Rajat .....Revisionist v. State of Uttarakhand

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, 337 and 427 IPC.

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, 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 RAVI BISHT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ded921477e34a304cbcb0b52d4a59f37e6d2 018d38d0b669a5c068799391e6bb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AA64B1F44E60E652AE5485ED764961E 4E52FD29C6F03C20917020ED093405536, cn=RAVI BISHT