Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 656 (UTT)

Jagdish Chand v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-11-13

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 28.02.2022, passed in Criminal Case No.586 of 2019, State vs. Jagdish Chand, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tanakpur, District Champawat (“the case”), by which, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC and has been sentenced as follows:- (i) Under Section 279 IPC - to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month. (ii) Under Section 337 IPC - to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month. (iii) Under Section 338 IPC - to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month. (iv) Under Section 427 IPC - to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month. 2. The challenge is also made to the judgment and order dated 13.06.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2022, Jagdish Chandra v. State, by the Sessions Judge, Champawat, District Champawat (“the appeal”), by which, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order passed in the case has been affirmed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The case is based on an FIR, lodged by PW1 Dinesh Kumar, according to which on 11.03.2019 at 10:45 in the morning, the applicant while driving Tractor No.UK03CA 1352 (“the tractor”) hit the Tuktuk (“e-rickshaw”) driven by PW2 Pappu, due to which, many passengers of e-rickshaw sustained injuries. Based on this FIR, Case Crime No.32 of 2019, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC was registered against the revisionist at Police Station Tanakpur, District Champawat. Investigation was carried out and the Investigating Officer, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the revisionist under 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC, which is the basis of the case. The revisionist was read over the accusation against him, to which, he denied and claimed trial. 5. Investigation was carried out and the Investigating Officer, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the revisionist under 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC, which is the basis of the case. The revisionist was read over the accusation against him, to which, he denied and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in as many as eleven witnesses namely, PW1 Dinesh Kumar, PW2 Pappu, PW3 Rajendra Prasad Joshi, PW4 Heera Ballabh Joshi, PW5 Nanhe Lal, PW6 Parwati Devi, PW7 Dr. Aaftab Alam, Medical Officer, PW8 Dr. Akram Mansuri, Dentist, PW9 HCMT Devi Dutt Joshi, who inspected the accidental vehicle, PW10 Retired SI Kedar Dutt, Investigating Officer and PW11 Lady Constable 34 C.P. Bindeshwari Rana. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, he has been falsely implicated. 6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. The conviction and sentence, as passed in the case has been confirmed in the appeal. 7. In the instant case, PW1 Dinesh Kumar is the informant. PW2 Pappu is the driver of the e-rickshaw, who has stated that on the date of incident the tractor hit his vehicle from front side, due to which, he and other passengers sustained injuries. PW3 Rajendra Prasad, PW4 Heera Ballabh, and PW6 Parwati Devi were passengers of the vehicle. They have also stated that about the accident. According to PW3 Rajendra Singh Bisht, the e-rickshaw was hit by the back side of the trolley of the tractor. PW5 Nanhe Lal, is an eye-witness of the incident. 8. PW7 Dr. Aftab Alam has examined the injured. He has proved his reports. PW8 Dr. Akram Mansuri is a Dentist. He has also stated about the treatment given to the injured. PW9 is HCMT Devi Dutt Joshi. He had inspected the vehicle involved in the accident. PW10 SI Kedar Nath is the Investigating Officer. According to him, he conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. He has stated about the steps taken during investigation. PW11 Lady Constable Bindeshwari Rana lodged the FIR in the instant case. 9. After his examination under Section 313 of the Code, the revisionist also produced a defence witness DW1 Harish Chand. He has stated that the e-rickshaw did hit the tractor from behind. 10. He has stated about the steps taken during investigation. PW11 Lady Constable Bindeshwari Rana lodged the FIR in the instant case. 9. After his examination under Section 313 of the Code, the revisionist also produced a defence witness DW1 Harish Chand. He has stated that the e-rickshaw did hit the tractor from behind. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the road was much narrow at the place of incident; the revisionist was not so negligent; the e-rickshaw was not hit by the tractor from front side, instead the e-rickshaw did hit the trolley of the tractor. He would submit that the revisionist is in jail since 19.07.2024. He has been in jail almost for four months. Therefore, now the sentence may be reduced to the period which the revisionist has already undergone. 11. Instant revision has been admitted on the question of examining the part of sentence only. 12. Learned State counsel was required to get instructions with regard to the criminal antecedents of the revisionist. Learned State counsel could not reveal any criminal antecedents of the revisionist. 13. Having considered the nature of offence, the manner in which the accident took place, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be better served if the revisionist is sentenced for simple imprisonment for the period, which the revisionist has already undergone. 14. The conviction of the revisionist under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC is upheld. The imposition of fine shall remain unaltered. 15. The sentence of imprisonment is modified as follows:- (i) Under Section 279 IPC - to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. (ii) Under Section 337 IPC - to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. (iii) Under Section 338 IPC - to undergo simple imprisonment for a period which the revisionist has already undergone. (iv) Under Section 427 IPC - to undergo simple imprisonment for a period which the revisionist has already undergone. 16. The revision is partly allowed accordingly. 17. The judgment and orders passed in the case as well as in the appeal stands modified to the extent as indicated above. 18. The revisionist is in jail. Let him be set free forthwith, unless wanted in any other case. 19. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with lower court record be forwarded to the court concerned.