Narendra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant revision is preferred against the conviction and sentence of the revisionist under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC. The conviction and

sentence has been recorded in Criminal Case No.733 of 2006, State Vs. Narendra Singh on 06.12.2010 by the Court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Uttarkashi (the case). By this impugned judgment and order, revisionist has been sentenced as hereunder:-

(i) Under Section 279 IPC, six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

(ii) Under Section 337 IPC, six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-.

(iii) Under Section 338 IPC, six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

(iv) Under Section 304-A IPC, one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

There have been directions as well for sentence in default of payment of fine.

This judgment and order dated 06.12.2010 was challenged by the revisionist in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2010, Narendra Singh Vs. State, in the

Court of Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi (for short “the appealâ€​). But, the appeal was dismissed on 30.06.2014.

The revision was received on 05.09.2014, when the revisionist was in jail. In fact, on 16.11.2015, on the appearance made by learned Amicus

Curiae, the revisionist was granted bail, but, the record reveals that the revisionist had already been released from jail on 01.05.2015 after completion

of his sentence. There is a report from District Jail, Dehradun dated 23.11.2015 on file.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.

Facts, necessary to appreciate the revision, briefly stated are as hereunder:-

On 24.12.2005, the revisionist was driving a bus bearing registration no UP 07C-0867 (‘the vehicle’) from Haridwar to Uttarkashi. At a bridge

of Irrigation Department, near Police Station Dharashu, the vehicle fell down the hill. PW7 S.I. Pradeep Dobhal, who was the Station House Officer,

Police Station Dharashu then, visited the spot and found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the revisionist. He was

managing the scene and shifting the injured to the hospital. He came to know that five injured persons had died in the hospital. Based on it, as per

general diary entry no.25 of 5:55 PM of that date, a Case Crime No 419 of 2005 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC, was lodged against the

revisionist. It is this case, in which, after investigation, chargesheet was submitted. The revisionist was convicted and sentenced as stated

hereinbefore. In appeal, his conviction and sentence has been upheld.

Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that she would like to argue on the question of conviction.

This is a revision. If rule is issued, the revisions are decided. In the case of Praban Kumar Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, AIR 1959

SC 144, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “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 practitionerâ€​.

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)

The Court now proceeds to appreciate the arguments.

Learned Amicus Curiae would argue that the impugned judgment and orders are bad in the eye of law because the accident did not occur due to

rash and negligence of the revisionist, instead, it had occurred due to mechanical fault of the vehicle. Learned Amicus Curiae would refer to technical

examination report of the vehicle, which is dated 30.12.2005. This report has not been proved by the prosecution at trial According to this report, the

inspection was done near Bhagirathi River within Police Station Dharashu, where the vehicle was found in reverse position. According to the report,

the possible reasons for the accident were the breaking of kamani patta and while overtaking, giving pass to a vehicle coming from behind and thereby

losing control over the vehicle.

On behalf of the State, learned counsel would argue that the vehilcle was being driven by the revision rashly and negligently, a fact which has been

proved by the prosecution in evidence. The question of accident due to breaking of kamani patta is factual aspect, which cannot be gone into in this

revision.

In fact, learned amicus curiae invited this Court’s attention to the observation made by the learned Trial Court that since the vehicle was old, it

was not fit for hill routes. On it, learned amicus curiae would argue that it cannot be presumed that any part of the vehicle could be non-functional if

the vehicle is old. According to her, the parts might have been changed sometimes in the recent past. If examined from another angle, it appears that

the findings recorded by the trial court are now assailed on the ground of perversity. Perversity to the extent, if the vehicle is old it cannot be

presumed that the vehicle was not safe to be driven in the hills. This argument is not, appreciation of evidence, in fact, it is really something to require

the court to look into the aspect as to whether this finding is supported by any evidence.

The learned trial court, in page 6 of its judgment, observed that if the kamani of the vehicle were old and weak as stated by the revisionist in his

statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’), it was the responsibility of the revisionist,

that passengers are not taken on such bus. In fact, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code, the revisionist did not say that the kamani was

weak. What he said in answer to question 11 is that the accident occurred due to breaking down of the kamani patta. But, does it make the conviction

bad?

The judgment of the trial court was challenged in appeal. In appeal, similar arguments were raised, which are noted in paragraph 9 of the judgment

in appeal. In paragraph 11 of the judgment in appeal, the learned court considered this argument extensively and did not find it reliable. The learned

Appellate Court observed that even if the kamani patta was broken, the brakes were functional. The brakes could have been applied. Moreover, the

vehicle was being driven on the hillside. The site plan is on record. At the place of incident, the road is 18 feet wide and the vehicle was on the hillside.

There are two situations. The first is that if the accident occurred due to breaking down of kamani patta, the revisionist had an opportunity to tell it at

the very first instance when he was apprehend. He did not say it in his bail application. One can say that the Bail Application was not drafted by the

revisionist but again in the next opportunity he did not assign any reason for the accident. The revisionist was examined under Section 251 of the

Code. At that stage also, he did not tell as to why did the accident occur? It is only in his examination under Section 313 of the Code that the

Revisionist told that the cause of accident was breaking down of kamani patta. But, this Court is of the view that the learned court below rightly

disbelieved the argument raised by the revisionist because the site plan shows that at the place of incident, the road was 18 feet wide. The vehicle was

being driven on the hillside. The natural corollary is that had the vehicle been driven under control by the revisionist, he had ample opportunity to stop

the vehicle. The witnesses have stated that the revisionist was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. PW2 Ajay Chauhan, PW3 Sushila Panwar,

PW4 Dhanpal Lal, PW8 Devender Singh have told that the revisionist was driving the vehicle in a fast speed. Some of the witnesses have

categorically stated that, in fact, the revisionist was negligent also in driving. (PW4 Dhanpal Lal and PW8 Devendra Singh). PW7 Pradeep Dobhal is

the Police Officer, who visited the site, when he received the information. He also says that when he inspected the site, it was clear that the accident

occurred due to negligence of the driver. In all, six persons died in this accident and eleven were brought injured.

There is another aspect of the matter. In the technical inspection report of the vehicle, it is not written that the accident occurred only because the

kamani patta was broken. What it suggests is that, the possible reasons of the accident are breaking down of the kamani patta and giving pass to the

vehicle coming from behind while overtaking another vehicle and because of it, losing control over the vehicle. Even if this technical report is

accepted, it also indicates that the revisionist was rash and negligent in driving. In view of the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the

finding that the revisionist was driving the vehicle, at the relevant point of time, in a rash and negligent manner, is perverse. This finding is based on

very cogent, credible and reliable evidence. The judgment of the learned court below is based on admissible evidence. There is no perversity or

illegality, which may warrant any interference in this revision. Therefore, the revision is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

The revision is dismissed.

Let a copy of the judgment along with lower Court record be sent to the Court below for compliance.