The main legal point established is the consideration of mitigating circumstances and the reformatory aspect of sentencing in granting the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. Manvender Singh, the revisionist/petitioner was convicted under sections 279/304A of the IPC and sections 119/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2008 and 12.08.2008 respectively in connection with FIR No.274/2000 and was sentenced to undergo SI for 9 months, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer SI for 2 months for the offence under section 304A of the IPC and SI for three months, to pay a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer SI for one month for the offence under section 279 IPC. He was fined Rs.100/- for the offence under sections 119/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence vide Criminal Appeal No.87/2008, which too was dismissed vide order dated 05.02.2009.

3. One Ct. Sukhbir Singh, PW.7 was on duty at red light of Nanaksir Gurdwara, Wazirabad Road from 08:00 a.m. to 09:00 p.m. on 20.09.2000. The red light signal, at that point, was out of order and therefore Ct. Sukhbir Singh, PW.7 was managing the traffic by hand. At about 09:00 a.m., one old lady came from the side of Sonia Vihar and started crossing the road towards Nanaksir Gurdwara. At that point of time, the offending vehicle which was being driven by the petitioner came from the side of Bhajanpura and the old lady came under the right side rear wheel of the vehicle. The vehicle was stopped at a distance of 50m from the red light. Ct. Sukhbir Singh had stopped the vehicle coming from the Wazirabad side. Ct. Ramesh Chand, PW.4 also came at the place of the occurrence on intimation having been given to him from the control room. Thereafter SI Ved Raj Singh, PW.10 who is IO of the case, also arrived.

4. The revisionist/petitioner was handed over to PW.10, SI Ved Raj Singh.

5. On the basis of the statement of Ct.Sukhbir Singh, PW.7 (Ex.PW.10/A), FIR (Ex.PW.5/A) was registered against the petitioner for offences under sections 279/304A of the IPC and 119/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. At the trial, 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and none on behalf of the defence.

7. Ram Gopal and Ramesh, PWs.1 & 2 respectively have identified the dead body as that of their mother, late Smt.Ram Kali Devi. The death was found to be because of the accident as per the report of Dr. Arvind Kohli, PW.3 (Ex.PW.3/A). Ct. Sukhbir Singh, PW.7 and Ct. Ramesh Chand, PW.4 were available at the place of occurrence. PW.7 had seen the occurrence whereas PW.4 had come to the place of occurrence on the intimation from the control room.

8. As against the prosecution version, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner before the Trial Court that the petitioner, as a driver of the offending vehicle, could not have been held guilty for the offence as the deceased was crushed under the rear right side wheel of the offending vehicle. It was also submitted that the accident could not have taken place because of negligent and rash driving of the petitioner as admittedly at the time of the accident, vehicles were being driven at a slow speed. PW.7 in his cross-examination had stated that all the vehicles on the road at that time moved at slow speed. No public witness was examined to bring home the charges. It was also argued that only because a lady died under the rear right side of the wheel of the offending vehicle which was being driven by him, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced and his appeal was dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The very fact that the deceased was not hit from the front side of the vehicle was a surest evidence of the fact that the vehicle was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

10. The element of contributor