Delhi District Court
State vs Kulwinder Singh on 30 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR III ,CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs Kulwinder Singh
FIR No. 258/87
U/s: 279/304A IPC
PS Gokalpuri
Date of Institution of case : 24.10.1987
Date on which judgment is reserved : 07.07.2014
Date on which judgment is delivered : 21.07.2014
Unique ID No. 02402R0276682011
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 298/14
b) Date of commission of offence : 13.06.1987
C) Name of complainant : Shri Vijender Kumar
d) Name of accused, his parentage :Kulwinder Singh S/o Sh.
Pyara Singh R/o: H. No. 32,
New Seelampur, Delhi Old
Address: House no. 3, New
Seelampur, Delhi.
e) Offence complained of or proved :279/304 A IPC
f) Plea of the accused :Pleaded Not Guilty
g) Final Order :Convicted
h) Date of such order :21.07.2014
i) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 13.06.1987 at about 10.25 pm accused Kulwinder Singh was found driving Truck bearing FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages No. DEG 4207 at North Ghonda, Wazirabad Road Crossing near Brij Puri Colony, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi in rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and hit the deceased Dhoom Singh who was riding on his bicycle, as a result of which the death of deceased was caused which is not amounting to culpable homicide and had committed the offences under section 279/304A IPC.
2. Accused Kulwinder was declared PO vide order dated 28.01.1997 and on 12.09.2011 accused Kulwinder Singh was produced after fresh arrest by HC Sanjeev in Kalandra U/S: 41.1 Cr.P.C. Accused was admitted on bail on dated 12.09.2011. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused free of costs and Ld. Predecessor of this court after considering the material available on record framed the charge on 28.09.2011 for the offences under section 279/304A IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in toto.
PW1 Sh. Vijender Kumar Complainant wrongly cited as PW2 deposed that on 13.06.1987 he was residing at gali no. 3,Karawal Nagar, Delhi94 along with his uncle (Chacha) Dhoom Singh and his family and was driving TSR for earning. On that day at about 10.20 to 10.25 pm, he along with his Chacha Dhoom Singh was coming from North Ghonda via Yamuna Vihar. They were on their separate cycles. His cycle was 56 steps behind the cycle of his Chacha Dhoom Singh. When he reached Main Wazirabad Road on the side of Chand Bagh, one truck bearing No. DEG 4207 was coming from the side of Chand Bagh and going towards the side of Gokalpuri in high speed, hit the bicycle of his uncle Dhoom Singh due to which he and his bicycle came FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages under the truck. He crushed his Chacha Dhoom Singh and dragged his bicycle for 5060 steps. After that the truck driver stopped the truck and ran away from the spot after leaving truck at the spot. He had seen the driver of the truck/accused while he was absconding from the spot. He had correctly identified the driver of the truck. His Chaha Dhoom Singh was dead at the spot. He informed the police in the nearby P.S and police officials came at the spot and police recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A He had shown the spot to the police officials on the basis of which the site plan Ex. PW1/B was prepared. The police seized the Hawai Chappals of his deceased Chacha vide seizure memo already PW1/D The bicycle of his Chacha and the truck bearing No. DEG 42007 were seized vide seizure memos Ex. PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F. Photographs were marked as Mark A 1 to A 8. Witness further deposed that the same were taken in his presence and the truck bearing no. DEG 4207 is the same truck which hit the bicycle of the deceased from behind and was being driven by the accused.
PW2 is Shri Braham Pal wrongly cited as PW3 deposed that on 14.6.1987,he used to reside at Village Khajoori Khas, Delhi and was a farmer. On that day, after receiving the information, he went to the sot i.e. Wazirabad Road near Brijpuri colony with his elder brother Braham Singh and identified the dead body of Dhoom Singh S/o Shiv Charan who was the brother in law of his elder brother Braham Singh. The identification memo is already Ex. PW1/N. PW3 is ASI Dharambir Singh wrongly cited as PW4 who deposed that on 16.6.1987 he was posted at PS Yamuna Vihar as Ct. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present case with SI Ram Dal and the identified the accused Kulwinder Singh who was arrested in the present case and personally searched vide personal search memo already Ex. PW1/R. The FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages Driving licence of the accused was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/S. PW5 Inspector Ram Dal had deposed that o n 13.06.87 he was posted at PS Yamuna Vihar now called Gokalpuri as SI. On receiving DD no. 24A, he alongwith Ct. Daya Singh arrived at the spot i.e. Main Wazirabad road, opposite Brij Puri near North Ghonda, Yamuna Vihar crossing where he found a dead body of a male person aged about 3540 years at the road in an accidental condition who was later on identified as Dhoom Singh S/o Shiv Charan . Further he deposed that at the distance of 5060 steps from dead body one truck bearing no. DEG 4207 was also stationed and one cycle make Atlas of black colour was lying entangled beneath the truck near right front tyre and one pair of hawai chappal of deceased was lying. One eye witness namely Vijender met him and narrated the facts of accident. He came to know that the driver of the offending vehicle had already ran away from the spot. He recorded his statement already Ex. PW1/A attested by him at point B on which he prepared his endorsement Ex. PW5/A and gave the same to Ct,. Daya Singh for getting FIR registered. During investigation, he inspected the site at the instance of complainant Vijender Singh and he prepared the site plan already Ex. PW1/B. I got the photographs of the spot and took the truck into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/F. I took the aforesaid cycle into police possession vide memo Ex. PW1/E . He took the aforesaid pair of hawai chappal into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/D. Further he conducted the proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C of deceased Dhoom Singh and got postmortem conducted on the dead body of deceased at S. Mandi Mortuary and obtained postmortem report and after postmortem he handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased namely Hatim Singh vide handing over memo Ex. PW5/E . Further on 15.6.87, he gave the notice under Section FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages 88 M. V. Act to Harbans Singh S/o Narender Singh and the same is already Ex. PW1/P on which he replied that driver Kulvinder Singh was driving his aforesaid truck on 13.6.87 between 8 pm to 11 pm and his reply on the back of the notice is Ex. PW5/B attested by him at point A. He got the mechanical inspection of the aforesaid truck at PS Yamuna Vihar by SI Kapoor Singh on 15.6.87 vide report Ex. PW5/C. On 16.6.87 owner of the truck Harbans Singh produced his driver Kulvinder Singh in the court at PS Yamuna Vihar and after interrogation he arrested accused Kulvinder Singh and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. Already Ex. PW1/R. Accused produced his DL and took the same into police possession vide memo Ex. PW1/S . Further he gave instructions to accused to keep in muffled face as TIP of driver was to be conducted from the eye witness and for this purpose he provided the cloth to him . On 17.6.87, he filed an application for TIP of the accused before Hon'ble court and during proceedings accused refused to participate in the TIP and obtained the copy of TIP proceedings and same is Ex. PW5/D .The postmortem report is Ex. PW5/F. The 8 photographs of the spot is Ex. PW5/G (Colly). The true copy of the DD no. 24A dtd 13.6.87 is Ex. PW5/H. He had correctly identified the accused.
PW6 ASI R. P. Pandey who deposed that he was posted at PS Gokalpuri and was working as duty officer. He had proved the true copy of DD No. 32B as Ex. PW6/A. PW 7: is HC Bharat Pal Singh No. 319 DAP, First Battalion, Kingsway Camp, Delhi who has deposed that on 12.09.11, he was posted at PS Gokul Puri as HC. On that day DD No. 32B was marked to him. Vide this DD entry HC Sanjeev from PS Bhalaswa had sent intimation that accused Kulwinder Singh (Proclaimed Offender in this FIR) has been arrested and will be produced in the court. He perused the record and found that accused FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages Kulwinder Singh was declared PO in this FIR on 28.01.96. He collected the certified copy of the order of the Hon'ble Court vide which accused was declared PO and the same is Ex PW7/A. He recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of the investigation he prepared the present supplementary charge sheet u/s 174A IPC against the accused.
PW8 Sh. Lajja Ram retired HC who deposed that on 22.09.1996 he was posted at PS Gokalpuri as H.C. The process under section 82 Cr.P.C issued against accused Kulwinder Singh was assigned to him for execution . He reached at the address house no. 3, New Seelampur, where one Smt. Mahender Kaur W/o Labba Singh met him. She disclosed that accused Kulvinder Singh is her nephew (son of the jeth) and he is not residing with them on this address for the last so many years. He recorded her statement in this regard which is Ex. PW8/A . He pasted one copy of the process at that house and pasted another on notice board. His detailed report on the back of the process is Ex. PW8/B. PW9 Shri Mukesh Chand record clerk had deposed that he had brought the summoned record i.e. register of postmortem report containing the postmortem report no. 1253/dt. 14.6.87 in respect of deceased Dhoom Singh prepared by Dr. D. N. Sharma . Further he deposed that he is acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. D. N. Sharma as his handwriting and signatures have been put before him in the ordinary course of duties. As per the postmortem report postmortem of deceased Dhoom Singh was conducted by Dr. D. N.Sharma vide his report Ex.PW9/A. PW10 is HC Sanjeev Kumar who deposed that on 12.09.2011, he was posted at PS Bhalswa Dairy as H.C. On that day, he along with Ct. Surender FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages were at Gurudwara road New Seelampur in search of PO where one secret informer disclosed that PO Kulwinder Singh would come there. Without wasting the time we took our position. At the instance of secret informer, he apprehended one person and during interrogation his name was revealed Kulwinder Singh. He identified the accused. On verification he was found PO in case FIR no. 258/87 PS Gokalpuri. After interrogation, he arrested him vide memo Ex. PW10/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW10/B. He got him medically examined at Head Gewar Rog Sansthan and prepared kalandra under section 41.1(c) Cr.P.C against the accused and produced him before the concerned court of PS Gokalpuri. Kalandara is Ex. PW10/C.
4. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence and stated that he is innocent and victim had violated the traffic rules and come under my vehicle from the left side of his vehicle and there were a lot of vehicles who were proceeding in a queue/line and there were several vehicles running in this line, and he said that he was running his vehicle carefully in the said line of vehicles and the victim would definitely have violated the traffic rules..
5. I have heard the Ld. APP as well as Ld. counsel for the accused and carefully perused the records of the case.
6 In the present case, Shri Vijender Kumar complainant has been examined as a star witness as PW2 who deposed on the lines of prosecution. In his examination in chief, he specifically deposed that " when we reached main Wazirabad Road on the side of Chand Bagh, one truck bearing no. DEG FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages 4207 which was coming from the side of Chand Bagh and going on towards the side of Gokalpuri in high speed the bicycle of my uncle Dhoom Singh due to which he and his bicycle came under the truck. He crushed my chacha Dhoom Singh and dragged his bicycle upto 5060 steps and after stopping the truck the accused ran away from the spot after leaving the truck at the spot. PW2 also deposed that he had seen the truck driver while he was absconding from the spot and correctly identified during his examination in chief in the court.
In support of the case the prosecution has examined IO Inspector Ram Dal PW5 who also deposed on the lines of prosecution but surprisingly the PW5 has not been cross examined. Since during the cross examination of PW2, he remained firm on the point that he saw the truck when the truck passed through him and hit the bicycle of his deceased Chacha and also on the point that at the time of absconding truck driver i.e. accused from the truck somehow he managed to see his face and denied suggestion that at the time of accident, it was dark in as much as the accident alleged to be occurred at 10.25 pm, in this manner" it is wrong to suggest that the spot was a dark place" Vol. deposed that street light was available at the spot. I went to the PS at about 10.25 pm . It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at the spot and reached at the spot when the police informed him about the accident. It is wrong to suggest that I could not see the accused as I was not present at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. The other PWs also supported the prosecution story and deposed on the lines of the prosecution.
7. On this testimony, the Ld. APP submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed for conviction of the accused in as much as during cross examination of PW2, it was observed FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages by the court that "as the witness has stated the number of Truck in his examination in chief and the accused admitting that he was driving the aforesaid vehicle on the relevant date and met with an accident with one cycle solely due to the negligence of the cycle rider and without any rashness and negligence on his part.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused sought acquittal on the ground that PW2 who is the star witness has not been specifically deposed that truck/offending vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner and merely come up on record that the truck was at a highly speed does not tantamount that accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of the deceased Dhoom Singh for which he can be held guilty and convicted.
9. Prior to proceed further, here it is not out of mention to place here that material witness PW5 Inspector Ram Dal had also been examined under section 299 Cr.P.C on 24.07.1997 and who exhibited the statement of the star witness Vijender Kumar i.e. PW2 as Ex. PW1/A and in his statement recorded by the IO specific allegations has been made by PW2 that when deceased and the PW Vijender Kumar reached at Wazirabad Road on the side of Chand Bagh, one truck bearing No. DEG 4207 came from the west side of the Wazirabad Road in a rash and negligent manner and hit the uncle/chacha deceased Dhoom Singh and dragged bicycle upto 50 to 60 steps and during the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C accused shows his unwillingness to lead any defence evidence and it is stated that " I am innocent and victim had violated the traffic rules and came under my vehicle from the left side of my vehicle and there were lot of vehicles who were proceedings in a queue/line there were several vehicles running in this line and I can say that I was running my vehicle carefully in FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages the said lane of vehicle and victim would definitely have violated the traffic rules but surprisingly no as such even suggestion has been put to the star witness PW2 and it is well settled law in the case titled Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 16.08.2012 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "The Court has to adopt another parameter, i.e. a reasonable care in determining the question of negligence or contributory negligence. The doctrine of reasonable care imposes an obligation or a duty upon a person (for example a driver) to care for the pedestrian on the road and this duty attains a higher degree when the pedestrian happen to be children of tender years. It is axiomatic to say that while driving a vehicle on a public way, there is an implicit duty cast on the drivers to see that their driving does not endanger the life of the right users of the road, may be either vehicular users or pedestrians. They are expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to other".
It has been held further: "that the other principle that is pressed in aid by the courts in such cases is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine serves two purposes one that an accident may by its nature be more consistent with its being caused by negligence for which the opposite party is responsible than by any other causes and that in such a case, the mere fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. Secondly, it is to avoid hardship in cases where the claimant is able to prove the accident but cannot prove how the accident occurred. The courts have also applied the principle of res ipsa FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages loquitur in cases where no direct evidence was brought on record. The Act itself contains a provision which concerns with the consequences of driving dangerously alike the provision in the IPC that the vehicle is driven in a manner dangerous to public life. Where a person does such an offence he is punished as per the provisions of Section 184 of the Act. The courts have also taken the concept of a culpable rashness and a culpable negligence into consideration in cases of road accidents. Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences may follow but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite consciousness (luxuria). Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow,but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had,he would have had the consciousness.
The imputability arises from the neglect of civic duty of circumspection. In such a case the mere fact of accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence.
This maxim suggest that on the circumstances of a given case the res speaks and is eloquent because the facts stand unexplained, with the result that the natural and reasonable inference from the facts, not a conjectural inference, shows that the act is attributable to some persons negligent conduct.
Further it has been held that" minor variations are bound to occur in the FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages statements of the witnesses when their statements are recorded after a considerable lapse from the date of occurrence. The court can also not ignore the fact that these witnesses are not very educated persons. It is a settled principle that the variations in the statements of witnesses which are neither material nor serious enough to affect the case of the prosecution adversely are to be ignored by the courts. It is also a settled principle that statements of the witnesses have to be read as a whole and the court should not pick up a sentence in isolation from the entire statement and ignoring its proper reference, use the same against or in favour of a party. The contradictions have to be material and substantial so as to adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
Further it has been held that " it is true that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C are not a mere formality or purposeless. They have a dual purpose to discharge, firstly, that the entire material parts of the incriminating evidence should be put to the accused in accordance with law and, secondly, to provide an opportunity to the accused to explain his conduct or his version of the case. To provide this opportunity to the accused is the mandatory duty of the Court. If the accused deliberately fails to avail this opportunity, then the consequences in law have to follow, particularly when it would be expected of the accused in the normal FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages course of conduct to disclose certain facts which may be within his personal knowledge and have a bearing on the case.
Further in support of the submissions Ld. APP also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Rizan & Anr. Vs. State of Chhatisgarh decided on 21.01.2013 wherein considering/discussing the another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Guli Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan ( 1974) 3 SCC 698 as well as Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras AIR (1957) SC 1614 wherein it has been held that:
"We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon has no substance. This theory was repelled by this court as early as in Dalip Singh's case supra in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose. J. it was observed.
Further the reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Dalip Singh and Ors. VS. The State of Punjab, AIR(1953) SC 364 wherein it has been held that:
"A witness is normally to be considered independent FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. however, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.
10. Further it has been held in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh AIR (1973) SC 2407 and Lebna Vs. State of Haryana(2002) 3 SCC 76 wherein it has been held that:
"falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if major FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other coaccused persons, his conviction can be maintained. The maxim " falsus in uno falsus in ominbus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus"has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law.
11 The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries of embellishment.
12 Since in the present case it is not disputed that at the time of accident, the accused was driving the offending vehicle, hence only question which is to be determined i.e. whether accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Though in the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C the accused contended that he was not driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner and it was the deceased who violated the traffic rules and met with an accident. It is not out of mention to place here that it is well settled law if it is proved that accused was driving the offending vehicle then accused has to prove that he himself was not driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner but surprisingly in the present case no evidence has been brought on record and even accused failed to examine himself.
FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages
13. So far as the contention of Ld. counsel for the accused are concerned in respect to the fact that in examination in chief of PW2, there is nothing mention that the accused was driving the offending truck in rash and negligent manner is not maintainable in as much as PW2 deposed in his examination that one truck bearing no.
DEG 4207 which was coming from the side of Chand Bag and going towards the side of Gokalpuri in high speed hit the bicycle of my uncle Dhoom Singh due to which he and his bicycle came under the truck. He crushed my chacha Dhoom Singh and dragged his bicycle upto 5060 steps itself is sufficient and the testimony of this witness cannot be discarded merely because they did not use the word that the offending vehicle has not been driving in a rash and negligent manner because the manner of rash and negligent manner has been described in other words or by using the word high speed. Reliance can be placed in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court titled as Paras Nath Vs. State of Delhi 2004 Crl. LJ 731 wherein it has been held that the testimony of the witness cannot be discarded merely because they did not use word rash and negligent and instead of use word high speed.
14 After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and in view of the discussion above, I am of the considered view that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, hence accused deserved to be conviction.
Accordingly, accused is convicted for the offence under section 279/304 AIPC.
(ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 21.07.2014) (RAKESH KUMAR III)
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
KKD COURT, NORTH EAST, DELHI
FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR III ,CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
State Vs Kulwinder Singh
FIR No. 258/87
U/s: 279/304A IPC
PS Gokalpuri
30.07.2014:
Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Convict with counsel Shri Kapil Sharma .
Arguments heard from both the sides.
ORDER ON THE QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:
1. Ld. counsel for the convict requested to take a lenient view against the convict on the ground that in the present case convict has been facing trial upto 27 years. Now a days he is not having good health and is suffering from Kidney and heart problems and usually he has been admitted in the hospital. Copy of the medical records filed. Moreover it is submitted further that he 60 years of old and sincerely taking participate in the present case proceedings as well as he is having six children out of which, one son is to be married. He is not a previous convict and have clean antecedents. He has never involved in such type of activities and such types of offences earlier prior to commission of this offence as well as FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages subsequently till today.
2. Opposed by Ld. APP stating that convict be punished with maximum punishment and he does not deserve any leniency. Ld. APP has prayed for compensation considering the conduct of the convict.
3. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the submissions of the convict that he has been facing trial upto 27 years, not having good health and is suffering from Kidney and heart problems and is not a previous convict and have clean antecedents, Convict is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 279 IPC and six months for the offence under section 304A IPC, no order as to fine. Further the Convict is ordered to pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000/ under section 357 Cr.P.C to the LRs of the deceased Dhoom Singh and to deposit within 30 days. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. In default of payment of compensation, convict shall undergo SI for six months.
4. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
(ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
On 30.07.2014) (RAKESH KUMAR III)
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
30.07.2014
FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages