Pushpendra Singh Negi vs State of Uttaranchal and Another

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 05.07.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC, Uttarkashi in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2000 titled as Pushpendra Singh Negi v. State. In the said appeal, the judgment and order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi dated 24.01.2000 was affirmed. Criminal Case No. 13 of 1998 titled as State v. Pushpendra Singh Negi pertaining to crime No. 105 of 1997 u/s 279, 304A Indian Penal Code was proceeded in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate which ended in conviction, as above. Learned Magistrate, holding Pushpendra Singh Negi guilty for the offence u/s 279 Indian Penal Code, has sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, nay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo one month additional simple imprisonment. For the offence u/s 304A Indian Penal Code, accused was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo additional simple imprisonment for two months. This way, the findings of courts below are concurrent where against this revision has been preferred.

The incident is of dated 23.10.1997 when the accused Pushpendra Singh Negi was riding upon his scooter bearing No. UP 09 0574 and plying the same on highway towards Uttarkashi. It is alleged that by driving the same rashly and negligently, he dashed his scooter to Smt. Munni Devi, who was on her way to home after collecting the cattle fodder in a bamboo basket upon her back. She was being accompanied by her two daughters-in-law, who were the eyewitnesses of the incident.

Having heard learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Brief Holder for the State and perusing the grounds of revision, this Court is of the view that there is no ground, as stated in the draft revision, which may be considered as substantial ground. All the grounds are very formal, fickle and stereotype. Both the offences as envisaged under Sections 279 and 304A are independent one and a person can well be convicted by the Court, independently and jointly, for both the offences. The rash and negligent driving of the revisionist has well been proved by the eyewitnesses Smt. Shaila Devi and Smt. Gaina Devi. Besides these two witnesses, there is another witness PW7 Kripalu, who was present at the toll barrier located at some distance from the spot of incident. He is son of this old deceased lady, who hearing the noise of accident, reached at the spot and noticed that scooter was lying on the road and the accused (revisionist) was trying to put his vehicle in order again. There is another witness PW3 Parmanand Joshi, who has said that the scooter was not being driven rashly and negligently. But his evidence is not reliable at all because he could not identify the accused (revisionist) in the court. Otherwise also, all the evidence of this witness has to be read in toto and not in part. By reading the evidence as a whole, it appears that he was not present at the spot, he reached later, when the accident had already occurred.

Albeit, this is not the task of this Revisional Court to enter and re-appreciate the merits of the evidence, until and unless, there is gross irregularity or incongruity in the evidence. Having a look upon the entire evidence, which has been produced in the court below, this Court does not find any material irregularity, inconsistency or incongruity in the appreciation of the same by both the courts below, so this revision is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

Let the copy of this order be sent to the trial court for compliance.