IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

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

(i) Judgment and order dated 05.07.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 12869 of 2013, State of Uttarakhand vs. Jeevan Kumar, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/3rd Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 279, 304A and 427 IPC and sentenced as follows:

(a) Under Section 279 IPC - rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

(b) Under Section 304A IPC - rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

(c) Under Section 427 IPC - fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 21.10.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 226 of 2019, Jeevan Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, by which the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order passed in the case affirmed.

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

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows.

4. On 05.04.2022, PW-1 Dharmendra Gupta was riding on a motorcycle driven by his father Shiv Dayal Gupta (“the deceased”). At 06:00 in the evening, the deceased stopped the motorcycle to answer the call of the nature. Meanwhile, the FIR states, a vehicle bearing registration No. PB 29 E 9225 (“the vehicle”) being driven in rash and negligent manner hit the deceased, due to which the deceased died on the spot. PW-1 Dharmendra Gupta lodged the FIR, which the basis of Case Crime No. 27 of 2012, under Sections 279, 304A, 427 IPC, P.S. Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist under Sections 279, 304A, 427 IPC. This is the basis of the case.

5. The accusation was read over to the revisionist on 14.12.2012. He did not accept the accusation and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, namely, PW-1 Dharmendra Gupta, PW-2 Rohit Kumar Gupta, PW-3 Dr. SS Kunwar, PW-4 Rajkumar Munjal, PW-5 HCMT RD Bhatt and PW-6 SI Yogesh Kumar.

7. After the prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He did not accept the prosecution case. According to him, he was falsely implicated.

8. By the impugned judgment and order dated 05.07.2019, the revisionist was convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the revisionist in appeal.

9. On 07.05.2024, when the revision was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that he would argue on the quantum of sentence only. He would submit that the sentence is excessive; the revisionist has already undergone almost half of the sentence. On that date, the revision was admitted on the quantum of sentence.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist has been sentenced for a maximum period of one year and he has already undergone half of the sentenced; therefore, no purpose would be served if he is still kept in the custody.

11. When the file was perused, the Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the revisionist as to what is the evidence against the revisionist? He would submit that the PW-1 Dharmendra Gupta has named the revisionist based on the statement of the owner of the vehicle.

12. Learned State Counsel would submit that the revisionist himself surrendered in the matter in the court concerned and he also got the vehicle released, which was taken into custody by the police.

13. PW-1 Dharmendra Gupta is the informant in the case. According to him, he was riding the