Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Surendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2011
Decided on : 21-07-2022
Accident - Criminal Law - IPC 279, 337, 304A, 427 - The court discussed the burden of proof, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the lack of evidence to connect the accused with the offense and emphasized the importance of proving the cause of death and the injuries sustained. The court found that the lower courts committed a grave error in convicting and sentencing the revisionist, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused's bus hit a motorcycle, resulting in injuries to the pillion rider who later died. The accused denied the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to connect the accused with the offense and highlighted the lack of proof regarding the cause of death and the injuries sustained. The court concluded that the lower courts had committed a grave error in convicting and sentencing the accused.
Issues: The key issues included the burden of proof, the presumption of innocence, the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the lack of evidence connecting the accused with the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the cause of death and the injuries sustained, highlighted the lack of evidence to connect the accused with the offense, and discussed the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Final Decision: The revisionist was acquitted of the charges under Sections 279, 337, 304A, and 427 IPC. The revisionist's bail bonds were cancelled, and the sureties were discharged. The revisionist was required to furnish a personal bond and two sureties of like amount within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
(i) The judgment and order dated 04.05.2010, passed in Criminal Case No.596 of 2009, State Vs. Surendra Singh, by the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 279, 337, 304A and 427 IPC and,
(ii) The judgment and order dated 09.03.2011, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2010, Surendra Singh Vs. State, by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun (“the appeal”). By it, the judgment and order dated 04.05.2010 passed in the case has been confirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
3. Briefly stated, according to the prosecution case, on 08.04.2004, PW2 Virendra Singh Bhandari, on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. HR-07-2631, was returning to his home. With him was his uncle Raghuveer Singh as pillion rider. As soon as he reached at Susva River Bridge, a roadways bus bearing Registration No. UP-15Q-9647 (“the bus”), came in a very fast speed from behind and without blowing horn hit the motorcycle from behind, due to which his uncle Raghuveer Singh sustained injuries. The motorcycle was also damaged. The injured was admitted to the hospital. Thereafter, a report of the incident was lodged by the PW2 Virendra Singh Bhandari on the same day at 11:00 in the night. The FIR is Ex. A-1.
4. It is the prosecution case that, subsequently the deceased died in a hospital at Chandigarh. His inquest was prepared. It has been proved by PW5 Govind Singh. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the revisionist. That is how the proceeding of the case was instituted.
5. The revisionist was read over the accusation at the stage of 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). According to the revisionist, he did not hit the motorcycle. His vehicle was not involved in any accident.
6. In order to prove its, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses, namely, PW1 Chatar Singh, PW2 Virendra Singh Bhandari, PW3 SI M.T. K.C. Tamta, PW4 SI Nirvikar and PW5 Govind Singh.
7. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code. According to him, the witnesses have given false evidence. He denies any accident having been committed by the vehicle driven by him.
8. The court below, after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 04.05.2010, passed in the case, convicted and sentenced the revisionist, as stated above. The judgment and order dated 04.05.2010, has been unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal. Hence the revision.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that though the scope of revision is quite restricted, but there is no evidence, which may prove the accusations against the revisionist. He would submit that there is no evidence, which may connect the bus with the offence; it is highly improbable that a bus hits a motorcycle and the person on the wheels on the motorcycle would not receive any injury. The motorcycle was also not damaged from behind, which is highly improbable; the postmortem report has not been proved; the doctors have not been examined to even say that the deceased died due to injury sustained by him in any motorcycle accident.
10. Learned State Counsel would submit that PW2 Virendra Singh has supported the prosecution case and inquest also supported the prosecution case.
11. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Undoubtedly, in a revision, the scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned judgment. Appreciation of evidence may also be undertaken if the finding is perverse i.e. against the weight of evidence or if the material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered.
12. PW1 Chatar Singh, in the instant case is the scribe of the FIR, which, according to him, has been written at the instance of PW2, Virendra Singh Bhandari. The only witness of the fact is Virendra Singh Bhandari. Accordi
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence to prove culpability in criminal cases, particularly in cases involving fatal accidents.
A conviction under criminal law requires clear evidence linking the accused to the crime; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient for a guilty verdict.
Ownership of a vehicle involved in an accident does not automatically imply liability without direct evidence of the owner's involvement in the negligent act.
Insufficient evidence linking an individual to a crime invalidates conviction, emphasizing the necessity of adequate proof for culpability.
A conviction cannot stand without credible evidence linking the accused to the commission of the crime.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove rash or negligent driving endangering human life and the causation of death in order to establish the offences under Se....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable witness testimonies and the absence of evidence regarding technical faults in a motor accident case to establish negligence and uphold a conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness testimony and physical evidence to establish guilt under Section 304(A) of I.P.C.
The court's decision highlighted the importance of establishing negligence and the sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
