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.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in the instant revision is made to the followings:-

(I) Judgment and order dated 04.02.2019, passed in Criminal Case No. 60 of 2017, State vs. Surdeep, by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 279, 304A, 337, 338 IPC and sentenced as hereunder:-

(i) Under Section 279 IPC- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six year with a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month.

(ii) Under Section 304A IPC- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of two months.

(iii) Under Section 337 IPC- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of fifteen days.

(iv) Under Section 338 IPC- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month.

(II) Judgment and order dated 08.02.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2019, Surdeep Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the Court of Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal.

2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated are as hereunder:-

On 20.02.2006, the revisionist was driving a vehicle bearing Registration No. UK04-CA-0189 (“the vehicle”). He was taking the school children back to their homes. It met with an accident. A report was lodged by PW5 Rakesh Kumar Baurai. In the accident, a child Priyanshu Baurai died and other children sustained injures. Based on the FIR, given by PW5 Rakesh Bauriai, Criminal Case No. 3 of 2016, under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 338 IPC was registered at Revenue Police Circle, Sawli, Tehsil Thalisain, District Pauri Garhwal. The vehicle was technically examined by PW6 Chandra Kant Bhatt. He prepared his report Ex. A3. The injured were examined. The inquest of the deceased Priyanshu Baurai was prepared. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist for the offences 304A, 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 181,185, 192, 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is basis of the case. On 10.08.2023, the revisionist was read over the accusations, to which he denied and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, namely, PW1 Vipin Jakhmola, PW2 Satendra Singh, PW3 Sunil Kumar, PW4 Km. Dipti Thapliyal, PW5 Rakesh Baurai, PW6 Chandra Kant Bhatt, PW7 Subhash Chandra Lingwal and PW8 Mohd. Aurangzeb.

4. After the prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”). According to him, the witnesses have falsely deposed against him. He did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 04.02.2019, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinbefore, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the revisionist in appeal. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist preferred the instant revision.

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

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He would raise the following points in his submissions:-

(i) The judgment in the appeal, reveals that conviction is based on the principle of res ipsa loquitur. It is argued that it may not be basis of conviction in a criminal case.

(ii) The burden of proof has wrongly been shifted on the revisionist as recorded in para 23 and 24 of the judgment in the appeal.

(i) PW6 Chandra Kant Bhatt has categorically stated that he did not examine the gear, brake, steering and other parts of the vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the vehicle might have met with the accident due