Uttarakhand High Court
Sh. Rahees Ahmad vs State Of Uttarakhand on 7 January, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 762 of 2024
Sh. Rahees Ahmad .....Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant revision has been preferred against the
following:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 09.10.2019,
passed in Criminal Case No. 12347 of 2013,
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Rahees Ahmed, by
the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge
(Junior Division) Rudrapur, Udham Singh
Nagar ("the Case"). By it, the revisionist has
been convicted under Section 279, 304A IPC
and sentenced as hereunder:-
(a) Under Section 279 IPC: to undergo
`simple imprisonment for a period of two
months with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In
default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a further period
of 15 days.
(b) Under Section 304A IPC: to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two
years with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In
default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a further period
of two months.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 11.09.2024,
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2019,
Raees Ahmed Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by
the Court of 2nd Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham
Singh Nagar ("the appeal"). By the order
passed in the case has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. The case is based on an FIR lodged by PW1
Amarjeet. According to which, on 20.02.2011, his son
Samardeep was going on a motorcycle bearing Registration
No. UA-06-H-7703. When he reach at Jhagjhor Farm at
11:30 a.m. on Rudrapur-Kichha motor road, a truck bearing
Registration No. UP-053T-4829 hit him from behind, due to
which, he died at the spot. It is this FIR, in which, after
investigation, charge sheet was submitted the revisionist. The
revisionist was read over the accusation, to which he denied.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined
nine witnesses, namely, PW1 Amarjeet, PW2 Ramesh Arora,
PW3 Upkar Singh, PW4 SI Sushma, PW5 SIMT R.D. Bhatta,
PW6 Dr. P.C. Pant, PW7 Anwar Hussain, PW8 SI Dinesh
Nath and PW9 Ramesh.
5. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to it, the
revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case. The
revisionist examined DW1 Rafiq Ahmed in his defence.
6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned
judgment and orders passed in the case, the revisionist has
been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore, which
has been unsuccessfully challenged in appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the revisionist was never identified that it is he, who was
driving the truck at the relevant time. Therefore, the
judgment and order is bad in the eyes of law.
8. Learned State counsel would submit that during
investigation, PW7 Anwar Hussain has stated that he is
owner of the truck. On the date of incident, the revisionist
was driving the truck and he has given in writing also. But he
would fairly admit that during trial PW7 Anwar Hussain has
not stated that the revisionist was driving the truck on the
date of incident.
9. In the instant case, PW1 Amarjeet is the person,
who has lodged the FIR. He has proved the FIR. PW2
Ramesh Arora, is an eyewitness. According to him, on the
date of incident, the truck hit the motorcycle from behind,
due to which the motorcycle rider died on the spot. According
to this witness, he has located the number of the truck. PW3
Upkar Singh is the witness of inquest, PW4 Sushma has
initiated the investigation in the matter. PW5 R.D. Bhatt has
inspected the truck. PW6 Dr. P.C. Pant has conducted post
mortem of the deceased. PW7 Anwar Hussain is owner of the
truck. According to him, the police had taken his signature
on a blank paper. He has categorically stated that his truck
was not involved in the accident. He has become hostile. PW8
S.I. Dinesh Nath is the Investigating Officer and PW9 Ramesh
was cross examined on 01.03.2019, but his examination-in-
chief was not recorded. In his defence, the revisionist
examined DW1 Rafiq Ahmed. According to him, the
revisionist has told him that he has been implicated in the
false case of accident.
10. Learned counsel for revisionist as well as for the
State would submit that the examination-in-chief of PW9,
Ramesh, was never recorded.
11. The trial court's record is before the Court. In the
ordersheet dated 28.02.2019, it is noted that evidence of
PW9, Ramesh, was recorded on 28.02.2019, and his cross-
examination was deferred on 01.03.2019, but the
examination-in-chief of PW9, Ramesh, is not on record. In
fact, in the index of the case, at Serial No.35, statement of
PW8, SI Dinesh Nath, is shown to have been recorded on
08.02.2018, and, thereafter, straightway, statement of PW9,
Ramesh, is shown to have been recorded at Serial No.36 on
01.03.2019, which means either the examination-in-chief of
PW9, Ramesh, was never recorded, or if recorded, it was
never kept on record. For this reason, the disposal of this
revision may not be affected.
12. It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the
extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of
the impugned judgment and order. Appreciation of evidence
is not done generally in such cases, unless the finding is
perverse or admissible evidence is ignored or inadmissible
evidence is taken into consideration.
13. In the instant case, insofar as the factum of
accident on 20.02.2011 is concerned, it stands proved that in
a road accident, Samardeep died on that date. But the
question is as to whether the truck was involved in the case
and more particularly, the revisionist was driving the truck
on the date of incident? On this aspect, in fact, there is no
evidence on record that it is the revisionist, who was driving
the truck on the date of incident. Even learned State Counsel
could not indicate one piece of evidence to suggest that the
revisionist was involved in the accident.
14. Therefore, the conviction of the revisionist under
Sections 279 and 304A IPC is bad in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned judgment and
orders, the revisionist is is liable to be acquitted of the charge
under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC.
15. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.
16. The impugned judgements and orders are set
aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under
Sections 279 and 304 A IPC.
17. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court
Record be transmitted to the Court below for compliance.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
07.01.2025
Kaushal/Ravi Bisht
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
RAVI BISHT 2.5.4.20=ded921477e34a304cbcb0b52d4a59f37e6d2018d3
8d0b669a5c068799391e6bb, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AA64B1F44E60E652AE5485ED764961E4E52F
D29C6F03C20917020ED093405536, cn=RAVI BISHT
Date: 2025.01.07 20:59:49 +05'30'
