Raj Kumar Deval vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

The revisionist has been convicted on 09.02.2023, under Section 279, 304-A IPC in Criminal Case No.38 of 2022, State vs. Raj Kumar Deval, by the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, Tanakpur, District Champawat (“the case”). He has been sentenced to undergo:-

i. Under Section 279 IPC - Simple imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days; and

ii. Under Section 304A IPC - Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The judgment and order dated 09.02.2023 was upheld on 29.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2023, Raj Kumar Deval vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Sessions Judge, Champawat (“the appeal”). Both the judgment and orders are impugned herein.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

On 10.11.2021, at 03:00 in the afternoon, the deceased Sumangal Haldar was riding on motorcycle bearing Registration No.UK06AX 2402. He was returning to his home. On the way, he was hit by a Tuktuk (“e-rickshaw”), due to which Sumangal Haldar sustained injuries. He was taken to hospital where he died on 11.11.2021 at 07:00 in the morning. Report was lodged by PW1, the wife of the deceased. Investigation was carried out, the vehicle involved in the accident was technically inspected, site plan prepared. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, which is the basis of the case.

The revisionist was read over the accusation. At that stage, the revisionist revealed that he did not drive the e-rickshaw with negligence.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses namely, PW1 Vichitra Haldar, PW2 Sapan Heera, PW3 Sukhlal, PW4 Shyamal Mandal, PW5 Manoj Bala, PW6 Lalita, PW7 Suresh Chandra Pandey, PW8 Dr. Sahil Khurana, PW9 Kashiram, PW10 SI Ravindra Singh and PW11 SI Laxman Singh Jagwan. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At that stage, the revisionist has stated that the witnesses have wrongly stated against him. According to the revisionist, he had parked his e-rickshaw; he had gone to buy some goods, in the meanwhile, the motorcycle hit his e-rickshaw. The revisionist also examined DW1 Sanjay Srivastava in his defence.

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

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist was not moving the e-rickshaw; he had parked the e-rickshaw and gone to get some articles, in the meanwhile, the motorcycle hit the e-rickshaw; e-rickshaw did not hit the motorcycle. It is argued that the technical inspection report confirmed it.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that had the e-rickshaw hit the motorcycle, there would have been great damage on the e-rickshaw, which is not the case. It is also argued that the revisionist is in custody since 10.07.2024; he is 54 years of age and sole breadwinner in the family.

Learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. No interference is warranted.

PW1 Vichitra Haldar is the informant. She did not witness the accident. She is wife of the deceased. She lodged the FIR. PW2 Sapan Heera is eye-witness of the incident. He was pillion rider of the motorcycle, which was being driven by the deceased Sumangal Haldar on the date of incident. He has categorically stated that at the time of incident, they were moving on the main road, when suddenly an e-rickshaw came from a ‘Gali’ and hit their motorcycle. According to this witness, his left hand was also fractured and the deceased Sumangal Haldar sustained many injuries. He subsequently died.

PW3 Sukhlal, PW4 Shyam Lal Mandal, PW5 Manoj Bala, are witnesses of inquest, PW6 Lalita, wrote the chik FIR, PW7 Suresh Chandra Pandey, technically inspected the vehicles involved in the accident; he has proved those reports; the Technical Inspection Report of e-rickshaw is Ex.P3. It notes that there were some dent and scratch on the front right side of the vehicle. The technical inspection report of the motorcycle is Ex.P4.

PW8 Dr. Sahil Khurana conducted post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Sumangal; he proved his report, PW9 Kashiram did not support the prosecution case. He has been declared hostile. PW10 SI Ravindra Singh prepared inquest. He has stated about the action taken by him and PW11 SI Laxman Singh Jagwan conducted investigation in the matter.

DW1 Sanjay Srivastava has stated that on the date of incident the e-rickshaw of the revisionist was stationary when the motorcycle hit it.

It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned judgment and orders. Appreciation of evidence is not generally done until and unless the finding is perverse; inadmissible material is considered; legally admissible material is not considered.

PW2 Sapan Heera is an eye-witness of the incident, who was also injured in the accident. He has categorically stated, as to how the accident took place. The site plan which is Annexure P12 supports it. According to DW1 the revisionist had parked his e-rickshaw, but the site plan P12 does not support it. The accident took place at the mid of the road. The trial court has extensively considered and examined the evidence and concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 279 and 304-A IPC against the revisionist. The finding does not require any interference. It is in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in so far as the conviction of the revisionist under Section 279 and 304-A IPC is concerned, it does not require any interference.

On the question of sentence, it is argued that the revisionist is the sole bread winner in the family and 54 years of age and he is in custody since 10.07.2024.

Having considered the nature of offence, the manner in which the accident took place, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be better served if the revisionist is sentenced under Section 279 IPC for simple imprisonment for a period of three months and under Section 304A IPC for the period, which the revisionist has already undergone.

The conviction of the revisionist under Sections 279 & 304 IPC is upheld. The imposition of fine shall remain unaltered.

The sentence of imprisonment is modified as follows:-

(i) Under Section 279 IPC - to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(ii) Under Section 304A IPC - to undergo simple imprisonment for a period which the revisionist has already undergone.

The revision is partly allowed accordingly.

The judgment and orders passed in the case as well as in the appeal stands modified to the extent as indicated above.

The revisionist is in jail. Let him be set free forthwith, unless wanted in any other case.

Let a copy of this judgment and order along with lower court record be forwarded to the court concerned.