SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Del) 1863

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
Rashid - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 444 of 2018
Decided On : 30-09-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui, Adv., Radhika Kolluru, Adv.

The duty of care owed by drivers to avoid endangering the lives of others on the road and the application of Section 304A IPC in cases of rash and negligent driving resulting in death.

Headnote:

Negligence - Motor Vehicle Accident - Section 279/337/304A IPC - [Section 279, Section 337, Section 304A] - The court discussed the nature and scope of Section 304A IPC, emphasizing that it applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done will cause death. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304A. The court also highlighted the duty of care owed by drivers to avoid endangering the lives of others on the road, emphasizing the obligation to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others. The court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 279/337/304A IPC and maintained the sentence, subject to the payment of compensation of Rs.75,000 as directed by the trial court.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was convicted in a motor vehicle accident case where he was found driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, resulting in the death of a person and injuries to another. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 279/337/304A IPC and directed him to pay compensation of Rs.75,000.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 279/337/304A IPC and maintained the sentence, subject to the payment of compensation of Rs.75,000 as directed by the trial court.

Issues: The main issue was whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner in driving the offending vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of care owed by drivers to avoid endangering the lives of others on the road and upheld the conviction based on the combined evaluation of the testimony of the eye witness, mechanical inspection reports, and the site plan.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, the petitioner's bail bond was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender before the concerned court within a period of 2 weeks from the date of the judgment to undergo the remaining sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

The present proceedings have been instituted challenging the judgment dated 21.02.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CA No.240/2017,whereby the conviction of the petitioner was upheld, however, the sentence under Section 304A IPC was reduced to RI for 6 months.

2. Earlier, vide judgment dated 05.05.2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-06, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, the petitioner was convicted in FIR No.397/2013 registered under Sections 279/337/304A IPC at P.S. Dwarka North. The petitioner was sentenced to RI for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. He was also sentenced RI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and RI for 1 year for the office punishable under Section 304A IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The petitioner was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- in terms of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. & out of which Rs.70,000/- was to be paid to the LRs of the deceased, Prabhawati and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- was to be paid to the injured Anil Kumar and in default of which, he was directed to undergo RI for three months in additions to the aforesaid sentence.

3. Briefly, the facts as noted by the trial court are as under:-

"1. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution and as unfolded from charge-sheet are that at 05:05 PM on 06.11.2013, an information regarding an accident and shifting of injured to the dispensary by the ambulance was received at PS-Dwarka North. The same was reduced in writing vide DD no. 51B. The said DD was handed over to ASI Ved Prakash for necessary action. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Praveen reached at the spot of accident i.e. T Point near Sector-14 Dwarka Metro Station, Dwarka, New Delhi. There they found a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 9S AA 2597 and one Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. HR 63A 3657 in an accidental condition and they also came to know that the injured persons had already been shifted to DDU hospital. In the meanwhile, another DD No. 54B regarding admission of injured in DDU Hospital was received by ASI Ved Prakash. He left Ct. Praveen at the spot and went to the said hospital. At hospital, he collected the MLC of injured Prabhawati, who was unfit for her statement. He also met the rider of the said motorcycle, namely, Anil Kumar, who claimed to be an eye witness of the accident. He recorded the statement of complainant Sh. Anil Kumar. He endorsed the said statement and prepared a rukka. On the basis of the said rukka, he got the present FIR u/s 279/337 IPC registered at PS-Dwarka North.

2. In his complaint, Sh. Anil Kumar had asserted that on 06.11.2013 he alongwith his sister-in-law (bhabhi) Smt. Prabhawati Devi was coming on his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-9S-AA-2597 from Najafgarh and they were going towards his quarter at Delhi Cantt. He was driving the said motorcycle and Smt. Prabhawati was a pillion rider on it. He had alleged that at about 05.05 pm at T-point near Police Quarters, Sector -16 A, he took a left turn and in the meanwhile one Bolero vehicle bearing registration no. HR-63A 3657 came at a very high speed and hit his motorcycle from behind. He had further alleged that the said Bolero was being driven in a culpable rash and negligent manner. He had alleged that on account of said impact, his sister-in-law fell from the motorcycle and she sustained injuries on her head. He had asserted that the driver of said Bolero got them in his vehicle for taking them to the hospital, but in the meanwhile, ambulance came at the spot and took them to DDU hospital. He had alleged that his sister-in-law sustained injuries due to culpable rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Bolero.

3. During investigation, IO prepared the site plan. He seized the offending Bolero vehicle bearing registration no. HR 63A 3657 and the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 9S AA 2597. The driver of the sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top