GAUTAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision against the judgement of conviction for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, is taken up in the revised call of the cause list, none has appeared in the revised call, and the matter since being a criminal revision cannot be dismissed in default. The same is being proceeded with to be considered on merits on considering the material on record and after hearing the Government Advocate. This Criminal Revision which has been preferred by the revisionist (convict), invoking Section 397 to be read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by putting challenge to the impugned judgement and order dated 28th May 2015, as passed by the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2017, Gautam Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand, by virtue of which the revisionist has been convicted for commission of an offence, punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC, which was registered at Police Station, Rishikesh, District Dehradun and as a consequence thereto, it has resulted into affirming of the judgement dated 21st September 2012, as rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 332 of 2009, State v. Gautam Yadav, wherein the revisionist has been convicted to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment for commission of an offence under Section 279 and, one year rigorous imprisonment for commission of an offence under Section 304A IPC and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed upon him for the offence under Section 304A of IPC which had been concurrently proved by both the Courts below, an application of evidence led by the parties to the proceedings.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as involved in the instant case and pleaded by the prosecution are that, on 22nd July 2006, when a group of people were going to Rishikesh after collecting the holy water from river Ganges, when they had reached at Raiwala near Jay Maa Ashram, a motorcycle bearing motorcycle No. HR 26AA-4221, which was of a Hero Honda make Model CD100, which was being ridden by the present revisionist and due to of his negligent and rash driving, he had met with an accident and as a consequence thereto, the neighbourer of the complainant, namely Smt. Prabhavati Devi was hit by the rider of the motorcycle, she is said to have fell down and suffered grievous injuries. When her condition was found precarious and deteriorating, she was rushed to the Hospital, called as Shri Gadhbindra Hospital, Haripur Marg, Sadhubela. By the time she could be brought to the hospital, she was declared as to be brought dead. Consequently, an FIR was registered by the complainant i.e. neighbourer of the deceased Smt. Prabhavati Devi and the revisionist along with his above numbered Motorcycle was taken into custody by the police and accordingly a report was registered against him for commission of offence under Section 279 and 304A of the IPC.

(3.) After submission of the chargesheet by the investigating agency for the aforesaid offences, the proceeding was taken up before the Court below, however the convict/revisionist had denied the fact of commission of offence as complained of against him, and he has submitted that no such incident has even taken place by his indulgence in it. But the witnesses, which were adduced by the prosecution as PW-1, Vishwa Nath Tiwari, PW2 Bainu Jha, PW3 Hari Raj Tyagi, PW4 Dr. Sunil Kumar, who conducted the post-mortem upon the deceased, PW5, constable Devraj, PW6 Dr. Anil Kumar, PW7 Ram Singh Negi, PW8, S.I. Sharad Chaudhari. All altogether goes to show that the incidence of 22nd July 2006 did chanced resulting to thet death of Smt. Prabhavati Devi.