Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 310 (UTT)

Ram Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-05-06

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. The challenge in this revision is made to the following: (I) Judgment and order dated 20.04.2011, passed in Criminal Case No. 673 of 2008, State Vs. Ram Singh, by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section under Sections 279, 338, 304A IPC and sentenced as hereunder: (i) Under Section 279 IPC to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month with a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a period of 15 days. (ii) Under Section 338 IPC to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month with a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a period of 15 days. (iii) Under Section 304A IPC to undergo imprisonment for a period of nine months with a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. (II) Judgment and order dated 05.10.2012, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2011, Ram Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Almora (“the appeal). By it, the appeal has been partly allowed and the revisionist has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, but the conviction and sentence, as recorded in the case under Section 304A has been affirmed. 2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows: On 02.05.2008, at 9:30, an accident took place near Gol Market Dharanaula, Almora, in which, Kishan Arya got injured and subsequently, he died. Initially, on 03.05.2008, PW1 Govind Singh Bisht gave a report that a vehicle bearing Registration No. UP01-4423 was involved in the accident. Based on it, the FIR No. 357 of 2008 was lodged and investigation proceeded. Next day, i.e. on 04.05.2008, PW1 Govind Singh Bisht gave another report to the Police that, in fact, the accident took place with the Alto Car No. UA01-6735. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist. The revisionist was read over the accusation. He did not accept the accusation. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, namely, PW1Govind Singh Bisht, PW2 Ramesh Nath Goswami, PW3 Dipesh Chandra Joshi, PW4 Ishwar Singh, PW5 Mohan Singh, PW6 Devidutt Pandey, PW7 Dr. Mukesh Joshi, PW8 Sub-Inspector, Jagat Singh, PW9 Kalyan Ram Maurya and PW10 Sunder Ram. 4. He did not accept the accusation. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, namely, PW1Govind Singh Bisht, PW2 Ramesh Nath Goswami, PW3 Dipesh Chandra Joshi, PW4 Ishwar Singh, PW5 Mohan Singh, PW6 Devidutt Pandey, PW7 Dr. Mukesh Joshi, PW8 Sub-Inspector, Jagat Singh, PW9 Kalyan Ram Maurya and PW10 Sunder Ram. 4. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, he is innocent. He did not commit any accident. 5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and orders passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. He unsuccessfully challenged the appeal though the conviction has been confined to Section 304A IPC. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that it is a no evidence case. No witness has stated that it is the revisionist, who committed the offence. 8. Learned State counsel would submit that the owner of the vehicle PW4 Ishwar Singh has stated that his vehicle was involved in the accident. 9. It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and orders. Appreciation of evidence is beyond the scope of revision. Evidence may only be examined if the irrelevant material is considered or relevant material is not considered or the finding is perverse i.e. against the weight of evidence. 10. PW1 Govind Singh Bisht is the person, who lodged FIR Ex. A1, in which he initially recorded that the accident took place with the vehicle bearing Registration No. UP01-4423. But next date, this witness gave another report recording therein that vehicle bearing Registration No. UA01-6735 was involved in the accident. This witness has proved both these reports Ex. A1 and A2. In his cross examination, he has demolished his version of examination in chief. He stated that he does not know anything about the accident. Merely on asking of the police, he signed the documents. In any situation, he is not eyewitness. 11. PW2 Ramesh Nath Goswami is a kind of eyewitness. He tells that the vehicle bearing Registration No. UA01-6735 hit the deceased Kishan Lal due to which he sustained injuries. He stated that he does not know anything about the accident. Merely on asking of the police, he signed the documents. In any situation, he is not eyewitness. 11. PW2 Ramesh Nath Goswami is a kind of eyewitness. He tells that the vehicle bearing Registration No. UA01-6735 hit the deceased Kishan Lal due to which he sustained injuries. In his cross examination, he categorically stated that he did not see the number and the driver of the car. In any case, if it is accepted that PW2 Ramesh Nath Goswami has seen the vehicle hitting the deceased, he has neither seen the driver nor the vehicle number. 12. PW3 Dipesh Chandra Joshi is the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. UP01-4423. 13. PW4 Ishwar Singh, is owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. UA01-6735, this is what he has stated. He has proved Ex. A3. It records that he is owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. UA01-6735. He has also not stated that the revisionist did commit any offence with the vehicle. He admits that the police called him at the police station and got the report lodged from him. 14. PW5 Mohan Singh and PW6 Devidutt Pandey took the deceased to the hospital. 15. PW7 Dr. Mukesh Joshi conducted post mortem of the deceased and proved his report. 16. PW8 Sub Inspector, Jagat Singh inspected the vehicle UA01-6735. He proved his report Ex. A4. 17. PW9 Sub-Inspector, Kalyan Ram Maurya, who conducted investigation. He proved the documents. 18. PW10 Sunder Ram is a witness of the inquest. He proved the inquest report Ex. A10. 19. It is no evidence case. PW1 Govind Singh Bisht has given number of two vehicles on two consecutive days, which were allegedly involved in the accident. Ex.A2 is proved by the PW1 Govind Singh Bisht, in which he named the vehicle bearing Registration No. UA01-6735 as the vehicle involved in the accident. In his cross examination, he has stated that he has not seen anything. The police got the documents signed by him. There is another witness PW2 Ramesh Nath Goswami. He also tells in his cross examination that he did not see the vehicle number of the vehicle involved in the accident. If it is so, how could this witness tell the vehicle number? The police got the documents signed by him. There is another witness PW2 Ramesh Nath Goswami. He also tells in his cross examination that he did not see the vehicle number of the vehicle involved in the accident. If it is so, how could this witness tell the vehicle number? PW4 Ishwar Singh simply says that on the date of accident, his vehicle bearing Registration No. UA01-6735 was being driven by the applicant. Has he committed the offence at the relevant point of time? There is no evidence. In the instant case, the finding is recorded without any evidence. It is not a case of appreciation of evidence. The finding is not based on any evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the view the impugned judgment and orders are bad in eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and orders deserve to be set aside and the revision allowed. 20. The revision is allowed, accordingly. 21. Impugned judgment and orders dated 20.01.2011 and 05.10.2012 are set aside. 22. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 304A IPC. 23. Let the copy of this judgment alongwith record be forwarded to the court below for compliance.