The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the testimony of the injured eye witness, corroborative evidence, and legal precedents to establish the petitioner's rash and negligent driving, leading to the conviction under Section 279, 337 and 304-A IPC.

P.S. Teji, J.:--

1. Aggrieved by the order on conviction dated 14.10.2004 and the order on sentence dated 18.04.2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, awarding the sentence to the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 279 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 337 IPC, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 304-A IPC, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days and upholding the same by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 16.09.2006, 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 07.10.1992 at about 11.30 p.m., an accident had taken place on the red light at Shanti Van Chowk. The vehicle involved in the accident was a matador bearing registration No. HR-05 A-4823. In the accident, one Satish, the scooterist sustained simple injuries and one Smt. Sudesh, the pillion rider, died. The case of the prosecution was that at the time of accident, the petitioner was driving the matador rashly and negligently which resulted into accident and snatched a life apart from causing injuries to Satish. An FIR of the case was recorded. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

3. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the notice served.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 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 did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated 14.10.2004 held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and convicted him for the said offences. The order on sentence was passed on 18.04.2006.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 09/2006. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 16.09.2006 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 orders rendered by the Courts below and claiming acquittal.

7. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that rash and negligent driving has not been established. At the time of incident, petitioner was crossing Shanti Van Chowk when the traffic signal was green, whereas the scooterist was crossing the Chowk on red signal and collided with the tempo. The prosecution case is based on sole testimony of PW1 Satish Sharma and there is no independent witness to prove the prosecution case.

8. There is no basis in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as injured/eye witness Satish Sharma (PW1) had specifically stated that on 07.10.1992, while coming from Krishna Nagar, at about 11.30 p.m., reached Shanti Van Chowk; it was green light and took turn to the side of Darya Ganj; the offending vehicle driven by the petitioner came from Raj Ghat side at a high speed and hit the scooter of the injured, who suffered injuries and his wife sustained grievous injury succumbing to her injuries on 11.10.1992 at LNJP Hospital.

9. Hon’ble Apex Court is of the considered view in case of Mano Dutt & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2012) 4 SCC 79 that the evidence of a injured witness is generally considered to be very reliable as he is the witness to the occurrence and himse