Delhi District Court
Jai Ram S/O Sh. Prem Singh vs The State on 26 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Crl. Appeal No.29/13
Jai Ram s/o Sh. Prem Singh
....Appellant
Vs.
The State
...... Respondent
Date of Institution : 23.03.2013
Reserved for order on : 15.07.2014
Judgment Delivered on: 26 .07.2014
ORDER
The present appeal U/s 374 Cr.PC has been preferred for setting aside the Judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2013 and quantum of sentence dated 20.02.13 passed by Ms. Ruchika Singla, Ld. MM in case titled State Vs. Jai Ram, FIR no.147/05, u/s 279/304A IPC of PS Kapeshera.
2. Briefly stated the facts for giving rise to this appeal is that on 03.07.2005 at about 7 a.m at Surya Vihar ka kona Road, Kapashera Border, the accused Jai Ram was driving a chesis bearing Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 1 of 22 no. JH05A 1423 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving the same, he hit the same against Sh. Manoj Dass due to which he succumbed to death. Hence the present case was registered. After hearing arguments, notice u/s 251 Cr.PC was framed to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter prosecution examined its witnesses. Statement of accused was recorded and thereafter after hearing the final arguments, Ld. MM convicted the accused u/s 279/304A IPC and vide order dated 20.02.2013 the accused was sentended to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ and in default of fine, to further undergo SI for 15 days. Feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this present appeal for setting aside the said order.
3. This appeal was received by this court on 22.03.2013. Trial court record was summoned which was received. Thereafter, I have heard the arguments from the Ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as Ld. Addl.PP for the State.
4. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the statement of PW1 as he has failed to explain Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 2 of 22 as to how the accident has taken place. It is stated that the telephonic call disclosed vehicle no.HR 1610 Truck which was parked in the Mushtaq's Garage. It is submitted that the site plan prepared by the IO has not been signed by any witness and infact there was no signle eye witness to the alleged incident. It is furhter submitted that there is not a single witness from where the vehicle was allegedly recovered. It is stated that the police has not clarified as to how the vehicle/chesis was got identified where other similar chesis were parked. It is further argued that there is delay in passing information to the police and there was sufficient time with the police to manipulate the entire situation and to plant an eye witness who infact was not an eye witness. Ld. Counsel further submitted that appellant wanted to lead defence evidence in his favour but only a single date was given to him which is highly illegal and no fair and reasonable opportunity was given to produce the defence witnesses. There is no other eye witness in this case except the brother of deceased. It is submitted that the only eye witness in this case could not stated as to how many wheels were there in the vehicle/chesis, names of the shopkeepers surrounding his shop. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the court on the address of PW1 recorded by the police and one on which summon was sent and stated that he is very clever and and showed a manipulated story at the instance of police. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that appellant has also Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 3 of 22 moved an application for recalling of PW3 and PW4 who were material but the said application was not allowed. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and has been falsely implicated by the IO. He is the only bread earner in his family and has undergone the agony of long trial of more than 8 years. He is not previous convict. He is old patient of Asthma, High B.P. And chest infection. It is stated that benefit of probation u/s 360 Cr.PC has not been extended to him by the Ld. Trial court. ld. Counsel stated that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant may kindly be set aside and the appellant may kindly be acquitted.
5. On the other hand Ld. APP for the State has strongly refuted the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and he has argued that the PW1 has clearly stated that the vehicle was being driven by the appellant at the time of accident. It is submitted that considering the fatal injuries, the appellant cannot be shown any leniency or given the benefit of probation. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be dismissed.
6. In consideration of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as Ld. Addl.PP for the State, I have also perused the Ld. Trial court file as well as evidence available on file. PW1 Govind Das is the eye witness in this case and he is the Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 4 of 22 brother of deceased Mohan Dass. He has deposed that he alongwith his brother were residing in Kapashera and earning on the basis of selling smokable articles. On 3.7.2005, he alongwith his brother had gone to open the khokha at the said address. He was a little bit follwing distance to his brother. The moment his brother reached in front of khokha at about 7 a.m in the meantime, a truck chasis which was being driven by the accused present in the court, in a very rash and engligent manner and without giving horn came from the side of Gurgaon and hit against his brother who was standing at the left side of the road. He gave signal to the accused to stop but he did not pay any heed to his signal. The accused stopped the truck chesis in the garage of Mushtaq. He reached in the garage of Mushtaq where he came to know the name and particulars as Jai Ram s/o Prem Singh. The matter was reported to the police. Police came and while identifying the dead body of his brother he got recorded his staement which is Ex.PW1/A, the number of cheasis was JH 05A 1423. His brother was shifted to Ganga Ram Hospital. The truck was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/C1.Again said his brother was shifted to DDU Hospital. DL of accused was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He identified the dead body of his brotehr and received the same vide receipt Ex.PW1/E1. Accused was arrested on his identification. Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 5 of 22 Police get the scene photographed. He identified the vehile bearing regn. no. HR 46B 4256, chesis no. 388069FUZ12095 and Engine no. as Ex.P1. In cross examination, he has stated that now khokha has been removed as his brother had expired. Nowadays he is without any work. He resides in Dunda Hera Border near tempo stand. His kids and wife lives with him. He is 10th pass. His school is situated in Taricharkala. The chesis was without body as therw was only driver cabin type. He does not remember the model of the chesis. The garage of Mushtaq is at a distance of approx. half kilometer. On the side of accident upto the garagge of Mushtaq there was only one khokha which was of them and there was no other khokha. He denied the suggestion that there were 1520 shops and khokha on that side. However, on the opposite side there were many shops and khokha. He does not remember how many wheels were having these chasis. On some of the occasions he used to go with his brother on his khokha but generally he used to sit. He cannot tell the names of the shopkeepers surrounding the khokha of his brother. He made call to the police from landline. The police reached the spot where he met the police. He received the summon at his native village.
7. PW2 Ct. Prem Prakash has deposed that on receipt of DD no.10A, he alongwith IO reached at corner Surya Vihar wehre I recorded the statement, prepared tehrir and he got the case Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 6 of 22 registered. He further deposed about arrest of accused and seizure of truck chesis vide memo Ex.PW1/B.
8. PW3 Mustaq Khan has deposed that he is doing the work of body wielding/maker of truck and he has a garage at Kapashera near Surya Vihar wali Gali. On 3.7.05 his chowkidar had telephoned him and informed that one truck chasis no.1423 had come and police had also come. Thereafter he reached in the garrage and police removed the said chasis.
9. PW4 Retd.SI Nanak Chand has recorded the statement of Mushtaq and Jagminder. He deposed that original number of chasis JH 05A 1423 was confirmed at HR 46B 4256.
10. PW5 SI Jagpal has deposed that on 3.7.05 he recorded the statement of complainant which is Ex.PW1/A, prepared tehrir Ex.PW5/B and to the case registrered. He prepared site plan Ex.PW5/B at the instance of complainant. He seized the truck chasis. He arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/C1. DL of accused was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/D. Vehicle was mechanically inspected and he obtained the report Ex.PW5/C. After post mortem, dead body was handed over to its relative.
Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 7 of 22
11. PW6 W/ASI Sunita has recorded the FIR of this present case. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW6/A.
12. PW7 Dr. B.N.Mishra has appeared for Dr. Vikas Jain who has conducted the post mortem of deceased Mohan. The post mortem report is Ex.PW7/A.
13. PW8 HC Narender Pal has deposed that he had gone to the house of Kalu Ram and Jagminder Sharma but they were not found at the addresses mentioned on summons. The reports are Ex.CW1/A and C.
14. In view of the evidence led by the prosecution, I have also perused the Judgment passed by the Ld. MM dated 31.01.2013. In the present case, the main star witness of the prosecution is PW1 Govind Dass who is brother of the deceased and complainant in this case. He has clearly testified that on 03.07.2005 he alongwith his brother had gone to open the khokha installed at the corner of Kapashera Border, Surya Vihar. He was little bit following distance to his brother. The moment his brother reached in front of Khokha at about 7 a.m in the meantime a truck chasis which was being driven by accused present in the court, in a very rash and negligent manner Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 8 of 22 without giving horn coming from the side of Gurgaon and hit against his brother who was standing at the left side of the road. He gave signal to the accused to stop but accused did not pay any heed to his signal. The accused stopped his chasis in the garrage of Mushtaq. The above statement of PW1 clearly indicate that he has witnessed the accident with his own eyes. No suggestion/question has been put by the Ld. Counsel for the accused to PW1 that he did not witness the accident or that he was not going with his brother or that the chasis in question and its driver were not seen by him.
15. The first submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused/appellant is that PW1 has not stated as to how the accident had taken place. This submissions of the Ld. Counsel is without any basis. Perusal of the statement of PW1 clearly demonstrate that he was with his brother deceased Mohan Dass at the time of accident and that he has seen the accident with his own eyes. He even followed the truck chasis upto the garrage of Mushtaq. Even in cross examination that the chasis was without body as there was only driver cabin type. On the side of accident upto the garrage of Mushtaq there was only one khokha which was of them and there was no other khokha. However, on the opposite side there were many shops and khokhas. He does not remember how many wheels were having these chasis. On some of the occasions, he used to go with his Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 9 of 22 brother on his khokha but generally he used to sit. The khokha of his brother was situated at a distance of approx. half kilometer from the place where they were residing. He made call to the police from landline. He made conversation on telephone that how the accident had taken place. The police reached at the spot where he met the police The accident had taken place at the corner. They took his brother to DDU Hospital. PW2 Ct. Prem Prakash has stated that they met with one Govind at corner Surya Vihar Kapashera Border. Similar is the version of PW5 SI Jagpal. The cross examination of PW1 as well as statement of PW2 and PW5 clearly indicate that PW1 Govind Ram was present at the place of accident and witnessed the accident.
16. Another submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that telephone call disclosed vehicle no. as HR 1610. I have perused DD no.10A which disclose about the accident and some number as HR1610. It is stated in the DD that the truck has been parked in the garrage of Mushtaq. PW4 SI Nanak Chand has stated that original number of chasis JH 05A 1423 was confirmed as HR 46B 4256. Admittedly, the truck was not issued any number at the time of accident as it was only chasis being driven by the accused/appellant. Perusal of the vehicle delivery certificate cum gate pass disclose the Model of vehicle as LPO 1613/55. It seems that Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 10 of 22 the informer has wrongly noted the Model number as 1610. However, the vehicle was mechanically got inspected and as per inspection report Ex.PW5/C, blood stains were noticed on the side tyres which clearly establish that it is the same vehicle with which the accident had taken place. Therefore, this submission of Ld. Counsel is not well founded.
17. Another submission of the Ld. Counsel is that the site plan has not been signed by any witness. I have perused the site plan Ex.PW5/B. It has been prepared by SI Jagpal Singh on 3.7.05. PW5 Retired SI Jagpal has testified that he prepared the site plan at hte instance of complainant. No suggestion or question has been put to PW5 by the Ld. Defence counsel that he did not prepare the site plan at the instance of complainant. As per statement of PW2 Ct. Prem Prakash and PW5, complainant Govind met them at the place of accident. This clearly indicate that he was present at the spot and would have shown the place of incident and only thereafter the site plan Ex.PW5/B would have been made. Having no signature of any witness on the site plan would not be fatal for the case of the prosecution.
18. Another submissions of the Ld. Counsel is that no witness has been associated from where the vehicle was recovered. Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 11 of 22 PW1 Govind has stated that he chased the vehicle upto the garrage of Mushtaq where he came to know the particulars of accused as Jai Ram s/o Prem Singh. PW3 SI Nanak Chand recorded the statements of Mustaq and Jagminder. PW3 Mushtaq Khan is the owner of garrage and he has stated that his chowkidar had telephoned him and informed that one truck chasis no.1423 had come and police had also come. He reached in the garrage and police had removed the chasis. Statement of PW3 clearly indicate that the chasis was removed in his presence from the garrage. The seizrue memo Ex.PW1/B also bears the signatures of appellant Jairam, PW1 Govind Das and Ct. Prem Prakash. Therefore, submissions of Ld. That no witness was associated at the time of seizure of vheicle is not well founded.
19. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the prosecution has not established as to how the chasis was identified amongst the other chasis. This is a feeble submission of the Ld. Counsel. The statement of PW1 clearly indicate that he had witnessed the accident. He even chased the chasis upto the garrage. As per inspection report Ex.PW5/C the present chasis temp. no. JH05A 1423 was found having blood stained on the tyres which suggest that it is the same chasis with which the accident had taken place. This submission the Ld. Counsel has also been dealt by the Ld. MM in para 14 of the Judgment and I do not want to deviate from the findings of the Ld. Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 12 of 22 MM.
20. Ld. Counsel has further submitted regarding delay in registration of the case. On perusal of the Judgment, it is revealed that this objection of the Ld. Counsel has been discussed by the Ld. MM in para 7 of the Judgment which is appended below: 'Admittedly, the time of occurrence of the accident has been stated to be about 7 a.m and the DD entry of the call received at the PS was at about 9.00 a.m. There is a dealy of two hours. However, a mere dealy of two hours cannot be said to have vitiated the case of the prosecution. It has been stated by PW1 Govind Dass that when the offending vehicle hit the deceased, he chased the offending vehicle till the garrage of Sh Mushtaq. Time shall be consumed in chasing the accused, apprehending him, coming back to the spot, monitoring the circumstances, recovering from the shock of death of brother. In view of the same, the 2 hour delay cannot be categorized as so material which would defeat the whole case of the prosecution. Then, after the police reached at the spot, some time would naturally be taken in recording the statements and in judging the circumstances and the situation of the case. Hence, the court is not in agreement that there is an inordinate delay in registration of the FIR. The objection is not tenable.'
21. In view of the above discussions of Ld. MM, I am of the view that there is no need of interference by this court in the said finding given by the Ld. MM.
22. Another submission of the Ld. Counsel is that Ld. Trial Court has not given sufficient to lead the defence evidence. I have perused the file. On 25.10.2012 statement of accused was recorded Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 13 of 22 and matter was posted for Defence Evidence. On 29.11.2012, the Ld. Trial Court noted that no list of witnesses has been filed by the accused. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused before the Ld. Trial Court that witness who had to be examined on behalf of the accused has refused to testify and it was also submitted that no DW is to be examined. Therefore, DE was closed. The order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the court clearly indicate that the DE was closed on the submission of the Ld. Counsel as the witness who had to be examined on behalf of the accused/appellant has refused to testify. The DE was closed as there was no witness. On the said day, the appellant/accused was being represented by his counsel Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma in the court. Hence, submission of Ld. Counsel is not well founded.
23. Further submission of the Ld. Counsel is that the eye witness could not state as to how many wheels were there in the chasis or names of the shopkeepers. There is no merit in this submission of Ld. Counsel. PW1 has clearly stated that he chased the vehile upto the garrage. It is to be borne in the mind that at that time younger brother of complainant PW1 had met with an accident and it cannot be expected from PW1 to count the wheels of chasis.
24. Ld. Counsel has argued regarding address of accused Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 14 of 22 and stated that he is not a reliable witness. Admittedly the summon was issued to witness at his native place address and he also received the same there. In cross examination he admitted that he is residing at Donda Hera Border near Tempo Stand. His address of Tikamgarh MP is also mentioned in the list of witnesses. It is not that if a person has been issued summons at his native village, cannot get the same at his present address. He may get information about the same and then the summons by post. There is no question put by the Ld. Defence counsel to PW1 in this respect as to how he got the summons at Donda Hera Border address. This submission has no affect on the case of the prosecution.
25. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that application for further cross examination of PW3&4 has not been allowed. PW3 Musthaq has been cross examined by Ms. Anu Bala on 25.11.09 and PW4 SI Nanak Chand has also been cross examined by the said ld. Counsel on 25.11.09 itself. Perusal of trial court file revealed that there is no such application for recalling of PW3&4 has ever been filed by the Ld. Counsel. This plea of the Ld. Counsel seems to have been taken just for the sake of plea.
26. Ld. Counsel has also pointed out certain contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses during the course of arguments. I Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 15 of 22 have considered the same. On perusal of the same, I find that these contradictions are of trivial nature which can be ignored and overlooked as such contradictions can be possible due to lapse of time. On other hand, I found that there is clear allegations made by PW1 against the accused/appellant for rash and negligent driving in this case. The appellant has never made any complaint to any authority that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has also failed to examine any witness in his favour. He could not prove the plea that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
27. I have also perused the Judgment passed by the Ld. Trial court. In consideration of the discussions made by the Ld. Trial court and my above discussions, I am of the view that the Ld. MM has rightly convicted the appellant as there is sufficient evidence against the appellant in this case for the commission of offence punishable u/s 279/304A IPC. There is no apparent error in the judgment dated 31.01.2013 and the same is maintained.
28. Ld. Counsel has argued that the appellant belongs to a very poor family. He is only the bread earner in his family. He is the first offender. He is not previous convict and no other case is pending trial against him. He suffers from many ailments. He has family nad parents to be looked after and if appellant is sent to jail his family Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 16 of 22 would sffer. It has further been submitted that the convict wants to lead peaceful life and if he will be sent to Jail his family will starve die. It has been submitted that the appellant is facing trial for last about 9 years. It has been prayed that lenient view may be taken against him being sole bread earners in the family and benefit of probation may be granted.
29. Considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for awarding the benefit of probation to the petitioner, it may be reiterated that due to rash and negligent action of the petitioner an innocent person lost his life without any fault on his part. There is no possible justification for being casual and indifferent to the safety of public by such drivers. Our Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl.Rev.P.No.281/2005, Dharmendra vs. State, decided on 10.02.2012 has stressed that: "10. When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic, thus endangering the life of public at large, which cannot be allowed."
30. The Apex Court in Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB Police v. Sanjay Binjola , 2001 Crl LJ 2349 has enunciated the cases where such benefit should not be extended in the following Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 17 of 22 words: " 9.......It is true that nobody can claim the benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act as a mater of right and the court has to pass appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of each, case having regard to the nature of the offence, its general effect on the society and the character of the offender, etc. There are laws which specifically direct that the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act shall not apply to the persons convicted for those offences and there may be cases under other laws as well which may not justify the exercise of the powers of Probation of Offenders Act. Even apart from such exclusions the courts should be wary of extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to offences relating to corruption, narcotic drugs, etc. This Court has indicated in Dalbir Singh v. State Haryana : 2000 Cri LJ 2283 that benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should not normally be afforded in respect of the offences under Sections 304A IPC when it involves rash or negligent driving. These are instances for showing how the nature of the offence could dissuade the court to give the benefit."
31. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the above pronouncements, I am of the view that the Ld.trial court has rightly sentenced the appellant. In view of this, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of probation to the appellant.
32. I have also perused the recent Judgment Satya Prakash VS. State, MANU/DE/3921/2013. Victim Impact Report has filed by the SHO concerned in this case on 14.07.2014. I have perused the said report. The appellant is stated to be driver by profession. He has valid driving licence. He was not driving under the influence of liquor. He cooperated in the investigation. There is no breach of Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 18 of 22 insurance policy. The nature of case is fatal. He did not stop at the place of accident but parked the vehicle in the garrage. He was driving aggressively.
33. I have gone through the above noted case law. In para 10, 45, 81, 84, 103 it is stated that : '10. The court has to take into consideration the effect of the offence on the victim's family even though human life cannot be restored, nor can its loss be measured by the length of a prison sentence. No term of months or years imposed on the offender can reconcile the family of a deceased victim to their loss, nor will it cure their anguish but then monetary compensation will at least provide some solace.
45. A uniform sentencing policy has many benefits, namely to reduce judicial disparity in sentencing; promote more uniform and consistent sentencing; project the amount of correctional resources needed; prioritize and allocate correctional resources; increase punishments for certain categories of offenders and offences; decrease punishment for certain categories of offenders and offences; establish truth in sentencing; make the sentencing process more open and understandable; encourage the use of particular sanctions for particular categories of offenders; encourage increased use of non incarceration; reduce prison crowding; provide rational basis for sentencing and increase judicial accountability...........
81. Before awarding any compensation under sec. 357 Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 19 of 22 Cr.PC, the court shall consider whether any compensation has been received by the victim or his family by an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. If the victim/his family have received adequate compensation by an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the compensation u/s 357 Cr.PC shall be restricted to a reasonable conventional compensation in the facts and circumstances of each case. However, if the victim(s)/his family have not received any compensation by an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 357 Cr.PC shall compute the compensation which the victim(s)/his family would be entitled by applying the well settled principles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
84. If the accused does not have the capacity to pay the compensation or the compensation awarded against the accused is not adequate for rehabilitation of the victim, the court shall invoke Sec.357A Cr.PC to recommend the case to the State/District Legal Service Authority for award of compensation from the State funded victim compensation fund under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.
103. Section 3 & 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Chapter XXIA (Plea Bargaining) Cr.P.C for Probation and admonition cannot be invoked in Sec.304A IPC road accident trials and therefore, these cases cannot be taken up for plea bargaining. However, section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked in appropriate cases.
34. In consideration of the above observations, I have Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 20 of 22 considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in this case. The accused/appellant is 41 years of age. He is driver by profession and doing private job. He has valid driving licence. He was not found drunk. He cooperated in the investigation. The vehicle was insured. It is informed that the family of victim has also received the compensation in compromise from MACT but appellant has failed to disclose the amount. This fact is also not mentioned in VIR. He is first offender. He is sole bread earner in his family. He is facing trial for about 9 years. These are some mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances are that he fled from the spot alongwith vehicle. He was also driving aggressively and caused fatal accident.
35. On balancing the aforesaid aggravating & mitigating factors, I have also perused the order on sentnce. The accused/appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of One Year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 15 days. Considering the observations of the Hon'ble High court in case titled Satya Prakash VS. State, I am of the view that Ld. MM has rightly sentenced the accused/appellant. There is no need to inference in the said order on sentence and hence the same is maintained. In the facts and circumstances of the case as well as my above discussions, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed.
Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 21 of 22
36. The Appellant is on bail. His BB/SB is cancelled and surety is discharged. He be taken into custody to suffer the sentence awarded by the Ld. Trial court.
37. Trial court file be sent back with the copy of this order to the court concerned and appeal file be consigned to record room. Announced in the Open Court on 26.07.2014.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS) NEW DELHI Jai Ram Vs. The State C.A.No.29/13 Page No. 22 of 22