Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2686
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Bikram Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. Rev. P. 624/2015
Decided on : 13.10.2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. M.K. Arora
Ms. Alpana Pandey, APP for the State SI Roshan Lal, P.S. Nangloi
The central legal point established is the requirement to prove the accused's identity and the causal link between negligent driving and the victim's death under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.
Headnote:
Rash Driving - Criminal Law - IPC 279, IPC 304A - The court discussed the provisions of Section 279 and Section 304A of the IPC, emphasizing the importance of establishing the accused's identity and proving that death was caused due to negligent driving. The court found that the accused's negligent driving led to the death of a person, meeting the requirements under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the judgment and order of conviction for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC, related to a fatal accident caused by the petitioner's negligent driving of a truck.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence established the petitioner's negligent driving, leading to the death of the victim, and upheld the conviction. However, considering the circumstances and compensation paid, the court modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues included the identification of the accused as the driver, proving negligent driving, contradictions in witness statements, and the non-compoundable nature of the offence under Section 304A of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing the accused's identity and proving that death was caused due to negligent driving, and considered the proportionality of the sentence in light of compensation paid and the impact on the social order.
Final Decision: The revision petition was partially allowed, modifying the petitioner's sentence to the period already undergone.
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes the necessity to prove the accused's identity as the driver and that death was caused by rash and negligent driving under IPC 279 and 304A [11000443610013][11000443610014][11000443610020]. - It discusses the elements of Section 279 (rash driving endangering life) and Section 304A (death caused by negligence not amounting to culpable homicide) and their proofs (!) [11000443610011][11000443610012]. - It notes the non-compoundable nature of Section 304A and how settlements/compensation influence sentencing considerations and proportionality [11000443610021][11000443610023][11000443610024][11000443610025][11000443610027]. - It records factual findings that the vehicle hit the scooter from behind and that the death was due to trampling after the fall, supporting conviction [11000443610014][11000443610017][11000443610020]. - It finalizes with modified sentence to the period already undergone, considering compensation paid and social impact [11000443610027][11000443610028]. - The trial relied on multiple witness testimonies identifying the driver and the vehicle, including PW1 (driver of scooter), PW13 (owner of the vehicle) [11000443610014][11000443610015][11000443610016]. - The court accepted that mechanical inspection reports did not show damage but still held rash/negligent driving proved [11000443610018][11000443610019]. - The revision petition was partially allowed; conviction upheld but sentence modified to time already served (!) [11000443610028].
What is the required proof to convict under Sections 279 and 304A IPC in a rash and negligent driving case?
What is the appropriate consideration and scope of sentencing when compensation is paid and the offence under Section 304A is non-compoundable?
What is the role of identifying the accused as the driver and proving death caused by negligent driving in sustaining a conviction?
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
Crl.M.A.14467/2015
1. Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CRL.REV. P. 624/2015
1. Bikram Singh has challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.12.2012/22.12.2012 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in connection with FIR No.759/1999 whereby he has been convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 10 days and simple imprisonment for 1½ years, fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 15 days respectively. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. The revisionist has also challenged the judgment and order dated 18.9.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-02 (West), Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.231/4/2013 whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence by the Trial Court has been upheld.
3. The petitioner is alleged to have driven a truck, bearing registration No.HR-38B-1138, in such a rash and negligent manner on 21.7.1999, that he hit a scooter from behind leading to the death of Smt. Vijay Kumari, the pillion rider. The petitioner was, therefore, prosecuted for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.
4. The Trial Court has examined 13 witnesses to bring home charges as aforesaid against the petitioner.
5. Praveen Kumar (PW1) stated before the Court that on 21.7.1999, he along with the deceased was going on a scooter to State Bank of India, Tikri Kalan branch when a truck hit the scooter from behind, near Jai Mata Dharamkanta. As a result of the collision, Vijay Kumari, the pillion rider, fell down. PW1 also claims to have fallen down from his scooter. The offending vehicle is then said to have been driven in such a way that the left side wheels of the vehicle ran over Vijay Kumari, the deceased.
6. Vijay Kumari was taken to DDU Hospital. At the Hospital, the statement of Praveen Kumar (PW1) was recorded (Ex.PW1/A). It has been categorically asserted by PW1 that the incident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. He had identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle.
7. The dead body of late Vijay Kumari was identified by Devender Singh (PW2). Yogender Singh (PW3) is the brother of the husband of the deceased who received the dead body after post-mortem.
8. It has been argued that the Mechanical Inspector, J.S. Pawar (PW4) inspected the offending vehicle and during trial identified the copy of the mechanical inspection report (Ex.PW4/A). PW4 also mechanically inspected the scooter which was hit by the offending vehicle and the copy of the mechanical inspection report (Ex.PW4/B) of the scooter was also identified by him. HC Bhagwati Prasad (PW5), HC Shesdhar (PW6), Ct. Sukhbir Singh (PW7) and ASI Bhagwat (PW9) have all supported the factum of the accident and the death of Vijay Kumari as a result of such accident.
9. The post-mortem of the dead body of Vijay Kumari was conducted by Dr. L.K. Baruah (PW10) who has identified the post-mortem report (Ex.PW10/A) which bore his signature. The MLC has been identified by Dr. Yograj (PW11) who has identified the signature of Dr. Barun Nata, who conducted the MLC on the injured.
10. The judgment and order of conviction by the Trial Court was assailed by the petitioner on various grounds namely (i) material contradictions in the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the evidence tendered before the Court; (ii) attempt of PW1 in improving the prosecution version by asserting that even though he was driving the scooter, which was hit by the offending truck, but he did not fall down from the scooter; (iii) the mechanical inspection reports (Ex/PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B) not disclosing any fresh damage either to the offending vehicle or the scooter which was hit in the accident; (iv) contradictions in the statements of H
