Uttarakhand High Court
7 August vs State Of Uttarakhand on 7 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6914
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 490 of 2025
07 August, 2025
Inqalab Alam --Revisionist
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for State of
Uttarakhand/respondent.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present criminal revision, the
revisionist has put to challenge the judgment and order
dated 20.02.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Champawat, in Criminal Case No.836 of 2020
State Vs. Inqalab, whereby, the respondent was convicted
and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment
with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC; one year's
simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- under
Section 304A IPC and one month's simple imprisonment
with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 427 IPC; with
default stipulation of fine of total Rs.26,000/- six months'
additional simple imprisonment and all the sentences
were directed to run concurrently; as well as the
impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2025 passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Champawat in Criminal
Appeal No.09 of 2025 Inqalab Alam Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, whereby, the appeal filed by the revisionist
was dismissed and the judgment and order of his
conviction and sentence was affirmed.
2025:UHC:6914
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits
that at the time of incident, deceased-Lalmani Joshi was
riding in a motorcycle with PW-3-Ganesh Dutt and PW-3
was driving the motorcycle, who did not have the driving
license and was learning to ride motorcycle. He further
submits that there is no fault on the part of the
revisionist and the accident resulting in the death of
deceased was not caused by the revisionist's rash and
negligent driving, but was a sudden accidental incident
beyond the control of the revisionist.
3. It is further contended by him that there is no
evidence to show that the revisionist was responsible for
the accident or that his rash or negligent act caused the
death of the deceased. PW-1 Naveen Chandra Joshi and
PW-3 Ganesh Dutt are highly interested witness, as they
are son and brother respectively, of the deceased and the
main eye witness Mr. Baldev Joshi was never examined
by the prosecution.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further
argued that the road, where the accident occurred, was
in a very bad condition and on the said road, the
construction work was also going on, thus, there, is no
fault on the part of revisionist. He further argued that
there was major contradiction in the statement of
witnesses, as per the statement of PW-1 Naveen Chandra
Joshi the site plan was prepared on 7th or 8th May, 2020,
whereas, as per the statement of PW-7 (I.O.), the site
plan was prepared on 18th May 2020.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
revisionist that the impugned judgments and orders
passed by learned Trial Court as well as by the learned
Appellate Court, are based on presumption, surmises
2025:UHC:6914
and conjectures, hence, are unsustainable. He also
submits that there is no previous criminal history in
credit of the revisionist and he has not convicted in any
crime by any Court of law, hence, he deserves the benefit
of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits
that there is no perversity in the impugned judgments
and orders passed by learned Trial Court as well as by
the learned Appellate Court while convicting and
sentencing the revisionist. Both the learned Courts have
rightly convicted and sentenced the revisionist after
appreciating the evidences of the witnesses.
7. I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the
judgments and orders impugned in the present criminal
revision. The reasoning given by the learned Trial Court
as well as by the learned Appellate Court while passing
the impugned judgments and orders, is quite convincing
and needs no interference. The learned Trial Court and
learned Appellate Court had passed an elaborate
judgment for recording the finding of conviction and this
Court does not want to reiterate the same for the sake of
repetition. The instant case is not one where any such
illegality was committed by the learned Courts. In the
absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or
in the conduct of the trial, there is no justification for
the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the revisionist could
not point out any perversity or any ground so as to
interfere with the well reasoned judgments passed by the
learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate
Court. Thus, this Court is of the view that no ground for
interference, at all, is made out in this matter, as there
2025:UHC:6914
is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgments
and orders.
8. In view of the above, the present criminal
revision is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed in-
limine.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.08.2025
PN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
PREETI NEGI
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c7
8b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE06449848
3A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.08.08 10:42:53 +05'30'
