In Criminal Revision No. 1060 of 1997, the High Court set aside a conviction and sentence for dangerous driving causing death, holding the lower courts failed to properly appreciate evidence revealing witnesses did not actually identify the accused.
Judgment and order of conviction set aside; Revisionist acquitted; Bail bonds cancelled.
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. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1060 of 1997
Revisionist :- Shyamdev Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sameer Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
1. Heard Sri Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition.
2. Perused the record.
3. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.08.1997 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1995 (Shyamdev v. Bageshwardas & State of U.P.), dismissing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.11.1995 passed by IXth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in Criminal Case No. 2329 of 1992 (State v. Shyamdev), arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 1990, under Sections 279, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station - Sarnath, District - Varanasi.
4. Vide impugned order dated 15.11.1995, accused-revisionist Shyamdev was convicted and sentenced as follows :
(i) Rigorous imprisonment for one month, under Section 279 of IPC.
(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for one year, under Section 304A of IPC.
(iii) Rigorous imprisonment for one month, under Section 427 of IPC.
5. All the sentences were directed to run simultaneously.
6. As per version of the prosecution, on 04.04.1990 at about 10.30 A.M., driver of truck bearing Registration No. U.T.N. 494 crushed Somaru, son of informant Bageshwar. The truck driver was driving the truck rashly and negligently, due to which the accident took place. In the accident, Somaru sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. After the accident, the truck driver, leaving the truck on the spot, fled
away.
7. On written information of informant Bageshwar, on the same day at about 12.40 P.M., FIR was lodged against the unknown driver of truck U.T.N. 494 at Case Crime No. 45 of 1990, under Sections 279, 304A and 427 of IPC, Police Station - Sarnath, District - Varanasi.
8. During trial, P.W.1 informant Bageshwar and P.W.2 Panna Lal were examined as witnesses of fact. On the basis of their statement, learned courts below have passed order of conviction against the accused-revisionist.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist is not named in the FIR. There is no evidence on record to show that the revisionist was driving the truck at the time of the incidence. Even so, learned courts below have passed the impugned orders, without appreciating the evidence on record, which are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside.
10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.
11. P.W.1 informant Bageshwar in his statement has not explained that how he knew that the revisionist was driving the truck at the time of the incidence. He admitted in his crossexamination that he has not narrated the name of the revisionist to the Investigating Officer in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has also not disclosed that he knew the revisionist from before. P.W.2 Panna Lal has admitted in his cross-examination that deceased Somaru is his relative. He knew accused-revisionist Shyamdev since one year before the incidence. If P.W.1 Bageshwar and P.W.2 Panna Lal were present on the spot at the time of the incidence, there was no reason for Panna Lal not to disclose the name of the accused to informant Bageshwar. If P.W.1 informant Bageshwar came to know that revisionist Shyamdev has caused the accident, then there was no reason for him not to name accused Shyamdev in the FIR. This shows that P.W.1 informant Bageshwar and P.W.2 Panna Lal are not the eye-witnesses and have not seen the accident. Learned courts below have passed the impugned orders of conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record.
12. From the perusal of statement of both the witnesses of fact - P.W.1 informant Bageshwar and P.W.2 Panna Lal, it reveals that they have not seen the accused-revisionist committing the
accident.
13. Resultantly, the instant revision is allowed . Judgment and order of conviction passed by courts below are hereby set aside. Revisionist - Shyamdev is acquitted from charges framed against him under Sections 279, 304A and 427 of IPC. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
14. Let a copy of this order be certified to the court below for its intimation and necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 16.5.2018 I. Batabyal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is sustainable in view of lack of appreciation of evidence on record.
Whether the order of conviction is liable to be set aside and appellant is to be acquitted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyamdev
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
