Partly allowed

Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate

Uttarakhand HC1 May 2024CRLR/92/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against conviction under Sections 279, 427, and 304A IPC for rash driving causing death, the High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to restrict imprisonment to the period already undergone by the 75-year-old revisionist.

What did the court decide?

Sentence restricted to period of custody already undergone; fine unaltered; bail bond cancelled and sureties discharged.

Gopal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand through… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2011

¶3

Gopal Singh ….....Revisionist

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

.….Respondent

Present:-

Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, AGA for the State.

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶11

The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:-

¶12

(i) Judgment and order dated 22.09.2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 43 of 2008, State v. Gopal Singh, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur, District Champawat (“the case”), by which the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 279, 427 and 304A IPC and sentenced as follows:-

¶13

¶14

(a) Under Section 279 IPC – rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

¶15

(b)Under Section 427 IPC – rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶16

¶17

(ii) Judgment and order dated 26.04.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2009, Gopal Singh v. State, by the court of District and Sessions Judge, Champawat. By it, the appeal has been dismissed and the conviction and sentence as recorded in the case affirmed.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶19

According to the prosecution, on 16.04.2006, the revisionist was driving a vehicle bearing Registration

¶20

¶21

No. UP 29-1285 (“the vehicle”) in rash and negligent manner and he hit a bicycle being driven by Vikram Singh, due to which he sustained injuries and died. The report of the incident was lodged by PW 2 Harish Chandra Joshi, the father of the deceased, based on which Case Crime No. 307 of 2006, under Sections 279/304A/427 IPC, P.S. Tanakpur, District Champawat was lodged and investigation was conducted. The post-mortem of the deceased was done and the charge sheet under Sections 279, 304A and 427 IPC was submitted against the revisionist, which is the basis of the case.

¶22

Accusation was read over to the revisionist. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The revisionist at that stage told that he has falsely been implicated.

¶23

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, PW 1 Bhupendra Shahi, PW 2 Harish Chandra Joshi, PW 3 Rajendra Singh Bisht, PW 4 Sri Soban Singh, PW 5 Harish Chandra, PW 6 Deepak Joshi, PW 7 SI Bhuwan Chandra Chandola and PW 8 Dr. K.C. Thakur.

¶24

The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). According to the revisionist, he was driving the vehicle

¶25

¶26

but he did not hit the deceased; the deceased might have hit the vehicle on his own. In his defence, the revisionist got examined two witnesses, namely, DW 1 Shankaracharya Joshi and DW 2 Girish Chandra Upreti.

¶27

After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 22.09.2009, passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinbefore.

¶28

unsuccessfully been challenged by the revisionist in the appeal.

¶29

PW1 Bhupendra Shahi and PW 2 Harish Chandra Joshi were together when they saw the accident. According to them, due to collusion, the bicycle was damaged and the deceased first became unconscious and subsequently he succumbed to the injuries. PW 1 Bhupendra Shahi has proved the inquest of the deceased.

¶30

PW 3 Rajendra Singh Bisht conducted technical inspection of the victim. PW 4 Soban Singh is the witness of inquest. PW 5 Harish Chandra has stated about a document addressed to the police. PW 6 Deepak Joshi is the owner of the vehicle. He has given

¶31

¶32

information about the driver. PW 7 SI Bhuwan Chandra Chandola is the investigating officer. He has proved the documents. PW 8 Dr. K.C. Thakur is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem of the deceased.

¶33

DW 1 Shankaracharya Joshi and DW 2 Girish Chandra Upreti have stated that on the date of incident, the bicycle hit a still truck, due to which the rider of the bicycle sustained injuries.

¶34

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that he does not propose to argue on conviction. He would submit that the revisionist is 80 years of age; he has already undergone more than one month’s sentence; no purpose would be served if the revisionist is again sent to jail in the year 2024 for an offence committed in the year 2006.

¶35

Learned State Counsel submits that the revisionist has served in jail for one month seven days.

¶36

The prosecution case has been proved by the witnesses. The statements of PW 1 Bhupendra Shahi and PW 2 Harish Chandra Joshi inspire confidence. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the judgments and orders passed in the case as well as in the appeal, so far

¶37

¶38

as conviction of the revisionist under Sections 279, 427 and 304A is concerned.

¶39

The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code on 08.04.2009. On that date, his age is recorded as 60 years. It is 15 more years since then. It means that today the revisionist is 75 years of age. The revisionist has already been in jail for more than a month.

¶40

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the sentence of the revisionist is restricted to the period, which he has already undergone in jail.

¶41

Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed.

¶42

The conviction of the revisionist under Sections

¶43

279, 427, 304A IPC as recorded in the case as well as in the appeal is affirmed.

¶44

Insofar as the sentence of the revisionist is concerned, it is modified as follows:-

¶45

(a) Under Section 279 IPC – Imprisonment for a period of

¶46

¶47

custody, which the revisionist has already undergone. (b)Under Section 427 IPC – Imprisonment for a period of custody, which the revisionist has already undergone.

¶48

(c) Under Section 304A IPC – Imprisonment for a period of custody, which the revisionist has already undergone. (d)The fine shall remain unaltered.

¶49

The revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bond of the revisionist is cancelled and the sureties are discharged of their liability.

¶50

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

¶51

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.05.2024

¶52

Avneet/

Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar Upadhyay Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deepak Pandey Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Santoshi Vs Dr. Darmiyan Singh Bhandari

Nitin Srivastava Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vivek Alias Babu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Arun Agarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand