Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 141
High Court of Delhi
P.S. TEJI, J.
Subhash Chand - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
CRL.REV.P. No. 828 of 2002
Decided on : 30-01-2015
For the Petitioner:Siddharth Aggarwal, Utkarsh Saxena, Advocates.
For the Respondent: P.K. Mishra, APP.
The plea of alibi must be proven with certainty to exclude the possibility of the accused's presence at the scene of the crime. A false plea of alibi can be an incriminating circumstance.
Headnote:
Conviction - Offences under Section 304A and 279 IPC - [Section 304A, Section 279] - The court upheld the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Section 304A and 279 IPC. The prosecution relied on witness testimony and documentary evidence to establish the petitioner's guilt. The court found the plea of alibi to be false and not supported by reliable witnesses. The petitioner's claim of not being present at the scene of the crime was dismissed, and the court modified the sentence based on the duration of the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
An accident occurred on 27.06.1994, resulting in the death of an individual. The petitioner, a bus driver, was convicted for offences under Section 304A and 279 IPC based on the prosecution's evidence. The petitioner filed a revision petition seeking acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the petitioner's conviction for the offences under Section 304A and 279 IPC. The plea of alibi was found to be false, and the court modified the sentence based on the duration of the proceedings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimony, the validity of the plea of alibi, and the establishment of the petitioner's presence at the scene of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimony and documentary evidence, sufficient to establish the petitioner's guilt. The plea of alibi was dismissed as false, and the court modified the sentence based on the duration of the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court upheld the petitioner's conviction for the offences under Section 304A and 279 IPC, and modified the sentence based on the duration of the proceedings.
P.S. Teji, J.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 05.05.2001 and order on sentence dated 04.06.2001 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, awarding the sentence to the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 304A IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months; sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and upholding the same by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 05.07.2002, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.
2. Factual matrix, as emerges from the record, is that on the fateful day of 27.06.1994 at about 07.45 p.m., an accident had taken place at Rani Jhansi Road, Azad Market. The vehicle involved in the accident was a Bus bearing registration No.DL 1P 3704. In the accident, one Ram Saran died. The case of the prosecution was that at the time of accident, the petitioner was deputed as driver of the bus and was driving the bus rashly and negligently which resulted into accident which snatched a life. An FIR of the case was recorded. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed.
3. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 304A and 279 IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the notice served.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he had claimed innocence. The petitioner examined 3 defence witnesses to prove his defence. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated 05.05.2001 held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A IPC and convicted him for the said offences. The order on sentence was passed on 04.06.2001.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.65/2001. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 05.07.2002, confirmed the conviction of the petitioner as well as sentence of imprisonment awarded to him.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition to set aside the judgments rendered by the courts below and claiming acquittal.
7. At the outset, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the conviction of the petitioner is based on the testimony of PW5 Ct. A.K. Khan. PW5 Ct. A.K. Khan was not available at the spot, so his testimony ought to be discarded. Even he was not the eye witness to the incident.
8. In support of the contentions raised, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to reported judgments in case of Paul George vs. State ILR (2006) II Delhi 487; Ravinder Singh vs. State (NCT) of Delhi 197 (2013) DLT 99 (DB); Mohammed Aynuddin Alias Miyam vs. State of A.P. (2000) 7 SCC 72 and Jayendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2007) 7 SCC 104.
9. In the present case, the prosecution basically relied upon PW5 Ct. A.K. Khan. The plea taken by the petitioner is that as per the charge sheet, it was Constable Ashok Kumar who took the victim to the hospital but while examining the witnesses, Ct. A.K. Khan was examined. On specific enquiry by the Court, even the counsel for the petitioner could not explain whether “A.K.” stand for Ashok Kumar or not. It is not disputed that in the charge sheet Ct. Ashok Kumar has stated to have played same role which was narrated by Ct. A.K. Khan. The cross-examination by the learned defence counsel of Ct. A.K. Khan (PW5) does not suggest that Ct. A.K. Khan was not the same person who witnessed the petitioner driving the bus near the earlier red light at a little distance from the place of incident with high speed of 40-4
