that the court placed wrong burden on the revisionist to prove his innocence. The basic principle of criminal law is presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It is not presumption of guilt. First and foremost, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in any accident. 17. There is one medical report dated 08.04.2004 of Raghuveer Singh Bhandari on record, which suggests that on that date, at about 8:30 PM, the injured was examined at S.P.S. Hospital, Rishikesh. It also suggests that the injured was brought by Virendra Singh Bhandari. It does not record any history. It has not been proved. 18. Has the doctor examining the deceased at Rishikesh Hospital been informed as to how did the deceased receive the injury? Has it been noted at any register kept in the hospital? Has the information been given to the police? These all are not even shown by the prosecution. 19. The inquest report has been proved by PW5 Govind Singh. It simply proves that the deceased Raghuveer Singh died and his dead body was examined at PGI, Chandigarh by the police. Has it been noted at any register kept in the hospital? Has the information been given to the police? These all are not even shown by the prosecution. 19. The inquest report has been proved by PW5 Govind Singh. It simply proves that the deceased Raghuveer Singh died and his dead body was examined at PGI, Chandigarh by the police. Although, in this inquest report, it is recorded that the death took place due to accident, but the police officer records that the death took place due to injuries. The injury was on head, face and on legs. The court cannot presume that these injuries were sustained in any accident. The site plan itself has not been proved. 20. The court is examining the material to the extent as to whether the finding is supported by any evidence or not? 21. PW2 Virendra Singh Bhandari, in his examination in chief, 5th line, would state that as soon as he crossed Susva River, he was hit from behind. The site plan is though on record, but not proved. In this site plan, the place of incident is on the river, perhaps on the bridge. Does it mean that the accident took place on the bridge? All this is in the realm of doubt? 22. It is highly improbable that a running bus, if hits a motorcycle from behind, would not damage the motorcycle on its rear. There has been no damage to the motorcycle from behind. The parking lights, the rear mud-guard and any other rear part of the motorcycle was not damaged. 23. It, in fact, leaves much doubt on the prosecution case. The statement of PW2 Virendra Singh Bhandari is not supported by any evidence. In fact, non existence of any damage on the rear part of the motorcycle belies the prosecution case. 24. As stated, neither the postmortem report not the site plan has been proved. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem has not been examined. The prosecution has not even shown that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in any accident. The motorcycle is not damaged from behind, from which side, according to the prosecution, it was hit by the bus, which was moving fast. It also belies the prosecution case. 25. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem has not been examined. The prosecution has not even shown that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in any accident. The motorcycle is not damaged from behind, from which side, according to the prosecution, it was hit by the bus, which was moving fast. It also belies the prosecution case. 25. In view of it, this Court is of the view that, in fact, the courts below have committed grave error in law in convicting and sentencing the revisionist. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed. 26. The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.05.2010 passed in the case and the order dated 09.03.2011 passed in the appeal are hereby setaside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Sections 279, 337, 304A and 427 IPC. 27. The revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged of their liability. But, the revisionist shall furnish a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned under Section 437A of the Code within a period of six weeks from today. 28. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court record be sent to the court concerned.