The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the direct nexus between the accused's rash and negligent act and the victim's death, emphasizing the essential elements of the offences under Section 279/304A IPC.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 Cr.PC assailing the order dated 22.11.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 8706/2016 titled as Ras Bihari Singh vs. State whereby the conviction order dated 25.05.2016 and order on sentence dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-3, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, was upheld.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 27.09.2010, the accused was driving a vehicle i.e. Innova Car bearing registration No. DL-4-CAE-4071 in a rash and negligent manner, hit Parul, an infant girl aged about 9 months who later died. An FIR has been registered in the instant case on the complaint of mother of the deceased girl.

3. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court (Metropolitan Magistrate) held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 279/304A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC fine and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. Fine amount has been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Session against the aforesaid order and the Court of Session vide its order dated 22.11.2016 modified the sentence to the extent that appellant shall undergo four months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279/304A IPC collectively subject to appellant shall pay Rs. 50,000/- to the mother of deceased child as compensation failing which he shall undergo one year simple imprisonment.

4. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court are not sustainable and deserve to be quashed and set-aside as they are not based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record; that both the Courts below have fallen in grave error in holding that Parul died due to rash and negligent driving of the accused; that testimony of PW-4, mother of the deceased, claiming to have seen the accident, is highly doubtful; that no independent person has been cited in the list of witnesses; that the prosecution failed to bring on record that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in such a rash and negligent manner which led unfortunate death of an infant girl; that the petitioner was willing to take the victim to the hospital but the complainant refused to do so and the victim was taken to the hospital after delay of 5-6 hours and she died due no negligence of her mother as she did not get proper treatment on time; that the prosecution failed to prove the Post Mortem Report of the deceased.

5. Refuting the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the present petition and contended that the judgments rendered by the Trial Courts does call for any interference by this Court; that the issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has already been dealt by the Trial Court and while exercising its revisionary powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. to re-appreciate the evidence, this Court has very limited powers, especially when it stands duly proved that impugned judgment have been passed after dealing with evidence meticulously by the Trial Court; that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner; that PW-4, mother of the deceased, who was present at the time of the accident categorically deposed that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. At the outset, before delving into merits of the submissions made by learn