Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 634 (UTT)

Chanchal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-11-21

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Pankaj Purohit, J.) : This revision preferred under Sections 397 & 401 of the Cr.P.C. is directed assailing the judgment and order dated 30.08.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhikiyasain, District Almora in Criminal Case No.55 of 2009/2007, whereby the said court has, at the end of trial convicted and sentenced the revisionist as under:- S. No. Conviction Sentence Fine Sentence in-default of fine 1. 279 IPC Six months’ R.I. - - 2. 337 IPC Six months’ R.I. - - 3. 338 IPC Two years’ R.I. Rs.2,000/- Three months’ additional imprisonment 4. 304-A IPC Two years’ R.I. Rs.2,000/- Three months’ additional imprisonment 2. Assailing the said judgment, revisionist preferred an appeal, which was decided by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District Almora being Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2010. The appellate court vide judgment dated 20.07.2013 although affirmed the conviction of the revisionist under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC, however, the sentence imposed under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC for two years R.I. was reduced to one year R.I. in each sections. Remaining sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that on the basis of the application moved by the informant that on 20.10.2006, revisionist who was a driver in Bus No. U.P. 01-5059 was driving the said bus from Sarai Khet to Ramnagar. The informant boarded for the said bus, which was having 20-22 passengers. The driver of the bus in order to pick the passengers drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, due to which, the bus fell down from the road resulting the death of three persons, besides causing the injuries to 17 to 18 persons. The injured persons were taken to the hospital by local people and police. The injured also sustained injuries in the said incident. On the said application, the case was registered. The statements of witnesses and site plan were prepared and the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-revisionist under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A IPC in the court on which the cognizance was taken by the court on 13.11.2017. The injured also sustained injuries in the said incident. On the said application, the case was registered. The statements of witnesses and site plan were prepared and the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-revisionist under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A IPC in the court on which the cognizance was taken by the court on 13.11.2017. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses, namely, PW1 Dev Singh (injured), PW2 Heera Singh (injured), PW3 Arjun Singh (injured), PW4 Prakash Chandra (injured), PW5 Paan Dev (injured), PW6 Triloki Devi (injured), PW7 Mala Singh (injured), PW8 Keshar Singh (post-mortem witness), PW9 Dayakrishan (post-mortem witness), PW10 Mohan Singh Rawat (injured), PW11 Kaanti Ballabh (injured), PW12 Dr. Jagdish Narayan (informant) and PW13 Smt. Mahadevi (injured). 4. Thereafter, the statement of revisionist was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which denied the allegations levelled against him. However, he did not adduce the evidence in his defence, accordingly, the trial court convicted and sentenced the revisionist, as mentioned, in para 1 of the judgment. 5. The accused preferred the appeal and the appellate court affirmed the conviction of the revisionist, however, reduced the sentence of the revisionist to the extent of one year R.I. instead of two years R.I. Challenging those judgments, present revision has been filed before this Court. 6. Heard Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. K.S. Rawal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist took this Court to the evidence recorded by the trial court during the trial but in revisional jurisdiction, since it is not available to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence which has been concurrently relied upon by the courts below, this Court asked learned counsel for the revisionist to point out the perversity in the judgment and order under revision which would enjoin this Court to enter into the merits of the case. But, learned counsel could not point out any such perversity in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court which could entail this Court to examine the evidence recorded during the trial. In this situation, there is no scope for interference with the judgment and orders impugned in this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist fairly conceded before the Court that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the revisionist. In this situation, there is no scope for interference with the judgment and orders impugned in this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist fairly conceded before the Court that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the revisionist. According to him, the judgment is passed on the basis of facts and evidence produced by the prosecution. He, however, requested that a lenient view may be taken in the matter in view of the fact that the matter relates to the year 2006. The revisionist is an old person having certain ailments. He requested that the sentence awarded to the revisionist of one year R.I. may be reduced to the extent of sentence undergone by him. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal revision is party allowed. The conviction part of the revisionist as awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court qua the revisionist is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence part, as awarded by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is further altered/modified to the following extent:- S.No. Conviction Sentence Fine 1. 279 IPC Already undergone Rs.1,000/- 2. 337 IPC Already undergone Rs.500/- 3. 338 IPC Already undergone Rs.1,000/- 4. 304-A IPC Already undergone Rs.20,000/- 10. In default of payment of fine imposed as above, the revisionist shall have to undergo the sentence awarded by the learned trial court as affirmed and modified by learned appellate court. 11. The revisionist is on bail. He need not to surrender and his sureties stand discharged, provided he deposits the fine imposed by this Court. 12. Let the LCR be sent back to learned trial court.