The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of rashness or negligence leading to endangerment of human life or causing hurt or injury under Section 279 IPC, and the elements of negligence and rashness under Section 304-A IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present proceeding are directed against the judgment dated 12.04.2018 passed by the Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 150/2017 arising out of FIR No.173/2012 registered under Section 279/337/338/304A IPC at P.S. Parliament Street, New Delhi whereby the petitioner’s conviction was upheld.

2. Initially, the trial court vide judgment dated 15.4.2017 convicted the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and vide order on sentence dated 26.04.2017 sentenced the petitioner to RI for three months under Section 279 IPC, RI for three months under Section 337 IPC, RI for nine months under Section 338 IPC and RI for one and half year under Section 304-A IPC. The convict was also directed to make payment of Rs 50,000/- as compensation to the LR’s of the deceased and in default whereof to undergo SI for three months. The Trial Court also directed the L.Rs of the deceased to approach DLSA for additional compensation. However, the Appellate Court modified the order on sentence dated 26.04.2017 to the extent that the sentence under Section 304-A IPC was reduced to RI for nine months. The rest of the sentences were maintained.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner handed a certified copy of the order dated 29.10.2018 whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- had been handed over to the mother and the wife of the deceased.

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

“2. … In gist prosecution evidence is that on 07.12.2012, PW1 and PW2 boarded TSR bearing registration number DL-1RK- 5109 for Nizarauddin Railway Station, at about 07:00 am when it reached K. G. Marg, Firoz Shah Crossing, one TATA Indigo car bearing registration number CH-01AC-8201 came from the side of Mandi House at very high speed and being driven in rash manner and further it hit their TSR after jumping red-light when TSR was crossing its green-light due to which PW1, PW2 and driver were thrown out of the auto. They received severe injuries. The PW3 and PW4 also witnessed the incident being present/posted at nearby places and went to the spot. PW3 called at 100 number. The incident was reported at PS vide D.D.No.37A dated 17.12.2012 of PS Parliament Street vide Ex.PWX/D2. PCR van came at the spot and shifted all injured persons to the hospital. On receipt of D.D.No.37A from DO, PW6 reached at the spot, met with PW3 and accused and further he came to know that injured has been shifted to RML Hospital. PW6 left PW3 at the spot, went to RML Hospital, found two injured admitted there and one declared being brought dead. PW6 recorded statement Ex.PW1/A of PW1, came back at the spot where PW5 had already reached at the spot. PW6 made endorsement Ex.PW6/A on statement Ex.PW1/A, sent PW3 to PS to get FIR registered and handed over further investigation to PW5. PW3 got FIR registered and came back at the spot. PW5 got clicked photographs of the spot, seized both vehicles vide Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B, arrested accused vide Ex.PW5/C, prepared site plan Ex.PW5/D at instance of PW3 and then released accused on bail. PW5 received dead body of deceased Durga Prasad, got conducted postmortem and released body to its relatives vide Ex.PWX/D11. PW5 deposited vehicles in police malkhana, deposited MLCs of injured persons, collected their results, added Section 338 IPC in the matter, collected postmortem report, got verified driving license of accused and other papers of vehicle, got conducted mechanical inspection of both vehicles, recorded statements of various witnesses, prepared challan and filed in the Court. All witnesses have identified accused as driver of offending Indigo car and have correctly identified the photographs of Vehicles Ex.Pl (Collectively) in the Court. Prosecution witnesses were examined and discharged.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the testimony of witnesses is not trustworthy and the petitioner has been falsely implicated as he did not comply with the bribe demand of the police officials. It was further conten