Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Ram Babu – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr.REV.P. 58 of 2017
Decided On : 14-08-2023
Rash and Negligent Driving - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 397, Section 401, Section 482 - IPC, Sections 279, 338 - The court discussed the testimonies of the eye-witnesses and the concept of rashness and negligence in driving, leading to the conviction of the petitioner under sections 279/338 IPC. The court upheld the conviction and modified the sentence for the offence punishable under section 338 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for driving rashly and negligently, causing grievous injury to a pedestrian. The trial court and the appellate court relied on the testimonies of the eye-witnesses to establish the petitioner's guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty of rash and negligent driving based on the combined testimonies of the eye-witnesses and upheld the conviction under sections 279/338 IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the testimonies of the eye-witnesses, the concept of rashness and negligence in driving, and the petitioner's challenge to the veracity of the witnesses' testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimonies of the eye-witnesses to establish the petitioner's guilt and found that the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the car, leading to the conviction under sections 279/338 IPC.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and modified the sentence for the offence punishable under section 338 IPC, reducing it from six months to four months. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court for serving the remaining part of the sentence.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The present revision petition is filed under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") read with section482 of the Code to impugn the judgment dated 06.01.2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") passed by the Court of District & Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") while dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner to impugn the judgment dated 23.12.2014 and orders on sentence dated 05.01.2015 and 26.06.2015 passed by the court of Sh. Tarun Yogesh, ACMM, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court").
2. The petitioner/accused Ram Babu (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner") was put to trial arising out of FIR bearing no. 0006/2010 registered under sections 279/338 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") at P.S. Saket on allegations that on 06.01.2010 at about 07:00 PM, he was found driving vehicle Wagon-R bearing registration no.DL3CBJ-1844 rashly and negligently on Som-Bazar Road, T-Point near MGF Mall, Saket, New Delhi and while doing so, hit against a pedestrian Sohan Pal Chauhan and caused grievous injury/hurt to him. HC Ravinder Singh and Ct. Pradeep Kumar after receipt of DD bearing no. 43-B, reached at the spot near traffic light signal, Saket but no injured/eye-witness was found there and thereafter, they reached at Max Hospital, Saket upon information received vide DD bearing no. 46-B where they found that Sohan Pal Chauhan i.e. the injured/victim was admitted vide MLC no. 1244/2010, who was declared not fit for statement. The complainant (eye-witness) Rajesh Kumar was met whose statement was recorded and thereafter, on the basis of rukka, FIR bearing no.0006/2010 under sections 279/338 IPC was got registered. HC Ravinder Singh, during the investigation, completed the formalities of investigation and filed the charge-sheet before the concerned trial court. Notice under section 251 of the Code was given to the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 279/338 IPC vide order dated 30.08.2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses including the eye-witness Ravi Sharma as PW1, the complainant/eye-witness Rajesh Kumar as PW4 and Investigating Officer ASI Ravinder Singh as PW5. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 313 of the Code wherein he admitted that he was driving Wagon-R car bearing registration no. DL3CBJ-1844 on 06.01.2010 at about 07:00 PM at Som-Bazar Road, T-Point near MGF Mall, Saket, New Delhi but was not driving the said car rashly and negligently. He further stated that the pedestrian was talking on mobile phone and was struck by the side of his car but he was not negligent and the traffic signal was green. The injured was also listening to songs using earphones. The petitioner preferred not to lead defence evidence.
4. The petitioner in the statement under section 294 of the Code did not dispute the FIR bearing no.0006/2010 registered at P.S. Saket on 06.01.2010, DD no. 43-B dated 06.01.2010 registered at P.S. Saket, MLC bearing no.1244/2010 dated 06.01.2010 prepared by Dr. Rakesh Yadav, Max Hospital, Saket and CT Head/Brain prepared by Dr. Manoj Sharma, Max Hospital and the said documents were exhibited as Ex A-1 to Ex A-4.
5. The Court of Sh. Tarun Yogesh, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide judgment dated 23.12.2014, convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 279/338 IPC. The relevant part of the judgment dated 23.12.2014 is reproduced as under:
12. Complainant Sh. Rajesh Kumar (PW-04) in his examination-in-chief has deposed to be working in Sheraton Hotel, Saket with his friend (injured) Sh. Sohan Pal in the year 2010. On 06.01.2010, as they were walking back to home, after finishing their duty and had reach
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eye-witness testimonies to establish the petitioner's guilt for rash and negligent driving, leading to the conviction under section....
Conviction for negligent driving requires substantial evidence beyond mere speed; a driver cannot be held liable under IPC without evidence proving rashness and negligence distinctly.
Rash driving or riding on a public way – There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In absence of any material on record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a driver to exercise reasonable care and precaution on public roads, and the prosecution's burden to prove rash and negligent driving i....
The court affirmed the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death, establishing that the accused's recklessness was the primary cause of the victim's fatal injuries.
A conviction under criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was lacking in this case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and documentary evidence, must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonab....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
