Raj Kumar Deval vs State Of Uttarakhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 2664 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Raj Kumar Deval vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 November, 2024

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

           Criminal Revision No.515 of 2024
Raj Kumar Deval                           ...........Revisionist

                             Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                     ......... Respondent

Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi and Ms. Chetna Latwal, Advocates for the
revisionist.
Mr. Vipul Painuli, Brief Holder for the State.



                         JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The revisionist has been convicted on

09.02.2023, under Section 279, 304-A IPC in Criminal

Case No.38 of 2022, State vs. Raj Kumar Deval, by the

court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, Tanakpur,

District Champawat ("the case"). He has been sentenced

to undergo:-

i. Under Section 279 IPC - Simple

imprisonment for a period of three

months with a fine of `500/-. In

default of payment of fine, to further

undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of fifteen days; and

ii. Under Section 304A IPC - Rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year

with a fine of `2,000/-. In default of

payment of fine, to further undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of

one month.

2. The judgment and order dated 09.02.2023

was upheld on 29.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.03 of

2023, Raj Kumar Deval vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the

court of Sessions Judge, Champawat ("the appeal"). Both

the judgment and orders are impugned herein.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4. On 10.11.2021, at 03:00 in the afternoon,

the deceased Sumangal Haldar was riding on motorcycle

bearing Registration No.UK06AX 2402. He was returning

to his home. On the way, he was hit by a Tuktuk ("e-

rickshaw"), due to which Sumangal Haldar sustained

injuries. He was taken to hospital where he died on

11.11.2021 at 07:00 in the morning. Report was lodged

by PW1, the wife of the deceased. Investigation was

carried out, the vehicle involved in the accident was

technically inspected, site plan prepared. After

investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the

revisionist for the offences under Sections 279 and

304-A IPC, which is the basis of the case.

5. The revisionist was read over the

accusation. At that stage, the revisionist revealed that he

did not drive the e-rickshaw with negligence.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution

examined as many as eleven witnesses namely, PW1

Vichitra Haldar, PW2 Sapan Heera, PW3 Sukhlal, PW4

Shyamal Mandal, PW5 Manoj Bala, PW6 Lalita, PW7

Suresh Chandra Pandey, PW8 Dr. Sahil Khurana, PW9

Kashiram, PW10 SI Ravindra Singh and PW11 SI Laxman

Singh Jagwan. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist

was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. At that stage, the revisionist has stated

that the witnesses have wrongly stated against him.

According to the revisionist, he had parked his e-

rickshaw; he had gone to buy some goods, in the

meanwhile, the motorcycle hit his e-rickshaw. The

revisionist also examined DW1 Sanjay Srivastava in his

defence.

7. After hearing the parties, by the impugned

judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist

has been convicted and sentenced, as stated

hereinbefore, which was unsuccessfully challenged in

the appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the revisionist was not moving the

e-rickshaw; he had parked the e-rickshaw and gone to

get some articles, in the meanwhile, the motorcycle hit

the e-rickshaw; e-rickshaw did not hit the motorcycle. It

is argued that the technical inspection report confirmed

it.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that had the e-rickshaw hit the motorcycle, there

would have been great damage on the e-rickshaw, which

is not the case. It is also argued that the revisionist is in

custody since 10.07.2024; he is 54 years of age and sole

breadwinner in the family.

10. Learned State counsel would submit that

the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt. No interference is warranted.

11. PW1 Vichitra Haldar is the informant. She

did not witness the accident. She is wife of the deceased.

She lodged the FIR. PW2 Sapan Heera is eye-witness of

the incident. He was pillion rider of the motorcycle,

which was being driven by the deceased Sumangal

Haldar on the date of incident. He has categorically

stated that at the time of incident, they were moving on

the main road, when suddenly an e-rickshaw came from

a 'Gali' and hit their motorcycle. According to this

witness, his left hand was also fractured and the

deceased Sumangal Haldar sustained many injuries. He

subsequently died.

12. PW3 Sukhlal, PW4 Shyam Lal Mandal,

PW5 Manoj Bala, are witnesses of inquest, PW6 Lalita,

wrote the chik FIR, PW7 Suresh Chandra Pandey,

technically inspected the vehicles involved in the

accident; he has proved those reports; the Technical

Inspection Report of e-rickshaw is Ex.P3. It notes that

there were some dent and scratch on the front right side

of the vehicle. The technical inspection report of the

motorcycle is Ex.P4.

13. PW8 Dr. Sahil Khurana conducted post-

mortem of the dead body of the deceased Sumangal; he

proved his report, PW9 Kashiram did not support the

prosecution case. He has been declared hostile. PW10 SI

Ravindra Singh prepared inquest. He has stated about

the action taken by him and PW11 SI Laxman Singh

Jagwan conducted investigation in the matter.

14. DW1 Sanjay Srivastava has stated that on

the date of incident the e-rickshaw of the revisionist was

stationary when the motorcycle hit it.

15. It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted

to the extent of examining the legality, correctness and

propriety of the impugned judgment and orders.

Appreciation of evidence is not generally done until and

unless the finding is perverse; inadmissible material is

considered; legally admissible material is not considered.

16. PW2 Sapan Heera is an eye-witness of the

incident, who was also injured in the accident. He has

categorically stated, as to how the accident took place.

The site plan which is Annexure P12 supports it.

According to DW1 the revisionist had parked his e-

rickshaw, but the site plan P12 does not support it. The

accident took place at the mid of the road. The trial

court has extensively considered and examined the

evidence and concluded that the prosecution has been

able to prove the charge under Section 279 and 304-A

IPC against the revisionist. The finding does not require

any interference. It is in accordance with law. Therefore,

this Court is of the view that in so far as the conviction

of the revisionist under Section 279 and 304-A IPC is

concerned, it does not require any interference.

17. On the question of sentence, it is argued

that the revisionist is the sole bread winner in the family

and 54 years of age and he is in custody since

10.07.2024.

18. 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 under Section 279

IPC for simple imprisonment for a period of three

months and under Section 304A IPC for the period,

which the revisionist has already undergone.

19. The conviction of the revisionist under

Sections 279 & 304 IPC is upheld. The imposition of fine

shall remain unaltered.

20. The sentence of imprisonment is modified

as follows:-

(i) Under Section 279 IPC - to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(ii) Under Section 304A IPC - to undergo simple imprisonment for a period which the revisionist has already undergone.

21. The revision is partly allowed accordingly.

22. The judgment and orders passed in the

case as well as in the appeal stands modified to the

extent as indicated above.

23. The revisionist is in jail. Let him be set free

forthwith, unless wanted in any other case.

24. Let a copy of this judgment and order along

with lower court record be forwarded to the court

concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.11.2024 Sanjay

SANJAY

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bb d504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe,

KANOJIA postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255D D8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE 40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2024.11.21 11:12:58 +05'30'