IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction under criminal law requires clear evidence linking the accused to the crime; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient for a guilty verdict.

JUDGMENT

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The challenge in this revision is made to the following:

(I) Judgment and order dated 20.04.2011, passed in Criminal Case No. 673 of 2008, State Vs. Ram Singh, by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section under Sections 279, 338, 304A IPC and sentenced as hereunder:

(i) Under Section 279 IPC to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month with a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

(ii) Under Section 338 IPC to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month with a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

(iii) Under Section 304A IPC to undergo imprisonment for a period of nine months with a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.

(II) Judgment and order dated 05.10.2012, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2011, Ram Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Almora (“the appeal). By it, the appeal has been partly allowed and the revisionist has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, but the conviction and sentence, as recorded in the case under Section 304A has been affirmed.

2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:

On 02.05.2008, at 9:30, an accident took place near Gol Market Dharanaula, Almora, in which, Kishan Arya got injured and subsequently, he died. Initially, on 03.05.2008, PW1 Govind Singh Bisht gave a report that a vehicle bearing Registration No. UP01-4423 was involved in the accident. Based on it, the FIR No. 357 of 2008 was lodged and investigation proceeded. Next day, i.e. on 04.05.2008, PW1 Govind Singh Bisht gave another report to the Police that, in fact, the accident took place with the Alto Car No. UA01-6735. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist. The revisionist was read over the accusation. He did not accept the accusation.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, namely, PW1Govind Singh Bisht, PW2 Ramesh Nath Goswami, PW3 Dipesh Chandra Joshi, PW4 Ishwar Singh, PW5 Mohan Singh, PW6 Devidutt Pandey, PW7 Dr. Mukesh Joshi, PW8 Sub-Inspector, Jagat Singh, PW9 Kalyan Ram Maurya and PW10 Sunder Ram.

4. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, he is innocent. He did not commit any accident.

5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and orders passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. He unsuccessfully challenged the appeal though the conviction has been confined to Section 304A IPC.

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

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that it is a no evidence case. No witness has stated that it is the revisionist, who committed the offence.

8. Learned State counsel would submit that the owner of the vehicle PW4 Ishwar Singh has stated that his vehicle was involved in the accident.

9. It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and orders. Appreciation of evidence is beyond the scope of revision. Evidence may only be examined if the irrelevant material is considered or relevant material is not considered or the finding is perverse i.e. against the weight of evidence.

10. PW1 Govind Singh Bisht is the person, who lodged FIR Ex. A1, in which he initially recorded that the accident took place with the vehicle bearing Registration No. UP01-4423. But next date, this witness gave another report recording therein that vehicle bearing Registration No. UA01-6735 was involved in the accident. This witness has proved both these reports Ex. A1 and A2. In his cross examination, he has demolished his version of examin