Uttarakhand High Court
Rajat vs State Of Uttarakhand on 9 January, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 671 of 2024
Rajat .....Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal and Mr. Karmanya Pandey,
Advocates for the revisionist.
Mr. Siddharth Bisht and Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder
for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant revision has been preferred against the
following:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 13.05.2024,
passed in Criminal Case No. 179 of 2023
(Case Crime No.36 of 2022), State of
Uttarakhand Vs. Rajat, by the court of
Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag,
Rudraprayag (“the Case”). By it, the
revisionist has been convicted under Section
279, 304A, 337 and 427 IPC and sentenced
as hereunder:-
(a) Under Section 279 IPC: to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
months.
(b) Under Section 304A IPC: to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two years with a fine of Rs. 5000/-.
2
(c) Under Sectrion 337 IPC: to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
months.
(d) Under Section 427 IPC: to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
months.
In default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a further period of
two months.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 10.09.2024,
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2024,
Rajat Vs. State, by the Court of Sessions
Judge, Rudraprayag (“the appeal”). By it, the
judgment and order dated 13.02.2024,
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
Surendra Singh Bisht. According to it, on 26.09.2022, his
cousin Ravindra Singh, along with his wife, Smt. Sudama
Devi, was going to Agustyamuni on their scooty bearing
Registration No. UK-07BK 7351 (“the scooty”). 50 metres
ahead of Chandrapuri market, a vehicle coming from the side
of Chandrapuri, hit the scooty, due to which both the
occupants sustained serious injuries. They were taken to
3
hospital, where Ravindra Singh died. The FIR records that the
accident was caused by a vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-
51CE-2413 (“the vehicle”), which was being driven by its
driver in an inebriated condition. Based on this information,
Case Crime No. 36 of 2022, under Sections 279, 304-A, 337
and 427 IPC was lodged and investigation proceeded at Police
Station Agustyamuni, District Rudraprayag. During
investigation, the inquest and post-mortem of the deceased
was conducted and another injured was medically examined.
The Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan of the
place of incident. After investigation, chargesheet was
submitted against the revisionist under Sections 279, 304-A,
4. The revisionist was examined under Section 251 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). According
to him, his vehicle was not involved in the accident.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 13
witnesses, namely, PW1 Surendra Singh Bisht, PW2 Smt.
Sudama Devi, PW3 Km. Ruby, PW4 Vikas Singh, PW5
Sandeep Kumar, PW6 Arvind Negi, PW7 S.I.M.T. Naresh Lal,
PW8 Dr. Pankaj Sahu, PW9 Head Constable Birendra Singh,
PW10 SI Ajay Prakash Bhatt, PW11 S.I. Seema Chauhan,
PW12 Dr. Yamini Bhatt, PW13 Dr. Purohit Shah.
4
6. After the evidence of the prosecution, the
revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code. The
revisionist has admitted that he was driving the vehicle on
the date of incident, but he did not cause any accident.
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
has been unsuccessfully challenged in appeal. Hence the
revision.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges
against the revisionist; it has not been even proved by the
prosecution that the vehicle was involved in the accident; it
has further not been proved that the revisionist was driving
the vehicle and it has further not been proved that the vehicle
was being driven in rash and negligent manner.
9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would
submit that according to the Investigating Officer, the father
of the revisionist had got the vehicle released in his favour,
which means the revisionist was driving the vehicle at the
relevant time.
10. PW1, Surendra Singh Bisht, is not an eye witness.
According to him, he had received a telephonic call that on
26.09.2022, his brother had met with an accident.
5
Thereafter, he lodged a report. It is important to note that on
the one side, in the FIR, the vehicle number has been
recorded, which was allegedly involved in the accident, but
this witness has not stated about the registration number of
the vehicle. In Para 12 of his statement, this witness has
stated that he did not know the registration number of the
vehicle or his driver. The question that arises is if PW1,
Surendra Singh Bisht, was not aware about the registration
number of the vehicle involved in the accident, how could he
write the registration number of the vehicle in the FIR?
11. PW2, Smt. Sudama Devi, is the injured. She has
stated that on the date of incident, she along with her
husband was going towards Agustyamuni, when they met
with an accident. She sustained injuries, whereas, her
husband died. According to her, the vehicle which hit them
was bearing a Haryana registration number, but she has not
identified the revisionist in the court. She has not stated
about the registration number of the vehicle.
12. PW3, Km. Ruby, is not an eye witness. She has
also not stated about the registration number of the vehicle
or the driver involved in the accident.
13. PW4, Vikas Singh, is a witness of the inquest. He
has stated about it.
6
14. PW5, Sandeep Kumar, has stated that after the
incident, he went at the road side and saw that a vehicle
bearing Haryana registration number was moving fast from
the place of incident, and the police had taken two injured to
hospital. This witness has also not stated about the
registration number of the vehicle or its driver.
15. PW6, Arvind Negi, has similarly stated that a
vehicle bearing Haryana registration number hit the scooty
on the date of incident. According to him, subsequently he
came to know that the car driver was drunken. He was
apprehended at Kund.
16. PW7, S.I.M.T. Naresh Lal, has technically
examined the vehicle involved in the accident.
17. PW8, Dr. Pankaj Sahu, had conducted the post-
mortem of the deceased Ravindra Singh. He has proved the
post-mortem report.
18. PW9, Head Constable Birendra Singh, is the writer
of chik FIR.
19. PW10, Ajay Prakash Bhatt, has prepared the
inquest.
20. PW11, S.I. Seema Chauhan, is the Investigating
Officer. She has stated about the investigation.
7
21. PW12, Dr. Yamini Bhatt, had medically examined
the injured, Smt. Sudama Devi, on the date of incident.
22. PW13, Dr. Purohit Shah, had examined the
revisionist on the date of incident. He has stated about it.
23. 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.
24. Perusal of the statements of the witnesses reveals
that none of the witnesses have stated as to what was the
registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident. It
has not been stated by any of the witnesses that the
revisionist was driving the vehicle; it has also not been stated
by any of the witnesses that the revisionist was driving the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
25. What is the evidence that has been brought by the
prosecution is that a fast moving vehicle bearing Haryana
registration number had hit the scooty. What the prosecution
has tried to project is that after the incident, the revisionist
managed to escape from the place of incident and at a
distance of about 5 Kms, he was apprehended, where there
was a dent on his car. This fact alone may not raise a
8
presumption that it is the revisionist, who was driving the
vehicle at the time of incident, and it cannot be presumed
that it is the revisionist, who has caused the accident while
driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore,
this Court is of the view that there is no evidence, in fact, to
even show that the revisionist did cause the accident, while
driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
26. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
the conviction of the revisionist under Sections 279, 304-A,
337 and 427 IPC is bad in the eyes of law. Accordingly, while
setting aside the impugned judgments and orders, the
revisionist is is liable to be acquitted of the charge under
Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 427 IPC.
27. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.
28. The impugned judgements and orders are set
aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under
Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 427IPC.
29. The revisionist is in custody. He be released
forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
30. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court
Record be transmitted to the Court below for compliance.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
09.01.2025
Ravi Bisht
Digitally signed by RAVI BISHT
RAVI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=ded921477e34a304cbcb0b52d4a59f37e6d2
018d38d0b669a5c068799391e6bb,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
BISHT serialNumber=AA64B1F44E60E652AE5485ED764961E
4E52FD29C6F03C20917020ED093405536, cn=RAVI
BISHT
Date: 2025.01.09 18:27:31 +05’30’