Nandan Singh ....Revisionist v. State of Uttarakhand

According to the FIR, on 22.07.2017, at 4:00 PM, PW3, Bhagirath Soradi, the husband of the informant, PW1, Hema Soradi, was riding on a scooty bearing registration No.UK-03-A-1495, with her brother Khimanand Soradi. As soon as they reached at a band between Garshlekh and Pati, a vehicle (Trolla bearing registration no. UP.22 T-1604, hereinafter referred to as “the Trolla”), being driven in rash and negligent manner, hit the scooty, due to which both of them sustained injuries. Subsequently, Khimanand Soradi died. The FIR was lodged by PW1, Hema Soradi, the wife of injured PW3, Bhagirath Soradi, based on which Case Crime No. 18 of 2017, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427, and 304-A IPC was lodged. Both these vehicles involved in accident were technically examined. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan. He also collected information about the driver of the vehicle and submitted chargesheet against the revisionist, which is the basis of the case. 4

4. The accusation was read over to the revisionist under Section 251of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). He denied the allegations and in answer to a question said at that stage that the accident did not take place due to his negligence.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 13 witnesses, namely, PW1 Hema Soradi, informant, PW2 Vimla Soradi, PW3 Bhagirath Soradi, PW4 HCMT Ramesh Chandra, PW5 Constable Jagdish Ram, PW6 Vikram Nath Goswami, PW7 Naveen Chandra Soradi, PW8 Mohd. Hanif, PW9 Manoj Joshi, PW10 Dr. Abash Chandra, PW11 Tulsi Prasad, PW12 Dr. Rahul Singh, and PW13 SI Prem Vishwakarma.

6. After the prosecution examination, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code. In answer to question one, he had admitted that he was driving the vehicle. Although he denied that he was driving in rash and negligent manner. But, subsequent questions asked under Section 313 of the Code, the revisionist did deny all the allegations. According to him, the vehicle went out of order at 6:00 in the morning. Therefore, he parked the vehicle, informed the owner and took four days’ leave. 5

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. This judgment was unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal.

8. It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of 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.

9. PW1, Hema Soradi, the informant, is not the eye witness. She has proved her FIR.

10. PW2, Vimla Soradi, has also witnessed the incident. She has stated about it.

11. PW3, Bhagirath Soradi, is the injured. According to him, on the date of incident, at 4:00 PM, he was riding on a scooty with the deceased Khimanand Soradi. The scooty was being driven in a conscious manner. As soon as they reached at a band between Garshlekh and Pati, the Trolla, being driven in rash and negligent manner, hit them from opposite side, due to which both of them sustained injuries. 6

12. PW4, HCMT, Ramesh Chandra, has technically inspected both the vehicles and submitted his report.

13. PW5, Constable Jadish Ram, is the chik FIR writer. He proved the documents.

14. PW6, Vikram Nath Goswami, reached at the spot soon after the incident and saw both the injured in that condition.

15. PW7, Naveen Chandra Soradi, is also a witness of inquest.

16. PW8, Mohd. Hanif, is one important witness. He is the owner of the Trolla. According to him, at the time of accident, the revisionist was driving the vehicle, and on the same date, he received the information of accident, and subsequently, he got the vehicle released in his favour. He also states that on the date of incident, at 12:30, the revisionist did tell him that the vehicle had gone out of order, therefore, he had parked the vehicle.

17. PW9, Manoj Joshi, also reached at the spot soon after the accident.

18. PW10, Dr. Abash Chandra, had treated the injured soon after accident. He has proved those documents. 7

19. PW11, Tulsi Prasad, is the witness of inquest.

20. PW12, Dr. Rahul Singh, has stated about the injuries sustained by PW3, Bhagirath Soradi. He proved the documents.

21. PW13, SI Prem Vishwakarma, is the Investigating Officer. He has stated about the steps taken during investigation and proved the chargesheet.

22. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist has not been identified by any of the witnesses; PW8, Mohd. Hanif, does not support the prosecution case; the FIR is delayed. Therefore, the revisionist is entitled to be acquitted. He would also submit that even the revisionist has been in custody for more than four months. Therefore, if the conviction is upheld, the revisionist may be sentenced to the period of custody, which he has already undergone in the matter.

23. Learned State Counsel would submit that the eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution case and no interference is warranted.

24. Insofar as the accident is concerned, there is immense evidence. In fact, PW3, Bhagirath Soradi, has stated as to how he was hit by the Trolla when he along 8 with the deceased Khimanand Soradi was riding on a scooty on the date of incident. He is categorical as to in what manner the Trolla was being driven and hit him. The site plan has been proved by the Investigating Officer. It also proves the prosecution case. The deceased, Khimanand Soradi, died in the accident and PW3, Bhagirath Soradi, sustained injuries. These facts are not much in dispute.

25. The only question that has been raised is as to whether the revisionist was identified or was he driving the Trolla at the relevant time?

26. PW8, Mohd. Hanif, as stated, is a very important witness. He is the owner of the Trolla. He has stated that at the time of accident, the revisionist was driving the vehicle, but, subsequently, he moulded his statement to say that on the date of incident, it was the revisionist, who came to him and told him that the Trolla has gone out of order, and he had parked it at Pati. In cross examination, he has stated that on the date of incident, the revisionist was not driving the vehicle.

27. The statement of PW8, Mohd. Hanif, in isolation may not be read. It is admitted that the revisionist was the driver deputed on the Trolla on the 9 date of incident. The question is did he commit the accident?

28. The first opportunity to explain the fact was at the stage of 251 of the Code, when the accused told that the accident did not take place due to his negligence. At that stage, the revisionist did not tell that he was not driving the vehicle. In fact, in his examination under Section 313 of the Code also, what he said was that he was driving the vehicle, but according to him, he was not driving in a rash and negligent manner. Thereafter he tried to add some story, as has been done by the PW8, Mohd. Hanif. The courts below have rightly discussed the evidence to conclude that, in fact, it was the revisionist, who was driving the Trolla on the date of incident. The courts below did not take any material into consideration which was irrelevant and has not left any material evidence, which was relevant. The finding is based on the evidence available on record. There is no error, illegality or impropriety impugned judgments and orders.

29. Having considered, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgments and orders do not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed. 10

30. The revision is dismissed. (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

18.02.2025 Ravi Bisht