Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Rajendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2023
Decided on : 03-04-2023
Revision - Criminal Case - Sections 304A, 279, 337, 427 IPC - Summary: The court upheld the conviction of the revisionist under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 427 IPC and reduced the sentence under Section 304A IPC from two years to six months. The case was based on an FIR where the revisionist was driving a bus rashly and negligently, resulting in the death of a person and injuries to others. The prosecution presented evidence from witnesses and the post-mortem report to establish the revisionist's negligence. The court found that the impugned judgments and orders were in accordance with the law and dismissed the criminal revision at the stage of admission.
Fact of the Case:
The case was based on an FIR where the revisionist was driving a bus rashly and negligently, resulting in the death of a person and injuries to others.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the revisionist under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 427 IPC and reduced the sentence under Section 304A IPC from two years to six months.
Issues: The issues raised included the prosecution's failure to establish which vehicle the revisionist wanted to overtake and the specific details of how the deceased died.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the impugned judgments and orders were in accordance with the law and that the sentence reduction did not warrant any interference.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was dismissed at the stage of admission.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-
(a) Under Section 304A IPC – to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one month.
(b) Under Section 279 IPC – to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.
(c) Under Section 337 IPC – to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.
(d) Under Section 427 IPC – to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 07.01.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.240 of 2018, Rajendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar (for short, “the appeal”), by which, the conviction of the revisionist has been upheld, but the sentence has been reduced from two years to six months under Section 304A IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The case is based on an FIR, lodged on 19.11.2010 at Police Check Post Kharkhari, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Haridwar. According to it, on 19.11.2010, the revisionist was driving a roadways bus bearing Registration No.UA07M 6514 rashly and negligently. He tried to overtake another vehicle and in that process, smashed the bus into the shop of the informant, due to which, one of the workers of the informant Indra Singh died on the spot. Some persons were injured also. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation charge-sheet had been submitted and proceeding of the case was instituted. The revisionist was read over the accusation. According to him, he was driving the vehicle carefully.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses namely, PW1 Sohan Lal, the informant, PW2 Ramesh Chand, PW3 Dr. A.S. Sanger, PW4 Balbeer Singh, PW5 SI Nand Lal and PW6 SI Dilmohan Bisht. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, the revisionist has taken a different stand. According to him, he was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time and he is innocent.
5. After hearing the parties, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced in the case, as stated hereinbefore. In appeal, the conviction has been upheld, but the sentence of imprisonment under Section 304A IPC has been reduced from two years to six months. The remaining sentence remained unaltered. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and orders, the revisionist is in revision.
6. In fact, the revision has yet not been admitted. At the stage of admission, the lower court record has already been summoned.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would take the following pleas:-
(ii) The prosecution has not established, as to how the deceased died? Which tyre crushed him, the front tyre or the rear tyre?
8. It is also submitted that, in fact, the revisionist has a much unblemished career; he is already retired now; h
The court's decision highlighted the importance of establishing negligence and the sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases.
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.
Negligent driving resulting in death and injury constitutes a violation of IPC Sections 279, 338, and 304A, warranting conviction and appropriate sentencing.
The court considered the revisionist's request for a lenient view due to the matter relating to the year 2006 and his health condition, and accordingly, altered/modified the sentence imposed.
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.
A conviction cannot stand without credible evidence linking the accused to the commission of the crime.
The court considered the circumstances of the accident, including the time, location, and the condition of the vehicle, in determining the adequacy of the sentence and the release of the revisionist.
The court affirmed the conviction for negligent driving, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction should not disturb concurrent findings unless there is a manifest injustice.
Concurrent findings of guilty must be upheld unless glaring defects are present or a miscarriage of justice occurs; professional drivers may not qualify for probation under Section 304-A IPC.
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
