Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(UT) 4380
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
DHARMEDRA VISHWAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
CRLR 565 / 2024
Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Ms. Manisha Rana Singh
The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving but modified the sentence to reflect the time already served by the revisionist, emphasizing the need for justice in sentencing.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A - Conviction for negligent driving resulting in death - Revisionist convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines under both sections - Sentence modified by appellate court - Conviction upheld, but sentence reduced based on time already served. (Paras 1, 16, 18)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Examination of the accused - Revisionist denied charges during examination, asserting witnesses' statements were false. (Paras 5, 12)
Facts of the case:
The revisionist was convicted for causing the death of Pramod Mishra by negligent driving of a motorcycle, resulting in a fatal accident on 09.04.2011. (Paras 3, 10)
Findings of Court:
The conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC was upheld, with the sentence modified to reflect time already served in custody. (Paras 17, 19)
Issues: The main issue was the appropriateness of the sentence given the circumstances of the case and the time already served by the revisionist. (Paras 14, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that sentencing should consider the circumstances of the case and the position of the accused, allowing for modification based on time served. (Paras 14, 16)
Result: Revision partly allowed; sentence modified to time already served.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and fir (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. revisionist's claim of innocence (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. consideration for sentencing (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. modification of sentence (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:- (i) Judgment and order dated 26.03.2022, passed in Criminal Case No. 12257 of 2013, State of Uttarakhand v. Dharmendra Vishwas, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Third Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Naar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and has been sentenced as hereunder:-
(i) Under Section 279 IPC – to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.
(ii) Under Section 304A IPC – to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month; and (ii) Judgment and order dated 09.08.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2022, Dharmendra Viswas v. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the appeal”). By it, the appeal has been partly allowed and although the conviction of the revisions has been upheld, however, the sentenced has been modified by the learned appellate court to the extent as stated hereunder:-
(i) Under Section 279 IPC – to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.
(ii) Under Section 304A IPC – to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 0.04.2011, at about 08:30 in the evening, when the deceased Pramod Mishra was returning to his home after his work, he was hit from behind by the revisionist, who was driving his motorcycle bearing No. UK 06 Q 6694 (“the motorcycle”). The motorcycle was being driven in speed and in a negligent manner. Report was lodged by the father of the deceased on 02.05.2011 at Police Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, based on which, FIR No. 63 of 2011, under Sections 279 and 304A IPC was lodged. The matter was investigated and after investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist. The accusation was read over to him. The revisionist denied the charges and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, namely, PW 1 Janardan Singh, PW 2 Nandan Goswami, PW 3 R.D. Bhatt, PW 4 Kailash Mishra, PW 5 HCP Chaniram and PW 6 SI Narayan Ram.
5. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, the witnesses have wrongly stated against him.
6. After hearing the parties, by the judgment and order dated 26.03.2022 passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore.
7. The judgment and order dated 26.03.2022 passed in the case was challenged in the appeal. In appeal, the conviction was upheld by the sentence was reduced.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is in custody since 09.08.2024; his sentence may be reduced to the period, he has already undergone.
9. Learned State Counsel would submit that the revisionist was taken into custody on 09.08.2024 and he is in custody since then.
10. There are six witnesses in the instant case. PW 1 Janardan Singh is an eyewitness. According to him, on the date of incident, he was behind the motorcycle driven by the revisionist; the revisionist hit the deceased, when he was repairing his motorcycle; both sustained injuries; they were taken to hospital, but subsequently the deceased died.
11. PW 2
