J U D G M E N T

DEEPA K VERMA , J .

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The solitary question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether respondent accused deserves to be held guilty of commission of offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) or the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the High Court of Delhi, under Section 304 A of the IPC should be held to be good and legally tenable.

4. On 12.04.2010, limited notice was issued to the respondent by this Court, which reads as under:

“Issue notice confining to the nature of offence”.

Facts shorn of unnecessary details as unfolded by prosecution are mentioned hereinbelow:

5. On the intervening night of 9/10.01.1999, an unfortunate motor accident took place involving BMW Car No.M-312LYP. At the relevant point of time, it is no more in dispute that offending vehicle BMW was being driven by respondent. As per prosecution story, the said vehicle was coming from Nizamuddin side and was proceeding towards Lodhi Road. Just at the corner from where Lodhi Road starts, seven persons were standing on the road at about 4.00 a.m. In the said car, Manik Kapur and Sidharth Gupta (since discharged)