Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 4405
Delhi High Court
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
Rajan Singh @ Bobby - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) - Resopndent
Crl.Rev.P. 550/2015
Decided On : 03-11-2015
For the Petitioner:Mr.D.B.Yadav, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr.Raghvinder Varma, APP.
The principle of just punishment and the consideration of mitigating circumstances are crucial in sentencing for criminal offences.
Headnote:
Rash and Negligent Driving - Conviction under Sections 279/338 and 304A of the IPC - [IPC] - [279, 338, 304A] - The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for rash and negligent driving leading to the death of a person. The sentence under Section 304A of the IPC was reduced from one year to four months considering mitigating circumstances and the principle of just punishment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/338 and 304A of the IPC for driving a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the death of a person and causing grievous injuries to another. The incident occurred in 2003, and the trial continued for about 12 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, leading to the death of a person. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, but reduced the sentence under Section 304A of the IPC from one year to four months considering mitigating circumstances.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proved the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 279/338 and 304A of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle was established by the testimony of the owner of the vehicle. The fact of rash and negligent driving and the resulting death and injuries were proved by the prosecution witnesses. The court also considered mitigating circumstances and the principle of just punishment in reducing the sentence under Section 304A of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision petition, maintaining the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC, but reducing the sentence under Section 304A of the IPC from one year to four months.
Ashutosh Kumar, J. (Oral)
1. Rajan Singh @ Bobby, assails the judgment and order of conviction dated 08.11.2012/04.12.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02/West: Delhi in connection with FIR No. 365/03 (P.S.Hari Nagar) whereby he has been convicted under Sections 279/338 and 304A of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 10 days for the offence under Section 279; simple imprisonment for two months, fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 10 days for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for one year, fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 304A IPC, the sentences, however, having been ordered to run concurrently; as also against the order dated 16.5.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge West-04, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi passed in Crl.Appeal No. 7/2/14 whereby the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court has been upheld.
2. The petitioner, while driving a vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing registration No. HR 38HT 1113 in a rash and negligent manner dashed two scooters, one of which was being driven by the deceased and the other by the complainant. Because of the impact of the collision, Ranjeet Singh expired and the complainant suffered grievous injuries. As a result thereof DD No. 9A was lodged at police station Hari Nagar. The statement of the complainant was recorded at the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital whereafter FIR No. 365/2003 was instituted against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279/338 and 304A with the Hari Nagar police station.
3. During trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.
4. Surinder Singh (PW-1) who is the complainant of the case, has deposed that while he was coming to his house on his scooter on 19.08.2003, he heard and saw that two boys were signalling him to stop his scooter. The boys were asking for petrol. It was at this point of time that a Tata Sumo vehicle came from behind and hit his scooter. The vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. One of the boys who was taking out petrol from his scooter was also injured. The aforesaid witness did not remember the complete number of the vehicle but had spotted the registration number as HR 38. The driver of the vehicle got down but PW-1 failed to identify the accused driver in the Court. The aforesaid witness and the injured boy (Ranjeet Singh) were taken to DDU Hospital where the injured Ranjeet Singh was declared brought dead by the doctors. PW-1 has proved his complaint (Ex.PW-1/A).
5. Sumit Chawla (PW-2) another eye witness of the accident, testified to the fact that the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. HR 38 HT-1113 hit the scooter of the deceased and of the complainant as the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. PW-2 has proved the site plan (Ex.PW-2/A). However, he has also failed to identify the accused in Court as the accident had taken place at night.
6. Devender Singh (PW-3), uncle of the deceased Ranjeet Singh identified the dead body of his nephew.
7. Head Constable Shyam Sunder (PW-4) has testified to the fact that two scooters which met with the accident were found at the site. He came to learn on the spot that the injured persons were taken to DDU Hospital.
8. Satish Sherawat (PW-5) is the proprietor of Megha Tour and Travels and is the owner of the offending vehicle. He had received notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Ex.PW-5/A), to which he replied. It has been categorically stated by PW-5 during trial that on the time and date of occurrence, the vehicle in question was being driven by the petitioner. The offending vehicle was returned to PW-5 vide superdarinama (Ex.PW-5/D).
9. The petitioner was handed over to the police by PW-5 who had come
