Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 4135
Delhi High Court
S.P.Garg, J.
Ashok Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Resopndent
Crl.Rev.P.598/2014 & CRL.M.B.No. 10582/2014
Decided On : 09-09-2015
For the Petitioner:Mr.C.S.Rathour, Advocate with Mr.Neeraj Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Navin K.Jha, APP.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence in establishing guilt in cases of rash and negligent driving, and the court's discretion in sentencing based on the gravity of the offense.
Headnote:
Rash and Negligent Driving - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 279, Section 304A - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case of a fatal accident caused by the petitioner's rash and negligent driving, the evidence presented, and the rejection of the petitioner's defense. The court upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 279 and Section 304A of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for causing the death of a child in a rash and negligent driving incident. The prosecution presented evidence including witness statements and post-mortem examination to establish the petitioner's guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner's defense to be unsubstantiated and upheld the conviction and sentence, considering the gravity of the offense and the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's denial of driving the offending vehicle, challenges to the prosecution's evidence, and the leniency of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court rejected the petitioner's defense, emphasizing the evidence of the registered owner of the vehicle, witness statements, and the severity of the accident. The court also upheld the lenient sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the sentence.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner–Ashok Kumar to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 20.08.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal 159/13 arising out of FIR No. 214/00 PS New Ashok Nagar by which conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 279/304 A IPC vide order dated 25.09.2013 were upheld. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo SI for six months with fine Rs. 1,000/- under Section 279 IPC and SI for one year with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 304 A IPC. The revision petition is contested by the State.
2. Briefly stated, prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 20.09.2000 at around 10.23 p.m. at St. Marry Public School Chowk, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, the petitioner while driving Bus DL 1PA 6558 in a rash and negligent manner struck against one cyclist Nagender aged around 12/13 years and caused his death not amounting to culpable homicide. The petitioner was arrested at the spot and the offending vehicle was seized. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording statement (Ex.PW-10/A) of the victim’s father (Singheshwar Rai). Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The victim was taken to hospital where he was declared ‘brought dead’. Post-mortem examination was conducted on the body. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313/281 Cr. P.C. statement, the petitioner denied his complicity in the crime and claimed that the offending vehicle was not being driven by him at the relevant time. He examined DW-1 (Sukhbir Singh) and DW-2 (Sushil Kumar) in defence. The trial resulted in conviction. The petitioner challenged it in appeal which resulted in its dismissal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant revision petition has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in true and proper perspective and overlooked material infirmities and discrepancies without valid reasons. Complainant did not opt to appear for cross-examination at a later stage. The Trial Court committed error in relying upon his evidence. Conductor or passengers in the bus were not associated during investigation. The vehicle was not being driven by the accused and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Learned APP refuting the arguments urged that there are no sound reasons to disbelieve the statements of the complainant and other material prosecution witnesses.
4. Factum of accident in which a child aged 13 years lost his life has not been denied. Petitioner’s stand is that he was not the author of the crime as he was not driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This defence deserves outright rejection as the petitioner was apprehended at the spot and various articles including his driving licence were seized. Notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicle Act was served upon the registered owner of the vehicle without any delay. The prosecution examined PW-6 (Naresh Chandra), registered owner of the vehicle who in his reply (Ex.PW-6/A) informed the police that the petitioner–Ashok Kumar was driving the vehicle at the time of incident at about 10.23 p.m. in front of St. Marry Public School. The vehicle was got released by him vide superdaginama (Ex.PW-6/B). Statement of the witness on this aspect remained unchallenged in the cross-examination and nothing was suggested to him if the offending vehicle was not driven by the petitioner at the relevant time. PW-6 (Naresh Chandra) had no ulterior motive to make false statement. PW-7 (Singheshwar Rai) (in his examination-in-chief recorded on 12.10.2011); PW-8 (Aditya Gupta) and PW-9 (Surender Yadav) all have identified him to be the driver in the vehicle in question in their Court statements.
5. The occurrence too
