Sh. Rahees Ahmad .....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 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, 3 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 4 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 examination-in-chief of PW9, Ramesh, is not on record. In 5 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. 6

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 RAVI BISHT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ded921477e34a304cbcb0b52d4a59f37e6d2018d3 8d0b669a5c068799391e6bb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AA64B1F44E60E652AE5485ED764961E4E52F D29C6F03C20917020ED093405536, cn=RAVI BISHT