$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 24^th March 2023 + CRL.REV.P. 817/2022 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1458/2022, CRL.M.A.

7029/2023 MOHD IJHAR ANSARI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Baldeo Sharan, Advocate.

versus STATE(NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State with Inspector Dharmender Kumar, P.S.: Jahangir Puri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

J U D G M E N T

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J. (ORAL)

CRL.M.A. No.7030/2023 (Exemption)

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.REV.P. 817/2022 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1458/2022, CRL.M.A.

7029/2023 By way of the present revision petition under sections

397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner impugns judgment dated 23.09.2022 made by the learned District and Session Judge, District North, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Crl. Appeal No.101/2022, thereby rejecting the appeal against judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2021 and sentencing order dated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

25.06.2022 made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Cr. Case No. 528640 1/2016 arising from case FIR No. 205/2011. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 01 year imprisonment for the offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟); and to fine of Rs. 500/- under section 279 IPC, with a default sentence of 15 days imprisonment; to fine of Rs. 500/- under section 337 IPC, with a default sentence of 15 days imprisonment, along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. The sentences were directed to run concurrently; and benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. was given to the petitioner.

2. Mr. Baldeo Sharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the judgment of the learned Magistrate as well as of the learned Sessions Court suffer from complete non-appreciation of the evidence that came to be recorded in the matter. Counsel submits, that there is no proof that the auto was being driven „negligently‟; and in fact the petitioner had even contended that he was not the person driving the auto.

3. The matter has been heard at length at the pre-notice stage itself. The court has perused the decision of the learned Magistrate, as also of the judgment of the learned Sessions Court.

4. In essence and substance, the verdicts turn-on the following factual matrix that has emerged in the course of trial:

4.1 On 02.07.2011 the petitioner was driving 03 persons in an auto (a husband, his wife and her mother) when the auto collided with a Sumo/Tavera car, which led to the demise of the wife‟s mother and injuries to the husband;

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

4.2 Both passengers, husband and wife, appeared as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively at the trial. PW-2 was an „injured witness‟ and PW- 3 was an „eye-witness‟ to the accident; and they both deposed to the effect that the petitioner was driving the auto rashly and negligently;

4.3 The learned Magistrate records that PW-2 and PW-3 specifically deposed that the offending vehicle was being driven by the petitioner at high speed in a completely negligent manner, so- much-so that despite there being a red-light, the petitioner took a sharp right turn and collided with the Sumo/Tavera car, whereupon the auto turned turtle, injuring the passengers;

4.4 The learned Magistrate further records that the testimony of PW-

2 was clear, cogent and without any embellishments or concoctions and deserved to be accepted; and since PW-2 was an injured witness, his presence at the spot could not be doubted;

4.5 The learned Magistrate further records that the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 did not suffer from any major discrepancies inter-se;

4.6 In addition, the learned Magistrate also observes that PW-3, who was cited as an eye-witness, was cross-examined at length, but the defence was unable to extract anything that would detract from the prosecution case;

4.7 The learned Magistrate further records, that the mechanical inspection report of the auto tha