IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Mohd. Nasim - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
Cr.REV.P. 296 of 2017
Decided On : 03-11-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure - Criminal Revision Petition - Sections 397/401, 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 304A.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for offences under sections 279/304A IPC for causing a fatal accident. The trial court relied on the testimony of the complainant and the mechanical inspection report, while the appellate court upheld the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty based on the testimony of the complainant and the mechanical inspection report, rejecting the defense's arguments.
Issues: Reliability of the complainant's testimony, sufficiency of evidence, and sentencing considerations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of the complainant and the mechanical inspection report to establish the guilt of the petitioner. It emphasized the importance of careful scrutiny of evidence and the principle of proportionality in sentencing.
Final Decision: The petitioner's conviction and sentence were upheld, with a reduction in the sentence for the offence under section 304A IPC to six months of simple imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal revision petition is filed under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") read with under section 482 of the Code to set aside the order dated 27.03.2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") passed by the court of the District and Sessions Judge, East, Karkardooma Courts (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Criminal Appeal bearing no. 250/2016 titled as Mohd. Nasim Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and the judgment dated 17.03.2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") and order on sentence dated 15.07.2016 passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate-03, East, Karkardooma Courts (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in case arising out of the FIR bearing no.151/2009 registered under sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") at PS Mandawli Fazad Pur.
2. The relevant facts as reflected from the impugned judgment passed by the trial court are that SI Yad Ram (hereinafter referred to as "the Investigating Officer") after receipt of DD bearing no. 22A dated 10.04.2009 recorded at PS Mandawli Fazad Pur regarding an accident went to the spot where he found that one rickshaw used for carrying goods and a blue line bus bearing registration no. DL 1PB 9786 plying on route no. 534 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") were lying in accidental condition. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer went to LBS Hospital where he found that the injured Mahesh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") s/o Bhuri Lal was under treatment. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Mohd. Sabir (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") wherein he stated that on 10.04.2009 at around 03:45 PM at T-point, Narwana Road, near Paradise Apartment, he was coming on rickshaw which was being driven by the deceased and the complainant was also sitting on the said rickshaw. In meantime the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit the rickshaw from the back side. The complainant along with the deceased fell down on the right side of the road due to the collision and the rear tyre of the conductor side of the bus ran over the deceased as a result of which he sustained injuries but the complainant did not sustain any injury. PCR removed the deceased to the hospital. The driver of the bus was also apprehended by the complainant with the help of public and was handed over to the police. Thereafter, the present FIR was got registered under sections 279/337 IPC on the basis of the statement made by the complainant. The Investigating Officer conducted further investigation. The deceased died during the treatment and the post-mortem on dead body of the deceased was conducted. The Investigating Officer added section 304A IPC due to the death of the deceased. The charge-sheet after conclusion of investigation was filed on 05.11.2009. The concerned court had taken the cognizance and after complying with section 207 of the Code, notice under section 251 of the Code was given to the petitioner/accused/driver Mohd. Nasim (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") for the offences punishable under sections 279/304A IPC vide order dated 06.05.2010 to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner examined 11 witnesses including the complainant as PW-3 and the Investigating Officer as PW-11. The prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed vide order dated 07.07.2012. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 313 of the Code read with section 281 of the Code vide proceedings dated 21.07.2012 wherein the petitioner pleaded innocence and false implication. The petitioner also stated that no accident was caused by him. The accident had happened due to the collision between one Toyota Innova car and the rickshaw being driven by the deceased.
Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Gurbachan Singh Vs. Sat Pal Singh and others
Hari Obula Reddi & Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Krishna Mochi and Others Vs. State of Bihar
Mahender Chawla and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Karnataka Vs. Muralidhar
State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi
The testimony of an interested witness can be relied upon if found trustworthy, and sentencing should be proportionate to the nature and gravity of the crime.
The testimony of an interested witness can be relied upon if found trustworthy and reliable, and the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible eyewitness testimony and the consideration of the gravity of the offence in determining the sentence.
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.
A revision petition does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless there is clear illegality or perversity in the findings, and habitual offenders in fatal road accidents are denied the benefit o....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.