Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 474 (UTT)

Rohit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-07-09

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : The challenge in this revision is made to the following:- (1) Judgment and order dated 30.09.2023, passed in Criminal Case No. 125 of 2023 (Old Criminal Case No.144 of 2019), State vs. Shri Ritesh Verma, by the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 279, 338, 304A IPC and sentenced as hereunder:- (i) Under Section 279 IPC- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. (ii) Under Section 338 IPC- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. (iii) Under Section 304A IPC- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. (2) Judgment and order dated 20.02.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2023, Rohit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh (“the appeal”). By it, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order passed in the case affirmed." 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The case is based on an FIR lodged by PW1 Devraj Singh. According to it, on 08.11.2018, his sister Neha Mehta along with her two children were coming from a vehicle bearing no.UK 05 TA 1077 (“the vehicle”), which was driven by the revisionist. The revisionist was driving the vehicle in a high speed, and negligently due to which the revisionist lost control over the vehicle & it toppled over. The revisionist managed to escape from the place of incident. The deceased Neha Mehta succumbed to the injuries and other persons sustained injuries. Based on this report an FIR No.114 of 2018, under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC was lodged at P.S. Kotwali, Pithoragarh. The inquest of deceased Neha Mehta was prepared and post-mortem conducted. The medical examination of other injured was also done. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan of the place of incident; the vehicle was examined technically and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist. It is basis of the case. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely, PW1 Devraj Singh, PW2 Tanuj Mehta, PW3 Km. Sakshi Mehta, PW4 Dr. Hari Shankar Kaushik, PW5 Harish Joshi, PW6 SI M.T. Shyam Dutt Kandpal, PW7 SI Akshu Rani, PW8 Dr. Lavi Punetha, PW9 SI Vikas Kumar and PW10 Vikram Singh. 5. It is basis of the case. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely, PW1 Devraj Singh, PW2 Tanuj Mehta, PW3 Km. Sakshi Mehta, PW4 Dr. Hari Shankar Kaushik, PW5 Harish Joshi, PW6 SI M.T. Shyam Dutt Kandpal, PW7 SI Akshu Rani, PW8 Dr. Lavi Punetha, PW9 SI Vikas Kumar and PW10 Vikram Singh. 5. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). According to him, the accident occurred due to failure of break; he was not negligent. The revisionist also examined DW1 Pooran Singh in his defence. 6. By the impugned judgment and order, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the court below has wrongly assumed that had the breaks been failed, the vehicle would have hit the hills and would not have toppled over the other side. 8. PW1 Devraj Singh is the informant in the FIR. PW2 Tanuj Mehta and PW3 Km. Sakshi Mehta respectively, both were passengers in the vehicle. The vehicle met with an accident. They have stated that on the date of incident, they sat on the vehicle, the driver started moving the vehicle very fast. PW3 Km. Sakshi Mehta asked the driver to slow down his vehicle, but he did not take care of that advice and he drove the vehicle very fast, due to which, the accident took place in which PW2 Tanuj Mehta sustained injuries and PW3 Km. Sakshi Mehta also sustained injuries. His real mother had expired. 9. PW4 Dr. Hari Shankar Kaushik conducted the postmortem of deceased Neha Mehta, he has proved his report. According to him, the death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock. 10. PW5 Harish Joshi is the writer of the FIR. PW6 SI M.T. Shyam Dutt Kandpal examined the vehicle. He found that the breaks were not in good conditions. PW7 SI Akshu Rani is the witness of inquest of deceased Neha Mehta. PW8 Dr. Lavi Punetha was examined on 18.11.2018 and he proved the injury reports. PW9 SI Vikas Kumar is the Investigating Officer. He has stated about the steps taken in the investigation and proved the charge-sheet. PW10 Vikram Singh is the owner of the vehicle. He has told the police that at the time of accident, his son (the revisionist) was driving the vehicle. 11. PW9 SI Vikas Kumar is the Investigating Officer. He has stated about the steps taken in the investigation and proved the charge-sheet. PW10 Vikram Singh is the owner of the vehicle. He has told the police that at the time of accident, his son (the revisionist) was driving the vehicle. 11. On behalf of the revisionist, DW1 Pooran Singh was examined. He has stated that he was also on the offending vehicle at the time of accident and he told that the vehicle’s break had failed, due to which, the accident took place. 12. It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of impugned judgment and order. In the revision, evidence may not be appreciated, unless admissible evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered or the finding is perverse i.e. against the weight of evidence. 13. The trial court has found that in the accident Neha Mehta died and PW2 Tanuj Mehta and PW3 Km. Sakshi Mehta sustained injuries. In para 17 of the impugned judgment of the trial court, the court has formulated the question as to whether the revisionist was driving the vehicle very fast and negligently? 14. There are two eye-witnesses, namely, PW2 Tanuj Mehta and PW3 Km. Sakhsi Mehta. The court below did not believe the statement of DW1 Pooran Singh after proper appreciation of the fact. 15. The court below has also noticed that had the break been failed, the vehicle would have hit the hills and it would not have toppled over the other side. Is it an assumption? The site plan is also on record. The vehicle was moving in the South-North direction adjoining the hill side (on left side is the hill). The road was straight. But, suddenly as per the site plan, the vehicle moved in the right side & and met with the accident. This is not an assumption. If the vehicle was moving straight after failure of the break, the vehicle would have not met with an accident as has been done in the instant matter. Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below has wrongly assumed or wrongly interpreted the factual aspect of the matter. The finding recorded by the trial court is in accordance with law. The prosecution has, in fact, been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below has wrongly assumed or wrongly interpreted the factual aspect of the matter. The finding recorded by the trial court is in accordance with law. The prosecution has, in fact, been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference in so far as the conviction of the revisionist is concerned. 16. In the instant case, the revisionist has been awarded highest sentence as provided under Section 304A and 338 IPC. 17. An argument has been made that the sentence is excessive. What is the case is that the revisionist was driving the vehicle in a high speed, negligently and he did not slow down the speed despite having been told to slow down the speed, due to which, the vehicle met with an accident. 18. Having considered the factual aspect of the matter and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that the sentence may be modified as follows:- (i) Under Section 279 IPC- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. (ii) Under Section 338 IPC- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months. (iii) Under Section 304A IPC- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months. 19. The conviction of the revisionist under Sections 279, 304A and 338 is upheld. 20. The sentence is modified as indicated above. 21. The revision is decided accordingly.