If There Was Any Technical Fault In Vehicle, Driver Could Have Told It In His Examination At Initial Stage: Uttarakhand HC Upholds Conviction
The Uttarakhand High Court has upheld the conviction of an accused on the ground that if there was any technical fault in the vehicle, the driver/accused could have told it in his examination at initial stage, when the accusation was read over to him.
The Court was dealing with a criminal revision in which the challenge was against the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by which the revisionist/accused was convicted under Sections 279, 304A, 337, and 338 of IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani said, “The revisionist was driving the vehicle. If there was any technical fault in the vehicle, he could have told it in his examination at the initial stage, when the accusation was read over to him. The revisionist has not stated so. Not only at that stage, but at the stage of examination under Section 313 of the Code also, the revisionist could have told that there was some technical reasons for the accident, but the revisionist has not stated so also.”
Advocate Navnish Negi appeared on behalf of the revisionist/accused while Assistant G.A. appeared on behalf of the respondent/State.
Brief Facts -
In 2006, the revisionist was driving a vehicle and was taking the school children back to their homes. It met with an accident and a report was lodged by one person. In the accident, a child died and other children sustained injures and based on the FIR, a criminal case under Sections 304A, 279, 337, and 338 IPC was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist for the offences under Sections 304A, 279, 337, and 338 IPC and Sections 181,185, 192, and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
After the prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, the witnesses were falsely deposed against him but he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. After hearing the parties, by the judgment and order, the revisionist was convicted and sentenced in the year 2019 which was unsuccessfully challenged by the revisionist in appeal. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist preferred the instant revision.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “The revision is in custody since 27.02.2023. It is not disputed that Adarsh and Km. Anshika, the children of the revisionist were also in the vehicle, when it met with an accident. They both sustained injuries.”
The Court said that the interest of justice would be better served, if the revisionist is sentenced with the sentence for the period which he had already undergone in the instant case.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the conviction, modified the sentence, and partly allowed the revision.
Cause Title- Surdeep v. State of Uttarakhand
