Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Ram Kishan - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 659 of 2018
Decided On : 25-06-2021
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. This revision petition under Section 397 /401 CrPC read with Section 482 CrPC is directed against the judgment dated 30.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge (NDPS), South East, Saket Courts Complex in C.A. No.236/2018. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the judgment impugned herein has affirmed the judgment dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and order on sentence dated 17.04.2018 sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under Section 279 IPC and simple imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 304A IPC and directing the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Legal Representatives of the victim.
2. The facts in brief leading to the present revision petition are as under:
a) PW-1, Ct. Satpal, Police Station Sarita Vihar who gave information vide DD No.25A regarding an accident opposite A-19 Mohan Cooperative Mathura Road.
b) On receiving the said information, the Police reached the spot. PW-1 gave a statement that on 30.05.2010, while working at Police Station Sarita Vihar, he was on beat duty on Mathura Road, Delhi at about 12:40 p.m. in front of A-19 Mohan Cooperative the bus bearing registration No.HR-38L 7814 came from Badarpur side at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the right side of the bus against one motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-14AY 8745. The occupants of motorcycle fell down and sustained injuries. There were two persons on the motorcycle. The bus driver tried to flee from the spot. PW-1 stated that he told one person to apprehend the driver. He diverted the traffic in order to take care of injured. PCR van reached on the spot and removed one of the injured who was alive to Apollo hospital and the other person who had already passed away was removed to AIIMS Trauma Centre by PCR van through HC Bhim Singh. The bus was chased and stopped by public near Police Station Sarita Vihar. The bus driver fled the spot. Photograph of the site, body of the deceased, offending vehicle and the motorcycle were taken from the spot. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. On the basis of the statement of PW-1, FIR No.162/2010 was registered.
c) The second occupant of the motorcycle who had been taken to the hospital also passed away. After investigation, charge sheet was filed for offences under Section 279 and 304A IPC. The charges were framed. To bring home their case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses.
d) PW-1, Ct. Satpal, the complainant is the star witness of the prosecution. He states that on 30.05.2010 at around 12:40 p.m. in front of A-19,Mohan Cooperative where one bus bearing registration No.HR-38L 7814 came from Badarpur side at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner hit against one motorcycle No. UP-14AY 8745. As a result, occupants of motorcycle fell down and sustained injuries. He stated that he raised an alarm upon which public persons gathered on the spot. One person from the public got the bus stopped. He has stated that the accident has taken place due to fault of the petitioner. PW-1 stated that he diverted the traffic in order to take care of the injured. PCR van reached on the spot and removed the injured to Apollo hospital as other person had passed away on the spot. SI Krishan Kumar reached on the spot. He further states that the petitioner and conductor fled from the spot. During the cross-examination by the counsel for the defence, he stated that he has witnessed the accident. He denied the suggestion that the accident did not take place in his presence.
e) PW-2, HC Bhim Singh stated that on 03.05.2010 at 10:00 a.m. he along with Ct. Ajay Pal reached the spot and saw motorcycle which had been hit by the bus. One person was lying dead on the spot. The body was taken to the hosp
Motor Accident - Causing death by negligence - Conviction confirmed - Power of a revisional court - It is well settled that a revisional court is not an appellate court and it cannot substitute its c....
Conviction for causing death due to negligence was overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and failure to properly admit key evidentiary documents.
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 prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence proving the accused's rashness or negligence, leading to the overturning of convictions for death by negligence under sections of the IPC and Mot....
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.
The court emphasized the importance of deterrence in sentencing for offences of rash and negligent driving and considered the mitigating circumstances of the case to strike a balance between correcti....
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.
Skid marks and eyewitness high speed testimony prove rash negligent driving under IPC 279/337; revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings absent perversity.
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
