Hori Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2010, passed in Criminal Case No. 193 of 2004, State vs. Hori Lal, by

the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli (for short “the caseâ€). By this judgment and order, the revisionist has been convicted

under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced as hereunder:

(i) Under Section 279 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

(ii) Under Section 337 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

(iii) Under Section 338 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

(iv) Under Section 304-A IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,500/-.

There have been other directions with regard to further imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine.

Judgment and order dated 07.04.2014, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2010, Hori Lal Vs. State, passed by the court of learned Sessions

Judge, Chamoli, Gopeshwar (for short “the appealâ€) is also impugned in the instant revision. By this judgment and order dated 07.04.2014, the

judgment and order dated 27.07.2010, passed in the case has been confirmed, by which, the revisionist was sentenced, as stated, hereinbefore.

Facts necessary, for disposal of this revision, briefly stated are that on 21.09.2003 at about 2:10 PM near Helang, District Chamoli, a Tata Sumo

vehicle bearing Registration No. UA 07A 2390 (for short “the vehicleâ€), which was being driven by the revisionist, fell down into the gorge about

600 meters. Resultantly, six persons died at the spot, two were taken to the hospital for treatment and it was told to the Police Officers that two

persons were swept away by the stream of the river. This information was lodged at Police Station Joshimath, District Chamoli and a case was

lodged. Investigation was carried out. Inquest and post-mortem of the dead bodies were conducted. After completing the investigation, charge sheet

was submitted against the revisionist and the trial proceeded.

In the case, on 14.09.2005, the revisionist was read over the accusation, to which, he denied.

Prosecution examined nine witnesses and at the end of it, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In his examination, the revisionist told that at the time of incident, he started the vehicle, but, the horn was not working properly, therefore, he alighted

from the vehicle and in order to make the horn functional, as he was moving some wires, at the same time, some passenger pressed the clutch, due to

which, the vehicle moved backward and fell down in the gorge. According to the revisionist, he was not in the vehicle when the incident occurred.

By the impugned judgment passed in the case, learned court below, after considering the evidence held that the revisionist was rash and negligent in

driving the vehicle and sentenced him. This finding was confirmed in the appeal.

Learned Amicus Curiae would inform that the revisionist had already undergone the sentence, but he would submit that the conviction is a stigma

on the revisionist, therefore, he still would argue on the revision.

This is a criminal revision and the revisions are to be decided, if they are admitted. In the case of Praban Kumar Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal

and Another, AIR 1959 SC 144, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that whether it was an accused or a complainant, if in revision, Rule is

issued by the High Court that Rule has to be heard and determined in accordance with law, whether or not the petitioner in High Court is dead or

alive, or whether he is represented in Court by a legal practitioner. Not only this, in the case of Retti Deenabandhu and others Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 742, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that ‘a convicted person challenging his conviction in appeal not only seeks to

avoid undergoing the punishment imposed upon him as a result of the conviction, he also wants that other evil consequences flowing from the

conviction should not visit him and that the stigma which attaches to him because of the conviction should be wiped out. The fact that he is set at

liberty and would not have to undergo any further sentence of imprisonment would not debar him from questioning the validity of his conviction. The

object of such a challenge to conviction is to avoid the other consequences flowing from conviction and also to erase the stigma resulting from the

conviction.â€​ (para 3)

In view of the legal position, this Court proceeds to decide the revision.

Learned Amicus Curiae would argue that only one witness of fact PW4 Balwant Singh has been examined. The other person, who survived in the

accident, has not been examined. The revisionist was not on the vehicle when it met with the accident. There has been no negligence or rashness on

the part of the revisionist.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would argue that the revisionist was negligent in driving because (1) the vehicle was overcrowded and

there were four persons seated on the front seat. (2) The revisionist did not take precautions so as to avoid the movement of the vehicle when it was

halted on steep hilly road. (3) He did not apply hand break and the revisionist stopped the vehicle on the steep hills but did not put blocks behind its tyre

and he hit the bonnet with a stone, which made the vehicle roll back.

It is a revision. Appreciation of evidence like appeal cannot be done in it. To the extent of any perversity only, evidence may looked into; if

material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered, such issues can be examined in the revision.

Out of nine witness, PW1 Rajendra Prasad is a formal witness, who received the information of the accident. PW2 Balbeer Singh Negi had also

visited the scene after the accident. PW3 Dr. P.K. Chandola examined one of the injured Munnu, he has stated about it. PW5 Satish Singh is the

Police Constable, who reached at the spot after the incident. PW6 G.L. Shah is the Sub Inspector. He also visited the place of incident after the

accident. PW7 Constable Alam Singh is the writer of the chik FIR. PW8 Mohit Kumar is the person who helped the Police Officers in bringing the

dead bodies or the injured on the road side and PW9 Manoj Kumar is the person who proved the chargesheet.

PW4 Balwant Singh, is the witness, who was in the vehicle when the accident occurred. Fortunately he survived. He has stated as to how it

happened. According to him, 12 persons were in the vehicle. The road was blocked, therefore, the vehicle was also stopped, but when the vehicle did

not start, the revisionist alighted from the vehicle, opened the bonnet and hit the battery with a stone, due to which, according to this witness, the

vehicle rolled down in the hills and fell in the gorge. This witness jumped outside the vehicle, but the vehicle fell in the river. According to him, ten

persons died.

Learned courts below examined and appreciated the evidence and arrived at a conclusion. There is nothing to show that any irrelevant material

was considered by the courts below. Also, there is nothing to show that any material evidence has not been examined by the court. Even it has not

been shown that there is any perversity in the finding. The case has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. There is nothing, which

may warrant any interference in this revision. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the revision and it deserves to be dismissed.

The revision is dismissed.