Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 894 (DEL)

KEHAR SINGH v. STATE , NCT DELHI

2006-05-11

BADAR DURREZ AHMED

body2006
( 1 ) BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27. 1. 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2005 which, in turn, was directed against the judgment of the trial court dated 25. 5. 2005 and order of sentence dated 30. 5. 2005. The trial court had convicted the petitioner under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC and had sentenced him to undergo ri for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Sections 279/337 IPC and a further sentence of one year RI (to run concurrently) and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 304-A IPC was also imposed. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner had preferred the aforesaid appeal which was dismissed upholding the conviction and sentence Against that order of dismissal of the appeal dated 27. 1. 2006, the present revision petition has been filed. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced two arguments. First of all he submitted that the petitioner had not been identified by PW1 (Pritpal Singh) and yet the petitioner has been convicted. The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that upon going through the order in appeal, there is no finding that the petitioner had done any act which was rash or negligent and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 304a IPC were not made out. ( 3 ) BEFORE I examine the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to set out the brief facts which give rise to the present revision petition. On 24. 11. 1996 at about 2. 10 p. m. at Prabhat road, Ramjas Lane, the petitioner is said to have been driving a milk tanker bearing registration No. UP-13b 8021. While driving the said milk tanker, the petitioner is said to have struck a motorcycle bearing registration No. DLO-52. As a result of this impact, the pillion rider Arjun Bhagat died on the spot and the driver of the motorcycle Pritpal Singh (PW1) received simple injuries. In fact, the impact was such that the wheel of the tanker went over the motorcycle and caused the death of the said Arjun Bhagat. After completion of the investigation etc. As a result of this impact, the pillion rider Arjun Bhagat died on the spot and the driver of the motorcycle Pritpal Singh (PW1) received simple injuries. In fact, the impact was such that the wheel of the tanker went over the motorcycle and caused the death of the said Arjun Bhagat. After completion of the investigation etc. , the charge sheet was filed under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC against the petitioner and charges were, accordingly, framed thereafter under the very same Sections. The petitioner having pleaded not guilty, the trial commenced and as many as 11 prosecution witnesses were examined. The petitioner had made a Section 281 Cr. P. C. statement which was also recorded in which he is said to have denied the allegations leveled against him and that he has been falsely implicated. However, after considering all the arguments and the evidence on record, the trial court, as aforesaid, convicted the petitioner under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC and this conviction was confirmed in appeal. ( 4 ) TAKING the first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that as per the statement of Pritpal Singh (PW1), it is true that he did mention that he could not identify the driver. But this does not help the petitioner in any way. This is so because the said witness (PW1) had indicated the number of truck as UP-13b 8021. It has also come in evidence of pw11 who is the owner of the tanker that on that date it was the present petitioner who was driving the tanker and the courts below have read the statements of PW1 and PW11 together to indicate that it was indeed the petitioner who was driving the tanker when the said accident occurred. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that PW1 could not identify the tanker driver would be of no consequence. ( 5 ) COMING to the second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that there is no finding of any rash or negligent act having been committed in the appellate order. However, at the same time, I find that no such contention was raised before the appellate court. ( 5 ) COMING to the second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that there is no finding of any rash or negligent act having been committed in the appellate order. However, at the same time, I find that no such contention was raised before the appellate court. To ascertain as to whether there was any finding as to the commission of a rash or negligent act on the part of the petitioner, I examined the order of the trial court and found that the same has been elaborately discussed and a finding has been returned by the trial court that the petitioner was certainly rash and negligent in his driving and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. ( 6 ) A reading of the judgment and order passed by the trial court also shows that the mechanical inspection reports of the vehicles were also taken in to consideration to corroborate the prosecution case. Considering the mechanical inspection reports of the vehicles, the trial court negated the contention raised by the petitioner that it was the fault of the motorcyclist who had struck the tanker while moving in a perpendicular direction. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that the petitioner is the only bread earner in the family and he has three minor children aged about 10, 2 and 1 and there is nobody in the family to support them. The petitioner has also faced the rigours of a full fledged trial of eight years. It is also to be noted that the conduct of the petitioner immediately after the accident is also a mitigating circumstance in his favour inasmuch as he, despite the collusion, did not run away from the spot. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that although the conviction has to be maintained, the quantum of sentence ought to be reduced to the period already undergone. So, there is no question of interfering with the conviction insofar as the sentence is concerned. Though, looking at the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone and this revision petition is accordingly disposed of. Dasti. .