The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must establish all the ingredients required to prove the offence, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts should not be disturbed unless they cause grave injustice.

Pratibha Rani, J.

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to address oral arguments.

2. Prayer allowed.

3. Application stands disposed of.

1. Heard.

2. In this revision petition, challenge is to the order dated 18.01.2012 passed in Crl.A. No.50/2011 whereby the learned Addl. Session Judge affirmed the judgment and order on sentence dated 17.09.2011 and 03.11.2011 respectively by the learned Trial Court vide which petitioner was convicted and sentenced for committing the offence punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.04.2000 an information was received at PS Saraswati Vihar from ASI Khazan Singh of PCR regarding an accident in front of Wazir Pur Depot, which was reduced in writing vide DD No.30-A recorded at 10.25 pm. The DD entry was assigned to SI Surjeet Singh who left for the spot alongwith Ct. Vijay Kumar.

4. On reaching the spot, he found Scooter No. DL-1S-H-8705 involved in accident with a loaded truck No. HR-38-D-7335. Finding no eye witness there and on getting the information vide DD No.33-A that injured had been taken to Hindu Rao Hospital and was declared to be dead, he left Ct. Vijay Kumar to guard the spot and reached Hindu Rao Hospital where he collected the MLC of the victim named ‘Unknown’, resident of ‘Unknown’. He again returned to the spot and sent the rukka for registration of the case. He also sent a request to summon the photographer to take the photographs of the spot.

5. During investigation, he met one Goldy Narula (PW-4) who claimed himself to be an eye witness of the accident and recorded his statement as well as prepared the site plan at his instance. He sent the dead body for postmortem. He also got both the vehicles involved in the accident, mechanically inspected and after completion of investigation, filed the chargesheet.

6. During trial, twelve witnesses were examined. In his statement, the petitioner/accused stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case and no such accident took place as alleged. He also stated that he was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and had nothing to do with the said offence. He preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence.

7. Learned Trial Court, after appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses and finding the testimony of PW-4 Goldy Narula to be reliable and trustworthy, convicted him for committing the offence punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC. Petitioner was sentenced under Section 279 IPC to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- and further under Section 304-A IPC to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.1000/-. Substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

8. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.50/2011 before the Court of Session assailing the finding of guilt and the sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court. The learned Addl. Session Judge, concurring with the finding recorded by the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal observing that appellant had not challenged the cause of death. The learned Addl. Session Judge observed that he refused to join the TIP proceedings claiming that he was shown to the witnesses but failed to cross examine PW-4 Goldy Narula on this aspect. The contradictions pointed out in the testimony of prosecution witnesses were considered to be minor and insignificant thereby not affecting the trustworthiness of the prosecutions witnesses.

9. Learned Appellate Court further observed that neither in the appeal nor during the course of arguments, quantum of sentence was challenged by the appellant. Learned Addl. Session Judge was of the view that considering the gravity and nature of offence, the sentence awarded to the petitioner/accused was just and proper calling for no interference.

10. This criminal revision petition is directed against the said order dated 18.01.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.50/2011.

11. In this criminal revision petition, the i