Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4336
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
Ram Chander – Petitioner
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL. REV. PETITION NO. 686 of 2017, Crl. M. B. 1622 of 2017
Decided On : 16-11-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mobin Akhtar, Mr. Ajay Singh and Mr. Noor Alam, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State with SI Sandeep Sharma, PS-Vasant Kunj (North).
The prosecution must establish a direct nexus between the accused's rash or negligent act and the victim's death beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision Petition - Offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC - Section 397, Section 401 Cr.PC - [Section 279 IPC, Section 304A IPC] - The court discussed the elements of Section 279 and 304A IPC, emphasizing the requirement of proving rash or negligent act for conviction. It highlighted the importance of establishing a direct nexus between the death and the accused's act, and the burden of proof on the prosecution. The court also referenced relevant case laws to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
A child was run over by a vehicle, leading to the petitioner's conviction under Section 279/304-A IPC. The petitioner appealed the conviction, arguing lack of evidence and reliability of witness testimony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the petitioner's rash or negligent act as the cause of the child's death, emphasizing the need for a direct nexus between the act and the death. It highlighted discrepancies in witness testimony and acquitted the petitioner of the charges.
Issues: Reliability of witness testimony, burden of proof on the prosecution, and establishing a direct nexus between the accused's act and the victim's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution must prove the accused's rash or negligent act as the direct cause of death beyond reasonable doubt. Witness testimony should be reliable and discrepancies can cast doubt on the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, setting aside the previous orders and acquitting the petitioner of the charges under Section 279/304A IPC.
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC assailing the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-02, Fast Track Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2017 whereby the order of conviction dated 10.08.2016 and order on sentence dated 26.08.2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate was upheld.
2. The relevant and necessary facts to dispose of the present petition is that a DD No. 26-A dated 07/08/2007 was recorded at the Police Station – Vasant Kunj (North) to the effect that one child has been run over by a vehicle near Crematorium (Shamshaan Ghat), Mahipalpur, Delhi; that the said DD was assigned to ASI Ramesh Kumar (PW-7), who went to the spot and found that the victim had already been removed to Safdarjung Hospital by PCR Van; that thereafter PW-7 went to the hospital and came to know that the victim was declared to have been “brought dead”; that statement of PW2 (father of the victim) of the victim was recorded to the effect that when he went to call the son, who was playing outside the home, saw that a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55-A-7142 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit his son; that the driver of the vehicle alighted from the spot and thereafter fled away from the spot; that someone called the police and PCR took him and his son to Safdarjung Hospital where doctor declared him “brought dead”; that PW-7 along with PW-2 went to the spot where PW-2 pointed towards the truck bearing registration No. HR-55-A-7142 and stated that the same truck had caused accident; that petitioner was arrested and released on bail.
3. Substance of accusation for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution relied upon seven witnesses in all, besides the exhibits produced during the trial. The statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein he reiterated his innocence and denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him.
4. Vide judgment dated 10.08.2016, the Metropolitan Magistrate held the petitioner responsible for the offence punishable under Section 279/304-A IPC and on 26.08.2017, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-A and further ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the L.R.'s of the deceased failing which he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.
5. The petitioner preferred a criminal appeal against the order of conviction dated 10.08.2016 as well as order on sentence dated 26.08.2017. The Court of Sessions dismissed the said appeal and upheld the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Petition.
6. Assailing the orders passed by the Trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders are highly presumptive, insupportable in law and based merely on conjectures and surmises; that the identification and arrest of the petitioner is very doubtful; that there is no iota of evidence to suggest that PW-2/father of the deceased was present at the spot; that it is nowhere stated in the MLC of the deceased that he was brought to the hospital by his father/PW2; that the mechanical inspection of the vehicle involved in the present case shows that there was no fresh damage on the vehicle and even no blood stains were found on the vehicle; that the investigating agency failed to book the real culprit and the petitioner has been made a scapegoat in the present FIR.
7. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Suleman Vs. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1968 (289, Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs. The State of Maharashtra : AIR 1973 SC 221 (V 59 C47) and Lakshmanan Vs. State of Tamilnadu : JT 2001 (Suppl. 2) SC 396.
8. Refuting the arguments addressed on behalf o
