The court affirmed that driving at high speed in a blocked area constitutes rashness and negligence under IPC Sections 279 and 304A, allowing for conviction despite arguments on eyewitness reliability and accident circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 05.12.2014 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’), passed in CA No. 73/14, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi upheld the judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2013 and reduced the sentence awarded by order on sentence dated 25.06.2014 in the case arising out of FIR No. 651/2004 (‘FIR’), registered at Police Station Connaught Place.

2. By the judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2023, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 /304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). By the order on sentence dated 25.06.2014, the learned Trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 304A of the and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 279 of the . Furthermore, the petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. By the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Court reduced the awarded sentence of two years of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC to six months of simple imprisonment.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

4.1. On 23.10.2004, information was received about an accident at Baba Khadak Singh Marg near Hanuman Mandir, Connaught Place. The FIR was registered on the statement of Ct Hari Charan (PW3), who is the alleged eye witness of the incident. It is the case of the prosecution that on the said date, at about 2:40PM, when PW3 was on duty at Baba Khadak Singh Marg, a motorcycle coming towards Cannaught Place Circle hit the victim, aged about 50 years old, who was crossing the road. Allegedly, the motorcycle was being driven by the petitioner at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and the concerned road was blocked due to Kali mata procession at the relevant time. The victim sustained fatal injuries.

4.2. By the judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2023, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC after observing that the circumstances of the case suggest that the incident could not have occurred due to any reason other than the rashness and negligence of the petitioner. It was observed that despite movement of traffic being blocked on the concerned road at the relevant time, the petitioner had entered the area and driven his motorcycle at a high speed, as evident from the evidence of PW3. It was further noted that the fresh damage on the motorcycle of the petitioner was contrary to his claim that his vehicle was not involved in the offence.

4.3. By the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ upheld the conviction and reduced the substantive sentence of the petitioner to six months of simple imprisonment and payment of fine of ₹5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of three months.

4.4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s conviction is perverse as the same is based on conjectures and surmises. She further submitted that the entire story of the prosecution, including the sole eye witness, have not clarified as to how the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. She stressed that