Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(UK) 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Rahees Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 762 of 2024
Decided On : 07-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vikas Kumar Guglani
For the Respondent: Manisha Rana Singh

Insufficient evidence linking an individual to a crime invalidates conviction, emphasizing the necessity of adequate proof for culpability.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A - Conviction and sentencing of the revisionist for death caused in a road accident challenged - The conviction is based on insufficient evidence linking the revisionist to the driving of the truck involved - Evidence presented does not establish that the revisionist was driving at the time of the accident - Acquittal of the revisionist ordered. (Paras 9-14)

(B) Scope of Revision - The court emphasizes that the scope of revision is limited to examining the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment. (Para 12)

Facts of the case:
In a hit-and-run incident, the appellant was convicted for driving a truck that caused a fatal accident. The primary contention was the lack of identification of the appellant as the driver at the time of the incident.

Findings of Court:
The court found no credible evidence linking the revisionist to the accident, leading to the conclusion that the trial court's conviction was not legally justified.

Issues: Whether the revisionist was indeed driving the truck involved in the accident and the sufficiency of established evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the lack of evidence affirming the revisionist's involvement in the accident invalidated the conviction, highlighting the fundamental principle that conviction requires solid proof of identity and culpability.

Result: Revision allowed; the conviction is set aside and the revisionist is acquitted.

Table of Content
1. overview of case details and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual basis of the accident and proceedings. (Para 3 , 4)
3. defendant's claim of false implication. (Para 5 , 10 , 11)
4. arguments regarding identification of the driver. (Para 7 , 8)
5. legal reasoning regarding evidence and criminal liability. (Para 12 , 13)
6. conclusion on validity of conviction. (Para 14)
7. final judgment and order issued by the court. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. Instant revision has been preferred against the following:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 09.10.2019, passed in Criminal Case No. 12347 of 2013, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Rahees Ahmed, by the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar (“the Case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 279 , 304A IPC and sentenced as hereunder:-

(a) Under Section 279 IPC: to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.

(b) Under Section 304A IPC: to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 11.09.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2019, Raees Ahmed Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the Court of 2^nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the appeal”). By the order passed in the case has been affirmed.

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

3. The case is based on an FIR lodged by PW1 Amarjeet. According to which, on 20.02.2011, his son Samardeep was going on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. UA-06-H-7703. When he reach at Jhagjhor Farm at 11:30 a.m. on Rudrapur-Kichha motor road, a truck bearing Registration No. UP-053T-4829 hit him from behind, due to which, he died at the spot. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted the revisionist. The revisionist was read over the accusation, to which he denied.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses, namely, PW1 Amarjeet, PW2 Ramesh Arora, PW3 Upkar Singh, PW4 SI Sushma, PW5 SIMT R.D. Bhatta, PW6 Dr. P.C. Pant, PW7 Anwar Hussain, PW8 SI Dinesh Nath and PW9 Ramesh.

5. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to it, the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case. The revisionist examined DW1 Rafiq Ahmed in his defence.

6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and orders passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore, which has been unsuccessfully challenged in appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist was never identified that it is he, who was driving the truck at the relevant time. Therefore, the judgment and order is bad in the eyes of law.

8. Learned State counsel would submit that during investigation, PW7 Anwar Hussain has stated that he is owner of the truck. On the date of incident, the revisionist was driving the truck and he has given in writing also. But he would fairly admit that during trial PW7 Anwar Hussain has not stated that the revisionist was driving the truck on the date of incident.

9. In the instant case, PW1 Amarjeet is the person, who has lodged the FIR. He has proved the FIR. PW2 Ramesh Arora, is an eyewitness. According to him, on the date of incident, the truck hit the motorcycle from behind, due to which the motorcycle rider died on the spot. According to this witness, he has located the number of the truck. PW3 Upkar Singh is the witness of inquest, PW4 Sushma has initiated the investigation in the matter. PW5 R.D. Bhatt has inspected the truck. PW6 Dr. P.C. Pant has conducted post mortem of the deceased. PW7 Anwar Hussain is owner of the truck. Accordi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document