Criminal Revision against appellate conviction for rash driving and culpable negligence causing death. Single judge explained Supreme Court precedents on injured witness credibility and dismissed the revision, upholding the conviction and sentence.
The criminal revision was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1028 of 1991
Revisionist :- Nanhu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinod Kumar Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.5.1990 passed by Munsif Magistrate-III. L.C.C. Moradabad in Case No. 329 of 1990 arising out of Case Crime No. 50/84, under Sections 279, 336, 427 and 304-A IPC, police station Galshaheed, district Moradabad, whereby the accused, Nanhu Singh was convicted and sentenced under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC to one year and three months RI respectively and fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 250/- each. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Out of the fine so realised, Rs. 800/shall be given to the family of the deceased. Against that order, a criminal appeal was filed and the same vide order dated 11.7.1991 was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Moradabad.
According to the prosecution case, the FIR was lodged against this accused alleging that on 2.2.1984 at 10.30, accused was driving the Bus No. UTU-4226 and by rash and negligent driving caused accident, in which one woman and three children were injured, out of which one child died while he was taken to hospital. Case was registered and after investigation charge sheet was submitted and post-mortem was done. Charges were framed under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC. The prosecution produced PW-1, Wahid Ali, who is the eye-witness, PW-2, Smt. Naima (injured), PW-3 Rajendra Singh (S.I.) investigating officer of the case, PW-4 Jagdish Swaroop Bhatnagar, who is the eye-witness of the incident and proved that accused was arrested on spot. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who denied from the offence.
After hearing the argument of the learned counsel for the accused and learned counsel for State vide order dated 22.5.1990 revisionist-accused was convicted and sentenced accordingly.
Against this judgment, appeal was filed and was dismissed as stated above.
Heard Shri Mayank Keshav Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Mayank Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.
From the side of prosecution, statements of PW-1, Wahid Ali, who is the eye witness, PW-2, Naima, who is the injured witness and PW-4 Jagdish Swaroop Bhatnagar were recorded. PW-2 , Naima is the injured witness, who has supported the prosecution case. It is alleged that this incident was done by the accused, Nanhu, who was the helper of the bus and was arrested on spot.
About the evidentiary value of the injured witness, in the case of Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (6) Supreme 526 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "Deposition of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in the case and it is proved that he suffered the injuries during the said incident."
In the case of Maqsoodan vs. State of U.P.; 1983 (1) SCC 218 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that presence of the injured witnesses at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted as they had received injuries during the course of the incident and they should normally be not disbelieved."
From the perusal of the above pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is settled that presence of the injured witness at the spot cannot be generally discarded. From perusal of record, it also transpires that Jagdish Swaroop Bhatnagar, the writer of FIR has stated that at the time of
incident, Nanhu was driving the bus rashly and negligently and by accident broken the thermal and caused injuries to injured and subsequently a child died. Nanhu accused was arrested at the spot by the police and witness, who is also working in the department of the accused. The statement of this witness cannot be disbelieved and that there is no chance to falsely implicate the accused in this case. PW-1, Wahid Ali has also stated the same version. All witnesses of facts are independent witnesses and evidence of these witnesses is wholly reliable.
On the point of conviction, this Court found that the finding given by the court below is just and legal.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the place was not a public place and this is a case of no evidence. Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence to show that the accused was driving the bus at the time of incident.
This Court find no force in the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist. Accused was the helper of the bus and he was driving the bus without any valid licence or authority. Hence, no leniency can be made in favour of the accused.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order impugned. This revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed.
Copy of this judgement be transmitted to the court concerned for necessary compliance. The compliance report be sent to this Court within one month.
Office is directed to place compliance report on record.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 Sumaira
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court's conviction and sentence suffered from illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference in this criminal revision.
Whether evidence procured from the injured witness is reliable despite the accused's denial of offences.
NANHU
STATE OF U.P.
ANIRUDDHA SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
ANIRUDDHA SINGH
Parties & counsel
