Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 251 (UTT)

Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-04-03

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this revision is made to the following:- (i) Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2018, passed in Criminal Case No.173 of 2017, State vs. Rajendra Singh, by the court of Judicial Magistrate/IVth Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar (for short, “the case”), by which, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 427 IPC and sentenced as hereunder:- (a) Under Section 304A IPC – to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one month. (b) Under Section 279 IPC – to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. (c) Under Section 337 IPC – to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. (d) Under Section 427 IPC – to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. All the sentences shall run concurrently. (ii) Judgment and order dated 07.01.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.240 of 2018, Rajendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar (for short, “the appeal”), by which, the conviction of the revisionist has been upheld, but the sentence has been reduced from two years to six months under Section 304A IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The case is based on an FIR, lodged on 19.11.2010 at Police Check Post Kharkhari, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Haridwar. According to it, on 19.11.2010, the revisionist was driving a roadways bus bearing Registration No.UA07M 6514 rashly and negligently. He tried to overtake another vehicle and in that process, smashed the bus into the shop of the informant, due to which, one of the workers of the informant Indra Singh died on the spot. Some persons were injured also. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation charge-sheet had been submitted and proceeding of the case was instituted. The revisionist was read over the accusation. Some persons were injured also. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation charge-sheet had been submitted and proceeding of the case was instituted. The revisionist was read over the accusation. According to him, he was driving the vehicle carefully. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses namely, PW1 Sohan Lal, the informant, PW2 Ramesh Chand, PW3 Dr. A.S. Sanger, PW4 Balbeer Singh, PW5 SI Nand Lal and PW6 SI Dilmohan Bisht. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, the revisionist has taken a different stand. According to him, he was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time and he is innocent. 5. After hearing the parties, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced in the case, as stated hereinbefore. In appeal, the conviction has been upheld, but the sentence of imprisonment under Section 304A IPC has been reduced from two years to six months. The remaining sentence remained unaltered. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and orders, the revisionist is in revision. 6. In fact, the revision has yet not been admitted. At the stage of admission, the lower court record has already been summoned. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would take the following pleas:- (i) It has been the case of the prosecution that in the process of overtaking the vehicle, the revisionist drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and killed a person. It is argued that the prosecution has not come up with the case, as to which vehicle the revisionist wanted to overtake? Whose vehicle was it? (ii) The prosecution has not established, as to how the deceased died? Which tyre crushed him, the front tyre or the rear tyre? 8. It is also submitted that, in fact, the revisionist has a much unblemished career; he is already retired now; he is a person of 63 years of age. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period which the revisionist has already undergone. 9. Learned State counsel would submit that the appellate court has already reduced the sentence; it does not require any further interference now. 10. It is a revision. The scope is much restricted to the extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and order. 9. Learned State counsel would submit that the appellate court has already reduced the sentence; it does not require any further interference now. 10. It is a revision. The scope is much restricted to the extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and order. Appreciation of evidence is generally not made in the revision, unless some material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered or the finding is based on no evidence or the finding is perverse i.e. against the weight of evidence. 11. PW1 Sohan Lal is the informant. He runs a shop. He has categorically stated in evidence that the revisionist was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and smashed the vehicle in his shop. His shop was damaged and one of the workers died at the spot and another worker sustained injuries. This witness proved the report Ex. A-1. 12. PW2 Ramesh Chand is an eye-witness. He has supported the statement of PW1. 13. PW3 Dr. A.S. Sanger has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Indra Singh. He proved post-mortem report Ex.A-2. 14. PW4 Balveer Singh had technically examined the vehicle. The vehicle was in working condition; there were some damages; its break and steering were also in order. He has proved the report Ex. A-3. 15. PW5 SI Nand Lal conducted investigation and prepared documents. He has stated about it. 16. PW6 SI Dilmohan Bisht has prepared the inquest report. He proved the inquest report. 17. The site plan is Ex. A-6, which is on record. It, in fact, shows that the vehicle had gone to extreme right and entered into the shop of PW1 Sohan Lal. 18. Two points have been raised. Firstly, the detail of the vehicle which was allegedly overtaken by the revisionist is not on record. It is immaterial. It does not require, as to which vehicle, the revisionist wanted to over take. Even otherwise, it is a matter pertaining to factual appreciation of the evidence, which is alien to the revision. 19. Secondly, it is argued that it has not been established that by which tyre the deceased was crushed? It is also entirely immaterial. PW1 Sohan Lal and other witnesses have categorically established that the revisionist was driving the vehicle at the relevant time in a rash and negligent manner. He smashed his vehicle into the shop of PW1 Sohan Lal. Secondly, it is argued that it has not been established that by which tyre the deceased was crushed? It is also entirely immaterial. PW1 Sohan Lal and other witnesses have categorically established that the revisionist was driving the vehicle at the relevant time in a rash and negligent manner. He smashed his vehicle into the shop of PW1 Sohan Lal. The shop was destroyed. Indra Singh died at the spot and Jai Prakash sustained injuries. By which tyre the deceased was killed, makes no difference. 20. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the court below has, in fact, considered the material evidence on record. The impugned judgments and orders are in accordance with law. There is no reason to make any interference. 21. In so far as the question of sentence is concerned, in a very busy market, it has been proved that the revisionist drove the vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner. In fact, he drove the vehicle inside the shop of PW1 Sohan Lal. Unfortunately, one of the workers died on the spot and another sustained injuries. 22. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the sentence which has been reduced by the appellate court in appeal also does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this criminal revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 23. The criminal revision is dismissed in limine. 24. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to the court concerned.