The judgment emphasizes the need for reliable and consistent evidence to establish charges under Sections 279/304A IPC, and the standard for granting leave to appeal against acquittal.

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J.

By the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,(hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 02.11.2017passed by the learned Trial Court in FIR No. 132/2004, registered at PS, Kamla Market whereby the accused was acquitted of the charge punishable under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred as IPC).

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Learned Trial Court, are as under:-

"The case of prosecution against the accused Ran Chand is that on 04.04.2004 at about 4pm at JLN Marg, near Bus Stand, Kamla Market, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Kamla Market, he was found driving Ashok Lee Land Truck 709 bearing registration no HR-38C-2513 (hereinafter as 'offending vehicle') in a rash or negligent manner and while so driving dashed against a rickshaw thela being driven by deceased Ram Baran Yadav and caused his death."

3. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The accused was charged with offence under Sections 279/304A of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as of 13 witnesses including an eye witness PW-3, Sh. Sunil Kumar (son of the deceased).

4. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he claimed to be innocent and denied all allegations against him. The accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.

5. Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for State contended that the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2017 was based on conjectures and surmises and the same deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the State further contended that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of the eye witness PW-3/Sunil Kumar in correct perspective. Learned Counsel further contended that PW-3 (Sunil Kumar) identified the accused person and has consistently deposed against the Respondent. Mr. Katyal further contended that the testimonies of PW-3 (Sunil Kumar) and PW-2 (Ct. Vinod Kumar) are corroborative which establish the case of the prosecution. Learned Counsel for the State relied upon the Inspection report of the offending vehicle and argued that the damages on offending vehicle established the case of the prosecution.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

7. At the outset, before delving into merits of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I find it appropriate to discuss the relevant Section involved in the instant case. Section 279 IPC deals with rash and negligent driving, which reads as under:

"S. 279. Rash driving or riding on a public way-Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both"

8. To constitute an offence under Section 279 IPC, it must be shown that the person was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner because criminal negligence or criminal rashness is an important element for the offence under Section 279 IPC.

9. Section 304A reads as under:

"304A. Causing death by negligence- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

10. In a road accident case, to convict a person for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution is required to bring on record the basic requirement of the said Section i.e. "Rash or Negligent Act" with following conditions:

(1) there must be death of the person in question;

(2) that the accused must have caused