Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 264 (UTT)

Akeel v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-04-22

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:- (i) Judgment and order dated 27.09.2013, passed in Criminal Case No.1208 of 2013, State vs. Akeel, by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate Haldwani, District Nainital (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 279, 304-A, 427 IPC; and sentenced as follows:- (a) Under Section 279 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month with a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two days. (b) Under Section 304-A IPC, to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. (c) Under Section 427 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days and (ii) The judgment and order dated 13.05.2015, passed in Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2013, Akeel vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital (“the appeal”). By which, the judgment and order dated 27.09.2013, passed in the case has been upheld. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows: On 02.01.2006, Deepak Bhatt along with his niece Hema Sagudi was riding on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. UA04B 4318 when at about 09:45 AM, he was hit by a Dumper bearing Registration No.UP02 2799 (“the vehicle”). The dumper was being driven negligently in a very fast speed. Hema Sagudi died on the spot, whereas, Deepak Bhatt was declared brought dead in the hospital. The FIR records that the incident was seen by the informant and one Anil Bisht and others. The report of the incident was given on the same date at 12:30 in the afternoon, which is basis of the case. 4. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan, got the vehicle technically inspected, post mortem of the dead body was conducted and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC. 5. On 03.10.2008, the accusation was read over to the revisionist. 4. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan, got the vehicle technically inspected, post mortem of the dead body was conducted and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC. 5. On 03.10.2008, the accusation was read over to the revisionist. In answer to question no.1, he categorically stated that he was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time. According to him, he has been falsely implicated. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses namely, PW1 Pankaj Chufal, PW2 Deepak Bhatt, PW3 Gopal Dutt Pathak, PW4 Tilak Ram Verma and PW5 Harish Bhatt. 7. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). He has categorically stated that he did not hit the motorcycle and he has been falsely prosecuted. 8. After hearing the parties by the impugned order dated 27.09.2013, passed in the case. The revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. This Court may like to observe at this stage only that the judgment of the trial court is much cryptic. It, in fact, does not discuss anything. The conviction was unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that it is no evidence case in so far as the revisionist is concerned. He would submit that the witnesses have stated about an accident that took place on 02.01.2006, but he would submit that there is no evidence that the revisionist, in any manner is involved in driving the vehicle. 10. Learned State counsel would submit that the vehicle owner has got the vehicle released and has then stated that it is the revisionist, who was driving the vehicle. 11. The Court wanted to know from learned State counsel, as to what is the evidence to the effect that the revisionist was driving the vehicle? He has no answer to it. 12. PW1 Pankaj Chufal has stated about the incident. According to him, on 02.01.2006 at 09:45 in the morning, he saw that Deepak Bhatt, who was riding on the motorcycle with his niece was hit by a dumper, due to which, both the riders of the motorcycle were injured. He would submit that the driver of the vehicle alighted from the vehicle and ran away. When this witness was examined, the revisionist was not present in the court. He would submit that the driver of the vehicle alighted from the vehicle and ran away. When this witness was examined, the revisionist was not present in the court. This witness has claimed that he can identify the driver of the vehicle. In cross-examination, at page 3, in second paragraph, he has stated that he was never called for test identification. This witness has not named the revisionist as the person, who was driving the vehicle at the time when the vehicle hits the motorcycle. 13. PW2 Deepak Bhatt has also corroborated the statement of PW1 in so far as the factum of accident is concerned. But, he has also named the revisionist and in first para of page 2 of his statement he tells that he does not know the name and address of the driver of the vehicle. This witness has also not stated that he ever identified the driver of the vehicle. 14. PW3 Gopal Dutt Pathak has technically inspected the vehicle involved in the accident. PW4, Tilak Ram Verma is the Investigating Officer, in fact, he is the third Investigating Officer. He prepared certain documents and proved charge-sheet. What is interesting to note is that in the last line of his cross-examination, he has stated that the witnesses Deepak Bhatt, Pankaj Chufal and Rajendra Singh Bisht did not reveal the name of the driver of the vehicle during investigation. This witness has not arrested the revisionist. PW5 Harish Bhatt is the informant. He did not see the incident. This is the entire evidence. It is an unfortunate incident in early hours of the day, two persons who were riding on a motorcycle were hit by the vehicle and they died. But, there was no evidence submitted by the prosecution, as to who was driving the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle has not been examined. If anything was given in writing by the owner that has not been proved. The revisionist was never identified or no Test Identification Parade was ever done. Not only this, even in the court room, the revisionist was not identified by any of the witnesses, as the person, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. These facts were not discussed by the trial court. On this issue, the court in appeal has observed that these are errors in the investigation, which shall not affect adversely the prosecution case. These facts were not discussed by the trial court. On this issue, the court in appeal has observed that these are errors in the investigation, which shall not affect adversely the prosecution case. In para 27 of the judgment in appeal, the court observed that when the witnesses were examined, the revisionist did not appear, which means he was concealing his presence from the witnesses. By such assumption, conviction cannot be recorded. If the revisionist was to be identified at trial, the prosecution could have sought adjournment insisting for the presence of the revisionist. 15. It is a revision. The scope is quite limited to the extent of examining the legality, correctness and propriety of an impugned judgment, decree or order. Evidence generally, is not evaluated in a revision unless the finding is perverse i.e. it is without any evidence or irrelevant material has been considered or relevant material has been ignored. 16. In the instant case, there is, in fact, no evidence against the revisionist that he was involved in the accident. No witness has stated against him that it is he, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time when the accident took place. He was not identified by any of the witnesses during trial, as there was no Test Identification Parade. The vehicle owner has not been examined. Any information given by the owner with regard to the driver has also not been proved. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the conviction of the revisionist under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC is based on no evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgments and orders are bad in the eyes of law. They deserve to be set aside. 17. In view of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the criminal revision deserves to be allowed. 18. The criminal revision is allowed. 19. The impugned judgments and orders are set aside. The revisionist is acquittal of the charge under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC. It is stated that, the revisionist is on bail. His bond stands cancelled and sureties are discharged of their liability.