HARIRAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by convict-revisionist Hariraj, against State of U.P., with a prayer for setting aside impugned judgment of conviction and sentence made, therein, by trial Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Moradabad, passed in criminal Case No. 2806 of 2014, related with Case Crime No. 202 of 2012, under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C., P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad, along with judgment of Appellate Court of Sessions Judge, Moradabad, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2018 (Hariraj Vs. State of U.P.).

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that both the courts below failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it. Thereby, passed impugned judgment, wherein, conviction was awarded and sentence was passed. It was on the basis of statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., before trial Court. But, no such statement was made by revisionist, whereas it was written under mistaken facts. The witnesses examined as eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2, were of same department of Homegaurd, of which deceased was. They were interested witnesses. Investigating Officer did investigation under influence of department concerned. He did not recorded statements of nearby persons. The arrest was said to be made from his home that too, after 21 days of occurrence. Whereas, the statements recorded thereafter it, and PW-1 has specifically said that driver of the truck concerned ran from spot, after leaving truck there. It was all a concoction and on the basis of this, conviction and sentence was awarded. It was appealed before learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad, where specific arguments of these facts were made, but above Court also failed to appreciate facts and law and thereby, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision with above prayer.

(3.) Learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that trial Court recorded statements of prosecution witnesses, wherein, PW-1 and PW-2, were two eye witnesses of spot. They have categorically said about the occurrence and rash and negligent act of revisionist, whereby, this accident occurred, resulting, injury to deceased, who subsequently succumbed to above injuries. The judgment of conviction and sentences therein, was not on the mere basis of statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Rather, it was upon the appreciation of entire evidence, laid before trial Court and it was well in accordance with law and evidence, on record. Appellate Court has appreciated the arguments raised by learned counsel for appellant and has passed impugned order, whereby, criminal appeal has been dismissed. In this revision, the course open to this revisional Court is limited one. It can never be second appellate court for appreciation of facts, which were confirmed by two subordinate courts. Hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in impugned judgments. This revision be dismissed.