IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction cannot stand without credible evidence linking the accused to the commission of the crime.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

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

(i) Judgment and order dated 27.09.2013, passed in Criminal Case No.1208 of 2013, State vs. Akeel, by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate Haldwani, District Nainital (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 279, 304-A, 427 IPC; and sentenced as follows:-

(a) Under Section 279 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month with a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two days.

(b) Under Section 304-A IPC, to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days.

(c) Under Section 427 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days and

(ii) The judgment and order dated 13.05.2015, passed in Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2013, Akeel vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital (“the appeal”). By which, the judgment and order dated 27.09.2013, passed in the case has been upheld.

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

3. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows: On 02.01.2006, Deepak Bhatt along with his niece Hema Sagudi was riding on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. UA04B 4318 when at about 09:45 AM, he was hit by a Dumper bearing Registration No.UP02 2799 (“the vehicle”). The dumper was being driven negligently in a very fast speed. Hema Sagudi died on the spot, whereas, Deepak Bhatt was declared brought dead in the hospital. The FIR records that the incident was seen by the informant and one Anil Bisht and others. The report of the incident was given on the same date at 12:30 in the afternoon, which is basis of the case.

4. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan, got the vehicle technically inspected, post mortem of the dead body was conducted and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC.

5. On 03.10.2008, the accusation was read over to the revisionist. In answer to question no.1, he categorically stated that he was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time. According to him, he has been falsely implicated.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses namely, PW1 Pankaj Chufal, PW2 Deepak Bhatt, PW3 Gopal Dutt Pathak, PW4 Tilak Ram Verma and PW5 Harish Bhatt.

7. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). He has categorically stated that he did not hit the motorcycle and he has been falsely prosecuted.

8. After hearing the parties by the impugned order dated 27.09.2013, passed in the case. The revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. This Court may like to observe at this stage only that the judgment of the trial court is much cryptic. It, in fact, does not discuss anything. The conviction was unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that it is no evidence case in so far as the revisionist is concerned. He would submit that the witnesses have stated about an accident that took place on 02.01.2006, but he would submit that there is no evidence that the revisionist, in any manner is involved in driving the vehicle.

10. Learned State counsel would submit that the vehicle owner has got the vehicle released and has then stated that it is the revisionist, who was driving the vehicle.

11. The Court wanted to know from learned State counsel, as to what is the evidence to the effect that the revisionist was driving the vehicle? He has no answer to it.

12. PW1 Pankaj Chufal has stated about the incident. According to him, on 02.01.2006 at 0