( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 7-2-2006 passed by the additional Sessions Judge whereby he confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under sections 279 and 304-A, I. P. C. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has passed an order of conviction On 4-9-2005 convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, I. P. C. and 304a, i. P. C. By a separate order dated 17-9-2005, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and also imposed a fine of Rs. 500 in respect of the offence under Section 279, I. P. C. In default of the payment of the fine amount the petitioner was required to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Insofar as the offence under Section 304a, I. P. C. was concerned, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for one year and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2500. In default of the payment of fine, the petitioner was required to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. In appeal, the learned additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction as well as the sentence. Being aggrieved by the said order/judgment dated 7-2-2006 the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

( 2 ) THE case for prosecution is that on 23-10-1995, at an unknown time, on mathura Road near the T-point junction with Sher Shah road, the petitioner was driving a vehicle bearing registration number HR 29c 9552 in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving hit against a motorcycle bearing registration number UMS 2937 and caused fatal injury to one Gajendra singh.

( 3 ) TO establish its case the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. However only one witness, that is PW 3, head constable Munim dutt, is listed an eyewitness. In this case it is not in dispute that the petitioner was driving the vehicle bearing registration number hr 29c 9552 which was a Tata 608 tempo (also described as a truck ). It is also not in dispute that this vehicle and the motorcycle bearing registration number UMS 2937 had a collision. It is also not in dispute that, as a result of the collision, Gajendra Singh, who was riding the motorcycle, died. The entire question in this case is as to whether, on the evidence on record, the offences under section 279/304a, I. P. C. are made out or not?

( 4 ) AN examination of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as that of the learned Metropolitan magistrate would clearly indicate that the

petitioner has been convicted primarily on the testimony of PW 3 head constable munim Dutt. According to Mr. Sufian siddique, the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is nothing in the. testimony of pw 3 which conclusively indicates that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. He submitted that the only allegation is that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at a high speed. According to mr. Siddique, "high speed" is an expression which is relative and subjective. He submitted that merely because a vehicle was being driven at a high speed does not mean that the driver was driving rashly or negligently. He also submitted that there is no evidence with regard to the status of the traffic lights at the T-junction. The investigating officer has not been produced as a witness. The site plan which was purportedly drawn up by the investigating officer has not been exhibited. There is no evidence with regard to tyre skid marks. No photographs were taken. There is also no evidence as to whether the deceased Gajendra Singh who was riding on the motorcycle was wearing a helmet or not. He also indicated that by examining the evidence of PW 3, even the location of the point of impact cannot be ascertained and that there is a great deal of ambiguity in his testimony. The learned counsel for the pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document