Uttarakhand High Court
Jagdish Chand vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 November, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.542 of 2024
Jagdish Chand ...........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......... Respondent
Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate for the revisionist.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
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 `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 `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 `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 `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. 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. 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.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
13.11.2024
Sanjay
SANJAY
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd50
4686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe,
KANOJIA
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8
EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699
, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA
Date: 2024.11.14 17:56:38 +05'30'
