Delhi District Court
State vs Nitin Mehta on 16 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
STATE VS NITIN MEHTA FIR No. : 179/2014 U/s. 279/304A IPC PS : Sarita Vihar A. Cr. No. : 90820/2016 B. Date of Institution : 23.01.2015 C. Date of Commission of Offence : 17.03.2014 D. Name of the complainant : ASI Rajender Lal & Sh. Anurag Loe E. Name of the Accused : Nitin Mehta S/o Jugal Kishore Mehta.
R/o H. N. F-64,
Kalkaji, Ground Floor,
New Delhi
F. Offences complained of : 279/304A IPC
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Order reserved on : Not Reserved.
I. Final order : Convicted.
J. Date of such order : 16.04.2018.
FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 1 of 20
Brief Facts :-
1. The case of the Prosecution is that on 17.03.2014 at about 6.50 P.M, Sh. Nitin Mehta, while driving his black color Sonata Embera car bearing registration No. DL-3C-AQ-7140 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed on Sarita Vihar flyover on the side going from Mathura Road to Badarpur, hit the motorcycle bearing no. DL-4SBW-3029, being driven by Sh. Harish Kumar. Due to the impact of the hit, Sh. Harish Kumar fell down and came under the wheels of the Sonata Embera Car of Nitin Mehta and suffered grievous injuries which resulted in his death. This accident occurred in the presence of Sh. Anurag Loe who was driving his motorcycle on the same road at the same time and witnessed the entire accident. Subsequent to the incident, he also witnessed having seeing Nitin Mehta getting down from his car to inspect the impact of the accident and thereafter leaving the spot. He also noted that their was a dog inside the car of Sh Nitin Mehta. Sh. Anurag Loe noted the Registration number of the car and called on number 100 and reported about the accident. He also gave a written complaint to the Police in respect of the accident. To pursue the matter he made subsequent complainants to the Police Officers. It is pertinent to mention here that Sh Anurag Loe was not previously acquainted or known to the accused or the victim in any manner. FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 2 of 20
2. The FIR was registered and the matter was investigated by the Police which culminated into filing of the Chargesheet U/s 279/304A IPC naming Nitin Mehta as the accused.
3. The Predecessor Court took cognizance and the accused was summoned. Copy of Chargesheet and documents were supplied to the accused free of cost as per rules. Thereafter, the matter was listed for arguments on charge.
4. On the basis of the chargesheet and documents and after hearing the accused, Ld. Predecessor Court concluded that material was sufficent to show commission of offences U/s 279/304A IPC by the accused. Formal notice was accordingly framed which was explained to accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thus, the matter was fixed for Prosecution Evidence.
5. To substantiate the allegations leveled upon the accused, the prosecution examined eight witnesses.
6. The accused also admitted the genuineness of following documents in his statement recorded U/s 294 CrPC :
(I) TIP dated 04.04.14 conducted by Ms. Bhawana Kalia, Ld. MM (SE), Saket Court. (II) MLC No. 147586/17 dated 17.03.14 of injured Harish Kumar prepared by Dr. Rupesh Kumar, AIIMS.
(III) Dead Body Identification statement by Vinod Kumar already Ex. PW3/C. (IV) Dead Body Identification statement by Vijay FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 3 of 20 Kumar already Ex. PW3/D. (V) Postmortem Report No. TC-153/14 dated 18.03.14 of deceased Harish Kumar conducted by Dr. Mahesh Kumar, AIIMS as Ex. C1 to Ex. C5 respectively.
7. With this, Prosecution concluded its Evidence and the matter was listed for examination of accused U/s 313 Cr.PC which was recorded on two occasions. In his statement, accused denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. However, the accused did not produce any independent evidence in his defence. Accordingly, matter was listed for final arguments.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel as well as gone through case file.
9. The argument of Ld. APP is that there is enough material on evidence to prove the case against the accused.
10. Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has argued that the accused has been wrongly associated with the offence in question and as such the accused is entitled to acquittal in the present case. The defence claimed that the victim was driving on the opposite side of the road without a helmet. The victim is alleged to have hit a barricade and thereafter a divider. Consequent to the impact of the hit, the victim suffered head injury and fell on the car of the accused Nitin Mehta. It is also alleged that the victim was driving his motorcycle under the influence of Alcohol. The defence claimed that the accused is FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 4 of 20 entitled to acquittal in the present case.
Relevant Law:-
11. It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. Definition of rashness and negligence.
12. What is rashness or negligence has been defined in relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Ravi Kapur Vs State of Rajasthan 2012(7) SCALE354 which are quoted below:
Para11- "Negligence means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 5 of 20 reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the Court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence."
B. Para 17- "A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 6 of 20 or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
Law relating to requirement of independent witness
13. Further Sec. 100 Clause 4 & 5 CrPC talk about requirement of independent witnesses only when search is made on the person of the accused or at some place from where the incriminating articles is recovered and not when corroboration of happening of event in which accused is alleged to be involved is concerned. Regarding the non-joining of independent witnesses it has been stated in judgment titled as Appabhai v. State of Gujrat, 1988 Supp 241 : AIR 1988 SC 696 that "11...... Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One can not ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 7 of 20 for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused. This has also been relied upon in judgment titled as Kathi Bharat Vasjur v. State of Gujarat in AIR 2012 SC 2163 (Para 22).
Minor contradictions do not effect the credibility of the prosecution case.
14. It was held in the judgment titled as Ravi Kapoor V. State of Rajasthan, 2012 VIII AD (S.C) 73 that "Minor variations are bound to occur in the statements of the witnesses when their statements are recorded after a considerable lapse from the date of occurrence".
Overall context of the case is to be seen.
15. It also the settled law laid down in Sardul Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2002 SC 3462 that courts have a duty to undertake a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all the vital features of the case and entire evidence with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case in their attempt to find out proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Ingredients to be proved.
16. I have perused the record very carefully and have considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP as well as the defence counsel. Before giving the reasons and my decision on the case, it would be pertinent to lay down the basic FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 8 of 20 ingredients of Sec. 279 of IPC.
The accused is liable to be punished under Sec. 279 IPC when the prosecution proves the following ingredients :
(i)- The accused should have been driving the vehicle on a public way?
(ii) The manner of driving should be rash or negligent in a way to endanger human life or which is likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
17. Now I will discuss whether the ingredients as outlined above have been satisfied by the prosecution or not.
18. PW-3 ASI Rajender Lal proved that on 17.03.2014, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as ASI and on that day, he received DD No. 57B regarding an accident having occurred near Sarita Vihar Flyover, he alongwith Constable Surender reached the spot where they found one motorcycle in accidental condition and dead body of a person. Meanwhile, PCR Van reached the spot. ASI got clicked photographs of spot by his own mobile phone. He removed the dead body of deceased to AIIMS Trauma Centre by vehicle of PS Sarita Vihar through Constable Surender. He shifted accidental motorcycle in PS Sarita Vihar. He prepared Rukka Ex. PW3/A, on the basis of DD No. 57B and handed over the same to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. The concerned doctor at AIIMS handed over a mobile phone found from the pocket of deceased to Constable Surender who informed the subscriber of FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 9 of 20 last dialed mobile number through the said mobile phone itself. The said person turned out to be the friend / neighbour of deceased and further informed the family members of deceased regarding the accident who reached the hospital. He got dead body of deceased Harish identified by Vinod Kumar and Vijay Kumar vide memos Ex. PW3/C & Ex. PW3/D respectively. On the next day, he filed a consent form for conducting postmortem of dead body PW3/B. After postmortem, dead body was handed to relative Vinod Kumar vide memo Ex. PW3/E. ASI seized motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/F. He also seized Driving License of deceased vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/G. On 19.03.14, while he was present at the PS Sh. Anurag came to PS and claimed himself to be the eye witness of the accident. He also handed him over a written complaint Ex. PW1/A. He obtained the necessary details of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL3S AQ 7140 and served a Notice u/s 133 M. V. Act to the registered owner of the said vehicle. The first notice Ex. PW3/H, was served to Jaswant Singh who informed that he had sold the said vehicle to one Nitin Mehta. Thereafter, he served second notice u/s 133 M. V. Act Ex. PW3/I to Nitin Mehta. He produced the offending vehicle before him at the police station. IO seized the offending vehicle vide memo Ex. PW3/J. He also seized the Driving License of accused Nitin vide memo Ex PW3/K, RC & Insurance of vehicle vide memo Ex. PW3/L. He arrested and conducted the personal search of the accused vide memos Ex. PW3/M & Ex. PW3/N. Accused was released on police bail. Both FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 10 of 20 the vehicles were subjected to mechanical inspection. IO got conducted verification of Driving License of accused, RC & Insurance of offending vehicle and found them valid. The verification reports are Ex. PW3/O & Ex. PW3/P. IO moved an application for TIP of accused before the concerned Court where accused refused to participate.
19. Doctor from AIIMS hospital handed over the viscera of deceased to IO, which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/Q. IO also prepared site plan which is Ex. PW3/R at the instance of Anurag. After these proceedings, investigation was handed over to ASI Jitender Pal Sirohi. Accused was correctly identified by IO in the Court. IO also identified the offending vehicle and deceased through 10 photographs of spot and deceased. The photographs Ex. P3 (colly). He further identified 6 photographs of motorcycle and the spot and 04 photographs of offending vehicle. The photographs are Ex.P2 (colly) Ex. P1 (colly) respectively.
20. PW-6 SI Jitender Pal Sirohi was the second IO of the case.
On 16.04.2014, the investigation of present case was marked to him. On 05.05.2014, accused Nitin Mehta came to PS and produced receipt of original RC and Form 29 and 30 of vehicle No. DL-CAQ-7140. 2nd IO seized the same vide memo EX- PW6/A. On 18.05.2014, accused Nitin Mehta produced the original RC of abovesaid vehicle. 2nd IO seized the same vide memo Ex-PW-6/B and also verified the documents of the vehicle FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 11 of 20 from concerned authority. He also sent viscera to FSL for expert examination.
21. There is no dispute with respect to the factum of death of Harish. Postmortem Report, MLC of the victim and Mechanical Inspection Reports have not been disputed by accused. They have otherwise been duly proved by the Prosecution witnesses as discussed above.
22. PW-1 Anurag Loe is the sole eye witness in the present case. He deposed that on 17.03.2014, at about 06:30 PM, he was returning from Govindpuri to his house at Sarita Vihar. When he reached near Apollo Red light in front of Apollo Hospital on road going from Ashram towards Badarpur, the traffic signal showed red light therefore, he stopped. While at the red light, he saw that there was a green coloured DTC bus on his left side and one truck carrying Indane Gas Cylinders was stationed behind DTC bus. At that time, one motorcycle (victim's) was also stationed on his right side. There was also a black colour Hyundai Sonata car (of accused) behind the motorcycles. When the light turned green, traffic started moving. The DTC bus stopped at a Apollo bus stand which was at a little distance ahead of the red light. His motorcycle and the other motorcyclist (victim's) were moving parallel to each other. When these were ascending at Sarita Vihar Flyover which is a two-way flyover having iron fencing in middle, the driver of black colored Hyundai Sonta Car (accused) started blowing horn and using dippers of his car. At that time, Sh. Anurag FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 12 of 20 (eye witness) looked at the black colored Sonata Embera from rear view mirror of his motorcycle. In the meantime, the truck carrying gas cylinders also went away and the left side of road got vacant. The driver of black colored Sonata Embera (accused) appeared to be in a hurry and was trying to overtake the motorcycle. He (Sh. Anurag I.e, the eye witness) was riding his motorcycle on the extreme left side of the road and slowed down the speed to see who was blowing horn. By this time, the other motorcycle (victim's) had reached midway on the descending side of flyover. The black colored Sonata Embera car bearing no. DL- 3C-AQ-7140 hit against the backside of that other motorcycle (victim's). Due to the impact, the motorcyclist (victim) alongwith his motorcycle fell down on the right side. The driver of car (accused) did not apply brakes and kept on driving his car. The motorcycle and the leg of motorcyclist got entangled in the front bumper of the car and was dragged to a distance of about 20 mtrs. The motorcycle and its driver were separated from the car by force. Thereafter, the driver (accused) of offending vehicle i.e., black colored Sonata Embera car bearing no. DL-3C-AQ-7140 stopped his vehicle towards the end of flyover. Sh. Anurag witnessed the entire incident and stopped his motorcycle. The accused/driver of offending vehicle also came out of his car. There was also a dog inside the offending vehicle Sonata Embera car bearing no. DL-3C-AQ-7140. At the spot itself, Sh. Anurag was also able to note down the registration number of offending vehicle as DL-3CAQ-7140. The accused also walked towards the FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 13 of 20 place where the injured was lying on road. Sh. Anurag asked him to help in shifting the injured to the hospital. However, the accused did not pay any attention to his requests and returned back to his car and escaped from the spot. Thus, he had clearly seen the face of the accused at the relevant time and was in a position to identify him subsequently. Accordingly, an application for conducting TIP proceedings was moved by the IO and was placed before the Ld. Link MM for disposal. However, the accused Nitin Mehta, after understanding the consequences of his refusal, refused to undergo TIP proceedings on the ground that the complainant had seen him at the spot. The TIP proceedings have been admitted by the accused Nitin Mehta in his statement U/s 294 CrPC recorded by the Ld. Predecessor Court on 04.04.2016. At the time of his deposition, PW-1 Anurag Loe correctly identified the accused to be the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
23. The defence of the accused that the victim was driving on the opposite side of the road and the further allegation that the victim allegedly hit a barricade and thereafter a divider and consequent to the impact of the hit, the victim suffered head injury and fell on the car of the accused is negated by the testimony of PW-1 who has categorically deposed that both the vehicles were being driven on the same side of the road and the car of the accused hit the motorcycle of the victim from behind. Thus, there is no merit FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 14 of 20 in this defence taken by the accused.
24. The accused had further alleged that the victim was driving his motorcycle under the influence of Alcohol. This defence is negated by the MLC of the victim which is proved as Ex.C2 and affirms the absence of alcohol in the body of the victim. Thus, there is no merit in this defence taken by the accused.
25. PW-1 Anurag Loe deposed having called PCR at 100 number and informed about the accident and the registration number of offending vehicle. Two traffic police constables also reached the spot. Before arrival of PCR Van, officials from PS Sarita Vihar also reached the spot who were also informed about the accident. The details of this witness were noted down by police officials. Injured was shifted to some unknown hospital by Ambulance which had also reached the spot by that time.
26. Subsequently, PW-1 Anurag Loe on 19.03.2014 read a new item in Hindustan Times Newspaper (English) which carried a news item on the second page that a motorcyclist was hit by an unknown vehicle on Sarita Vihar Flyover. PW-1 wrote an e-mail to the news correspondent who had written the news item and informed him that he was the eye witness to said accident and it was not caused by an unknown vehicle. On the said day, he also visited PS Sarita Vihar and filed a written letter/complaint with IO/ASI Rajinder Kumar giving details of accident witnessed by FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 15 of 20 him on 17.03.2014 which Ex. PW1/A bears his signature at point A. It was filed vide DD No. 1295 dated 19.03.2014 (duly proved by IO as discussed above). When PW-1 found that police did not take any action despite his written letter dated 19.03.2014, he again wrote a letter to DCP, Sarita Vihar on 21.03.2014 Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point A vide Postal Envelop Ex. PW1/C. He also filed a complaint with DCP, Sarita Vihar through his father on 22.03.2015 Ex. PW1/D. Later on, IO recorded his statement. In the Court, Sh. Anurag Loe identified the offending vehicle through four photographs and negatives. The same are Ex. P-1 (colly). The identity of offending vehicle was also not disputed by accused. Accordingly the production of vehicle before Court was dispensed with. The witness Sh. Anurag Loe also identified the motorcycle of deceased through six photographs alongwith negatives of motorcycle no. DL-4SBW-3029. The same are Ex. P-2 (colly). The witness deposed that he became aware about the death of the motorcyclist at the spot itself. The witness categorically deposed that the accident took place due to negligence and fault of accused driver.
27. The witness Anurag Loe withstood the test of cross examination. After his cross examination, it has been affirmed that the motorcyclist was wearing helmet at that time.
28. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the victim was not wearing helmet, the same does not negate the occurrence in any manner. Thus, the mere failure of the IO to FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 16 of 20 seize the helmet is not material.
29. Through his cross examination, PW-1 proved that there was no other vehicle behind the offending vehicle at the time of accident. He made the first PCR call at no.100. The mere absence of the averment having made the PCR call in the previous statement 161 Cr.P.C. of the witness is not material and does not affect the merits of the case. The witness proved that he visited the police station twice in connection with this case. Letters Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B in the handwriting of his father, and signed by the witness were duly proved by him. PW-1 admitted having remained at the spot for about 15-20 minutes after the accident. He admitted that the PCR van came to the spot within 5 minutes of his call. The witness denied all contrary suggestions given by counsel for accused. The witness is not related to the complainant in any manner and is completely independent and has no motive to falsely depose against the accused.
30. Despite extensive cross examination, Ld. Defence Counsel could not elicit any material on contradiction in the testimony of the sole eye witness of PW-1 i.e., Sh. Anurag Loe. His testimony and credibility remained unshattered. Thus, reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW-1 Anurag Loe.
31. PW-1 Anurag Loe, who had witnessed the entire incident, has proved the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt that FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 17 of 20 accused Nitin Mehta was driving his black color Sonata Embera car bearing registration No. DL-3C-AQ-7140 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed on Sarita Vihar flyover (going from Mathura Road to Badarpur) on the relevant date and time. In the presence and within the view of PW-1, the accused Nitin Mehta hit his car Black Color Sonata Embera against motorcycle bearing no. DL-4SBW-3029, being driven by Harish Kumar. Prosecution through the testimony of PW-2, has been able to establish that consequent to the impact of the hit, victim Harish Kumar fell down and came under the wheels of the Sonata Embera Car of Nitin Mehta and suffered grievous injuries which resulted in his death at the spot. Sh. Anurag Loe further proved that having seen accused Nitin Mehta getting down from his car to inspect the impact of the accident and thereafter leaving the spot. Sh. Anurag Loe further proved having noted the Registration number of the car as DL-4SBW-3029 at the spot itself and calling on number 100 to report about the accident. In the light of unrebutted testimonies of PW-1, PW-3, PW-6 and other prosecution witnesses including the Post Mortem Report, MLC of the victim, photographs of the spot, Mechanical Inspection Report etc., it is held that Prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Nitin Mehta was driving offending vehicle i.e., black colored Sonata Embera car bearing no. DL-3C-AQ-7140 on Sarita Vihar flyover (going from Mathura Road to Badarpur) which is a public way, in a rash and negligent manner and hit FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 18 of 20 against the motorcycle driven by the victim Harish due to which victim fell down and came under the wheels of the car of accused and succumbed to his injuries. In view of the above mentioned reasons, accused Nitin Mehta is guilty of rash and negligent driving.
32. I also take support from the judgment of Delhi High Court in Paras Nath Vs. State of Delhi 107(2003) DLT 169 in which the accused was rightly held to be convicted because the complainant vehicle was hit from behind even though there was not direct allegation of rash or negligent driving by the accused. In view of the judgment of Ravi Kapoor Vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) that minor contradiction in the case do not affect the credibility of the case, the contradictions and circumstances pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the accused are minor in nature and do not affect the prosecution case.
33. Further in respect of offence u/s 304A IPC which states "
Causing death by negligence- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide" it has already been proved that the accused on the aforesaid date, time and place was found driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving he has struck against the motorcycle due to which the victim came under the wheels of the car and succumbed to his injuries. The fact of death of victim has been duly proved as the postmortem report has been placed on record which has FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 19 of 20 never been denied by the accused. In view of aforesaid reasons, accused Nitin Mehta is held guilty and is convicted for offence U/s 279 IPC and U/s 304A IPC.
Now come up for arguments on the point of sentence.
Copy of the Judgment be given to convict free of cost against receipt.
Announced in the open Court on 16.04.2018.
(SHIVANI CHAUHAN) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05 SOUTH EAST DISTRICT SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI FIR No. 179/2014, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Nitin Mehta Page no. 20 of 20