Uttarakhand High Court
Ram Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 May, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 205 of 2012
Ram Singh .....Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Reituparna Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist.
Ms. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
following:-
(i) Judgement 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 and;
(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. 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 judgement 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. 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?
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 judgement alongwith
record be forwarded to the court below for compliance.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
06.05.2024
Jitendra
