Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(UK) 209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Dharmendra – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2010
Decided on : 11-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. V.S. Rathour, adv

The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the court will analyze the evidence to determine the accused's culpability.

Headnote:
Revision - Criminal Law - IPC 279, 338, 304-A - The court discussed the evidence and findings related to the incident where the accused hit a girl with his vehicle, resulting in her death. The court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the accused under IPC sections 279, 338, and 304-A.
Fact of the Case:

The accused was convicted under IPC sections 279, 338, and 304-A for causing a fatal accident by hitting a 13-year-old girl with his vehicle. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and postmortem reports.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had proven the case beyond reasonable doubt, upholding the conviction and sentencing of the accused.
Issues: The main issue was the establishment of the place of the incident and the accused's responsibility for the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the evidence, including witness statements and the site plan, to determine the circumstances of the accident and the accused's culpability.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, upholding the previous judgment and the accused's conviction and sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-

“(i) Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2006, passed in Criminal Case No.1250 of 2004, State vs. Dharmendra, by the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun (for short, “the case”).

By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 279 IPC and sentenced to one month imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-; under Section 338 IPC sentenced to two months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and the revisionist has been convicted under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to 06 months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/-.

(ii) The judgment and order dated 22.12.2009, recorded in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2006, Dharmendra vs. State, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. By it, the judgment and order dated 31.07.2006, passed in the case has been upheld.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows. On 30.08.2004, deceased, a girl of 13 years of age was standing on the left side of a road at 10:30 in the morning when a vehicle bearing Registration No. UA12-0414, driven by the revisionist hit the deceased. Due to this collusion the deceased sustained injuries. She was taken to hospital but, she died. A report was lodged, based on which, Case Crime No.70 of 2004, under Section 279, 338, 304-A IPC was lodged at Police Station Raiwala, District Dehradun. Investigation was carried out and the Investigating Officer prepared site plan, inquest of the deceased. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 31.08.2004 at Doon Hospital, Dehradun. According to the doctor, the cause of the death was hemorrhage shock as a result of injuries described following blunt force trauma. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 279, 338, 304 IPC against the revisionist. The revisionist was read over the accusations. According to him, the accident did not take place due to his error.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined six witnesses namely, PW1 Dr. Hemant Bhardwaj, PW2 Dhanpal Singh, PW3 Vinod Singh, PW4 Anil, PW5 SI Chandan Singh and PW6 Uttam Singh.

5. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”). According to him, the accident did not take place due to his mistake.

6. After hearing the parties, by the judgment and order passed in the case the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinbefore. The judgment and order dated 31.07.2006, passed in the case has been unsuccessfully challenged by the revisionist in the appeal. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist is before this Court.

7. Learned counsel would submit that there have been great contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The place of incident was not established. It doubts the prosecution case.

8. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that there is no illegality in the impugned judgments.

9. It is a revision. The scope of revision is quite restricted. In revision, the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment are examined. Appreciation of evidence is beyond the scope of revision unless the finding is perverse i.e. without any weight of evidence. Evidence is also appreciated in the cases where material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has invited the Court’s attention to the statement of PW2 Dhanpal Singh. He has stated that the victim was with her mother whereas, according to him, the other witnesses i.e. PW2 Dhanpal Singh, the informant has stated that the deceased was all alone at the time of incident. In addition to it, it is argued that the place of incident is not established because according to PW3 Vinod Singh and PW4 Anil, the place of incident is different than what is shown in the site plan.

11. PW1 Dr. Hemant Bhardwaj, conducted the postmort

Click Here to Read the rest of this document