Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 325 (UTT)

Dara Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-09-28

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Instant revision is preferred against the followings:- (i) Judgement and order dated 06.12.2013, passed in Case No. 2093 of 2011, State Vs. Dara Singh, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 279, 304A, 427 IPC and sentenced as hereunder:- (i) Under Section 279 IPC – rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. (ii) Under Section 304A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, with a fine of Rs.5000/-. (iii) Under Section 427 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. (ii) Judgment and order dated 23.05.2014, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2014, Dara Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun (“the appeal”). By it the appeal has been dismissed and the order passed in the case was affirmed. 2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows:- On 21.01.2009, the deceased Ashok Kumar was riding a motorcycle UA-076887 and approaching towards Rishikesh, near Mansa Devi Fatak, a Forest Checkpost, a tractor bearing Registration No. UK 07C-9019 hit the motorcycle while overtaking it. Due to which, Ashok Kumar was seriously injured. He was taken to hospital, where he was declared brought dead. The incident was witnessed by Bharat Bisht and Shailesh Singh, who were following Ashok Kumar in their own vehicle. It happened at 8:45 in the evening. The report was lodged by PW1 Yashpal Singh, who happens to be the cousin of the deceased. Based on this report, which was lodged at 11:30, a case was lodged and investigation carried out. After investigation, charge sheet under Sections 279, 304A, 427 IPC was submitted. Cognizance taken. 3. On 04.06.2011, the revisionist was read over the accusations. He did not plead guilty. According to him, the motorcycle collided with stationary tractor trolley. He was not driving the tractor at the relevant time. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, PW1 Yashpal Singh, the informant, PW2 Bharat Bisht, the eyewitness, PW3 Shailesh Singh, another eyewitness, PW4 Mohan Singh Sajwan, the person, who inspected the vehicle involved in the accident, PW5 Dr. He was not driving the tractor at the relevant time. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, PW1 Yashpal Singh, the informant, PW2 Bharat Bisht, the eyewitness, PW3 Shailesh Singh, another eyewitness, PW4 Mohan Singh Sajwan, the person, who inspected the vehicle involved in the accident, PW5 Dr. M.S. Jangpangi and PW6 Chandra Mohan Singh Negi, the Investigating Officer. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. PW1 Yashpal Singh is the informant. He was told about the incident by PW2 Bharat Bisht. According to this witness, PW2 Bharat Bisht is the resident of their mohalla. He reached at the spot and lodged a report Ex. A1. He is also the witness of inquest Ex.A2. 7. PW2 Bharat Bisht has stated that on the date of incident, Ashok Kumar was riding on his motorcycle. He was following him alongwith PW3 Shailesh Singh. At about 8:45, according to this witness, the tractor hit the motorcycle. Due to which, Ashok Kumar was injured. He was taken to hospital by this witness, but he died. He immediately informed PW2 Bharat Bisht. 8. PW3 Shailesh Singh has also corroborated the statement of PW2 Bharat Bisht. Although in his cross examination, PW2 Bharat Singh has stated that when he reached at the spot, he did not see the accident and he cannot say as to who was responsible for the accident. PW3 Shailesh Singh has stated that he witnessed the accident. The driver of the tractor trolley was rash and negligent. 9. The question is, if PW2 Bharat Bisht and PW3 Shailesh Singh both were riding on the same motorcycle, how could one say that he reached at the spot after the accident had taken place and another would say that he had witnessed the accident? 10. The Court is cautious of the fact that this is a revision in which generally appreciation of evidence is not done. In revision, the correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned judgment may be examined. The appreciation of evidence may be touched only if the finding is perverse or some material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered. 11. PW4 Mohan Singh Sajwan has inspected both the vehicles involved in the accident. He proved his report. 12. PW5 Dr. M.S. Jangpangi conducted postmortem. He proved various documents. Two documents are very important. They are Ex. 11. PW4 Mohan Singh Sajwan has inspected both the vehicles involved in the accident. He proved his report. 12. PW5 Dr. M.S. Jangpangi conducted postmortem. He proved various documents. Two documents are very important. They are Ex. A7, an information given to Police by the hospital, and Ex.A8, the extract of the General Diary of the police station where the information is given. 13. PW6 Chandra Mohan Singh Negi is the Investigating Officer. He has stated about the investigation and proved charge sheet. 14. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that it is a no evidence case. The finding is perverse. It is not based on any evidence because PW2 Bharat Bisht has stated that he was riding on his motorcycle following the deceased. He did not witness the incident. He reached at the spot, when the accident had taken place. He could not say as to who was responsible for the accident. It is argued that the statements of PW2 Bharat Bisht and PW3 Shailesh Singh does not prove the prosecution case. 15. Learned State counsel would submit that PW2 Bharat Bisht and PW3 Shailesh Singh have proved the prosecution case. 16. PW2 Bharat Bisht tells that he reached at the spot soon after the incident. He could not say as to who was responsible for the accident and as to who was at fault. The Court cannot presume that it is the revisionist, who was at fault. 17. PW3 Shailesh Singh would state that he was on a motorcycle driven by PW2 Bharat Bisht and he witnessed the accident. PW3 Shailesh Singh has stated that it is the driver of the tractor trolley, who was responsible for the accident. How could it be believed because PW1 Yashpal Singh, who was riding the motorcycle has stated that he reached at the spot when the accident had taken place. He did not see it. He cannot say as to how accident took place. If it is so, how could PW3 Shailesh Singh see the accident and say that as to who is responsible person for the accident. This is, in fact, deeper area for scrutiny. But, the fact remains that PW2 Bharat Bisht has stated that he did not see the accident. He cannot say as to who is responsible. If it is so, how could PW3 Shailesh Singh see the accident and say that as to who is responsible person for the accident. This is, in fact, deeper area for scrutiny. But, the fact remains that PW2 Bharat Bisht has stated that he did not see the accident. He cannot say as to who is responsible. His evidence does not support the prosecution case and whatever discussion has been made by this Court is on the aspect that if PW1 Yashpal Singh did not see the incident, how could it be said that PW2 Bharat Bisht saw the incident? 18. The most important document is Ex. A7, which has been proved by PW5 Dr. M. S. Jangpangi. According to Ex.A7, Police was informed that one unknown dead body was brought to the hospital. PW5 Dr. M.S. Jangpangi has also proved the General Diary extract of the police station, which is No.51, 21:21 hours. It means a dead body reached at the hospital. It was not known to the hospital authorities as to whose dead body was it. They informed police about it and police recorded this fact in General Diary Report No. 51 at 9:20 PM. It further means that the dead body had reached hospital much prior to 9:20 PM. It was a night incident. PW2 Bharat Bisht has said it is he who took the dead body to the hospital. He knew the deceased. He informed PW1 Yashpal Singh. If it is so, how the dead body was noted as unknown by PW 5 M.S. Jangpangi, when he informed police by virtue of intimation memo Ex. A7. Ex. A7 falsifies the statement of PW2 Bharat Bisht as well as the statement of PW3 Shailesh Singh. This document shows that, in fact, PW2 Bharat Bisht and PW3 Shailesh Singh were not at the place of incident. They did not call the Ambulance. They did not bring the deceased to hospital. Had it be so done? In the hospital, the dead body could not have been termed as unknown. Apart from it, there is no evidence. 19. In view of what is discussed hereinbefore, this Court is of the view that, in fact, this is a no evidence case. There is no evidence that the accident took place due to any rash and negligent act of the revisionist. Apart from it, there is no evidence. 19. In view of what is discussed hereinbefore, this Court is of the view that, in fact, this is a no evidence case. There is no evidence that the accident took place due to any rash and negligent act of the revisionist. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order deserves to be set aside and the revision allowed. 20. The revision is allowed. 21. The impugned judgment and orders are set aside. 22. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Sections 279, 304A, 427 IPC. He is already on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 23. The revisionist shall furnish a personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned, under section 437A of the Code. 24. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Record be transmitted to the Court below for compliance.