The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove rash and negligent driving for charges under IPC Sections 279, 304A, and 338, and the importance of corroborating evidence and consistency in witness testimony.

MUKTA GUPTA, J

1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 13th March, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge upholding the order of conviction of the Petitioner passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 304A, 279 and 338 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 29th November, 2007 had sentenced the Petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and Rs. 5000/-fine under Section 304A IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. The Petitioner was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.1000/-for offences punishable under Section 338 IPC, in default of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.

2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 10th July, 1997 at around 9:30 a.m. at Sector3, Pappan Kalan, Main Road Delhi, the Petitioner was driving Truck bearing No. DL1CB 1034 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while doing so he struck against a motorcycle bearing No. RNA 1510, caused death of its pillion rider Hari Chand and grievous injuries on the person of its rider Pawan Kumar. FIR No. 724/1997 was registered against the Petitioner. The investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Section 279/304A/338 IPC against the Petitioner. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. learned trial court convicted and sentenced the Petitioner as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the Petitioner preferred an appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 13th March, 2009 dismissed the said appeal.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned judgments are based on conjectures and surmises. Learned courts below failed to appreciate the fact that Palam Village and Matiala Village are opposite in direction and the motorcyclist PW1 Pawan Kumar was coming towards Palam and the truck while coming from Matiala Villaget had taken a turn to approach the main road. The site of this accident is hardly 50 mtrs away from the turn and at that time the road was slippery due to rain water. Thus, it was very difficult for the truck to attain a high speed on this turn. It is further stated that there are inherent contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and the same have been ignored by the learned courts. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the alleged eye-witness PW4 Rajesh Balan has not supported the prosecution version and stated that he had not seen the accident taking place but when he reached the spot the accident had already happened. It is stated that the testimonies of PW 4 and PW1 are contradictory which show that the Petitioner was not at fault for the alleged accident. It is further stated that the road on which the motorcyclist PW1 was coming with the pillion rider was a double road at that time and PW1 was coming on the wrong side due to which the accident took place. Thus, the negligence on the part of PW1 cannot be attributed to the Petitioner. The Petitioner suffered injuries because of his own negligence and fault. Thus, the impugned judgments are erroneous on fact as well as on law and liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra learned APP for the State submits that impugned judgments suffer from no illegality. It is stated that PW1 is the injured witness who was riding the motorcycle which struck offending vehicle driven by the Petitioner. PW1 has supported the prosecution case and minor contradictions here and there do not go to the root of the matter. It is further stated that the testimony