Delhi District Court
State vs . Shiv Bahadur on 20 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM-02(SOUTH DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Shiv Bahadur
FIR No. 376/97
U/s : 279/337/338 IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of case : 12.08.1997
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 20.01.2014
Date of judgment : 20.01.2014
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 376/97
2.Date of the Commission : 14.04.1997
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : Shiv Bahadur Pal S/o Sh. Chiter Pal
: R/o Village Bindauriya, PS Ghamor,
: District Sultanpur, U.P.
4.Name of the complainant : Baithnath Maurya S/o Sh. Mohar Lal
: R/o Village Madarhana, Post Office
: Mitolia, District Maharajganj,
: Gorakhpur, U.P.
5.Offence complained of : 279/337/338 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Convicted u/s 279/337/338 IPC
State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 1/18
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 14.04.1997 at about 1.45pm at Aurobindo Marg, Press Enclave Road, T Point Red Light, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar accused Shiv Bahadur was found driving a vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LA-3749 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the said vehicle accused suddenly applied the break and due to which the above said truck overturned and accused caused simple hurt to Lalman, Lal Chand, Angad, Rajeev, Jitender, Baij Nath, Dilip Kumar, Manoj and grievous hurt to one Idrish and committed an offence u/s 279/337/338 IPC and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant Baithnath Maurya, an FIR bearing number 376/97 under section 279/337/338 IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 12.08.1997.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, charge for the offences punishable under section 279/337/338 IPC was framed against the accused person namely Shiv Bahadur and read out to the said accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 15.05.1998.
Appreciation of Evidence
5. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused Shiv Bahadur, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses.
State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 2/18
6. PW-1 Ct. Narender was examined on 10.12.1998 and deposed that he does not remember the exact date of incident and on that day he was posted at PP Saket and he along with HC Umrao Singh went to Press Enclave, T Point where one Mini Truck bearing no. DL-1LA-3749 was found toppled. Thereafter, he came to know that the injured had already been removed to the hospital. He further deposed that IO has left him at the spot and he himself went to the hospital. IO handed over him a Rukka at about 3.20pm and sent him for registration of FIR. After registration of case he came back to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. Thereafter, on the instruction of the complainant the site plan was prepared by the IO. The said truck was taken into possession and seized vide memo Ex. PW-1/A. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-1/B.
6. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that the injured came at the spot on the very same day at about 3.00pm and hence, the site plan was made by the IO on his pointing out and 1-2 public persons were also standing at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the injured. He further denied the suggestion that the case was registered against the accused as the accused was driving heavy vehicle.
7. PW-2 Sh. Nand Lal Dua being retired foreman DTC was examined on 03.03.2000 who is a formal witness and conducted the mechanical inspection of Truck bearing no. DL-1LA-3749 on the request of the IO HC Umrao Singh and his detailed report is Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signature at point A.
8. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 3/18
9. PW-3 Baithnath Maurya being the complainant was examined on 06.08.2005 and deposed that on 14.04.97 he along with his associates was going to Chatterpur Temple for pray in a mini truck bearing no. DL-1LA-3749 which was being driven by accused Shiv Bahadur present in the court. When they were returning from there and reached near wine shop, the above said vehicle overturned. However, he does not remember how the truck overturned. The persons who was sitting in the truck received injuries. His statement was recorded by the police vide Ex. PW-3/A bearing his signature at point A. The said truck was seized and accused Shiv Bahadur was arrested in his presence vide already Ex. PW-1/A and PW-1/B bearing his signatures at point B. The challan chit seizure memo is Ex. PW-3/B.
10. On resiling from his earlier statement, this witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State wherein he stated that although he was threatened by accused but he was giving his statement without any pressure and he had not compromised with the accused. He further stated that he has not given such statement to the police in which he told that the accused was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and said not to drive like this (Confronted with the statement Ex PW-3/A from point A to A where it is so recorded. He further stated that suddenly the accused applied break and truck overturned and he cannot say that why accused suddenly applied the break. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately giving such statement in order to save the accused. He further denied the suggestion that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner because of this accident occurred.
11. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that it was 1.20pm when the incident happened. He further stated that he did not know that a hole was in the way due to which State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 4/18 accident occurred.
12. PW-4 Lal Chand being the injured was examined on 06.08.2005 and deposed that he does not remember the month and year of the said incident but it was 14 day of said month and on that day he along with his associates was going to Chatterpur Temple in a mini truck bearing no. 3749 which was being driven by accused Shiv Bahadur present in the court. When they were returning from there and reached near wine shop, the above said vehicle overturned as a result of which the persons who was sitting in the truck received injuries. He further stated that the accused was driving the said vehicle at a fast speed and he was sitting in the rear portion of the truck and therefore, he cannot say how the accused was responsible for this accident and the persons sitting in the truck were asking and shouting to accused to slow down. However, accused had continue drive the truck at fast speed. He further stated that the truck had overturned because of the sudden application of its breaks by the driver/accused.
13. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he was not familiar with the Delhi roads so he cannot say whether they were returning via some route by which they had gone to Chatterpur Mandir. He further deposed that they proceeded to temple about 9.00 or 10.00pm and it was Navratra and there was heavy rush at the temple. He further stated that while they were going to temple the truck was being driven at normal speed but while returning back driver was driving the truck at fast speed and none of the injured persons sustained minor injuries. He further stated that he cannot tell the distance between temple and the place of accident. He denied the suggestion that due to digging on the road accused applied the breaks. He further denied the suggestion that the truck was at a normal speed or that he was deposing falsely.
State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 5/18
14. PW-5 Angad was examined on 06.08.2005 and deposed that on 14.04.97 he along with his 14-15 associates was going to Chatterpur Temple for pray in a mini truck bearing no. 3749 which was being driven by accused Shiv Bahadur present in the court. When they were returning from there and reached near wine shop, the above said vehicle overturned. He further deposed that the accused was driving a vehicle at a fast speed and they were shouting to stop the said vehicle and accused was saying that the above said vehicle is not his control. He further deposed that he cannot say how the truck overturned.
15. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that what statement he has given in the court, same facts were told to police. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not driving the above said vehicle at high speed or that he was deposing falsely.
16. PW-6 Lalman was examined on 06.08.2005 and deposed that on 14.04.97 he along with his associates was going to Chatterpur Temple for pray in a mini truck bearing no. 3749 which was being driven by accused Shiv Bahadur present in the court. He further deposed that when they were returning from there and reached near wine shop at about 1.00pm, the above said vehicle overturned. The persons who was sitting in the truck received injuries. He further deposed that the accused was driving a vehicle at a fast speed and they were shouting to drive slow the said vehicle but accused did not slow down the above said vehicle.
17. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he does not remember whether his statement was recorded by the police or not after the incident. He further stated that when they were going, at that time accused was driving very carefully but State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 6/18 they were returning then accused was driving at very fast. He further deposed that he does not know why accused suddenly applied the brakes. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that due to digging accused suddenly applied the brakes.
18. PW-7 Raju @ Rajeev was examined on 12.07.2013 and deposed that he along with 14-15 other people were going in a truck bearing no. 3749 from Chatarpur Mandir to Geeta Colony. Thereafter, on account of certain reasons the truck turned turtle and 7-8 people received injuries including him. He further deposed that he does not know how the accident took place. He had received injury on his chin, head and abrasions on his legs. Thereafter, he also got unconscious. He further deposed that other people received injuries were Lal Chand, Lalman, Angat, Jitender and names of remaining injured he does not know. Thereafter, he does not know how he was taken to the hospital. Police met him in the hospital and his statement was recorded there. The truck was being driven by accused present in the court.
19. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that the truck was not hired by them. He further stated that he does not know how the accident took place. The vehicle was being driven in a high speed. He further stated that he cannot tell whether there was pothole on the road. He denied the suggestion that the vehicle was being driven properly.
20. PW-8 Jitender was examined on 12.07.2012 and deposed that on 14.04.97 at about 1-2.00am at night he along with 14-15 other people were going in a truck bearing no. 3749 from Chatarpur Mandir to Geeta Colony. Thereafter, on Mehrauli red light account of certain reasons the truck turned turtle and 7-8 people received injuries including him. He deposed that State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 7/18 he does not know how the accident took place as he was sitting behind. He had received injury on his head, his teeth got broken and received abrasions on his hands and legs. Thereafter, he also got unconscious. However, he remember that they were taken to the hospital by the police and they were medically treated. Other people received injuries were Raju, Dilip, Vaignath, Lal Chand, Lalman, Angat, Jitender and names of remaining injured he does not know. Police met him in the hospital and his statement was recorded there. The truck was being driven by accused present in the court.
21. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that his statement was not recorded by the police however, Vaijnath's statement recorded. Vaijnath's statement was not recorded in his presence. He further deposed that he does not know how the accident took place and he cannot tell whether there was pothole on the road. He denied suggest that the vehicle was being driven properly. He further deposed that he cannot tell whether the accident took place on account of rash driving of the accused as they were sitting at the back in the body of the truck.
22. PW-9 ASI Umrai Singh being IO was examined on 12.07.2013 and deposed that on 14.04.97 after receiving DD no. 28 dated 14.04.97 at PP Saket he along with Ct. Narender went to T Point at Press Enclave Road, Aurobindo Marg at about 1.45am and found one mini truck bearing no. DL-1LA-3749 had turned turtle. He further deposed that around 9 people received injuries. As he reached the spot the PCR had already taken the injured persons to AIIMS Hospital. Thereafter, Ct. Narender remained at the spot and he went to AIIMS Hospital and met nine injured persons namely Manoj, Angat, Dalip, Rajeev, Idrish, Jitender and he does not know the name of remaining injured persons. Thereafter, considering the condition of the State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 8/18 injured persons he recorded the statement of injured Baijnath maurya who was fit for the statement whose statement is already Ex PW-3/A. Thereafter, he returned back to the spot and prepared rukka and sent to Ct. Narender for registration of FIR at about 2.15am. Thereafter, case FIR bearing no. 376/97 was recorded and same was handed over to him by Ct. Narender. He prepared site plan which is Ex. PW-9/A bearing his signatures at point A and also seized the offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing DL-1LA-3749 vide memo already Ex. PW-1/A. He arrested the accused present in the court (correctly identified by the witness). Personal search memo of the accused is already Ex. PW-1/D bearing his signatures at point A. He released the accused on bail on execution of bail bonds which is Ex. PW-9/B and personal bond is Ex. PW-9/C both bearing his signatures at point A. He also released the vehicle on superdarginama which is Ex. PW-9/D bearing his signatures at point A. He obtained the result of all the MLCs. The injuries on the MLC of Angat were declared as grievous and the injuries on the MLC of other injured persons were declared as simple. He recorded the statement of all injured persons and police officials who joined with him. He prepared the charge sheet and filed before the court. The rukka which was prepared by him is Ex. PW-9/E bearing his signatures at point A. He also seized the traffic challan slip of the DL of the accused vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-3/B. The traffic challan slip is Ex. PW-9/F. The applications moved to the CMO regarding the injured are not Ex. PW-9/G to O. He also got conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle and obtained the inspection report which is already Ex. PW-2/A.
23. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he reached in the hospital at about 2.45pm. After seeing the judicial file he stated that he reached at 3-3.15pm.
State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 9/18 All the injured except Angat were in a position to give statement. He had recorded the statement of Vaijnath in the hospital. He deposed that he does not remember the exact time when he returned to spot. He had informed the owner of the truck on 14.07.97 in the morning but he does not remember the exact time. He had arrested the accused at the spot. Accused met him at the spot when he returned from the hospital to the spot. He had informed regarding arrest of the accused to the owner of offending truck. He further deposed that the road was proper and it was clean road where accident took place and the truck was turned over and the front glass and side mirror of the truck were broken when he reached at the spot. He denied the suggestion that there was a pit on the road and due to the tyre of the truck stuck in the pit, the truck turned over. He denied the suggestion that the accident did not take place due to the fault of the accused. He had recorded the statement of all the injured on the same day i.e. 14.04.97 but he cannot tell the exact time regarding recording of their statements. He had recorded all the statements of injured till evening of 14.04.97.
24. PW-10 Dilip Kumar was examined on 06.12.2013 and deposed that he does not remember the exact date however, it was about 15-16 years back. He further deposed that in the night at about 1.00am, he along with Lal Chand, Angat and other persons went to Chatarpur Mandir and while they were returning from there on a truck bearing registration no. 3749, they were boarding at the back side of truck and truck was being driven by accused Shiv Bahadur present in the court (correctly identified by the witness). He further deposed that he observed that the driver had taken suddenly brake and the truck turned turtle and he had received injury in his teeth and both legs. Police came at the spot and shifted him at the hospital. He further deposed that he does not remember whether the police had recorded his statement or not State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 10/18 however, he inquired him about the accident.
25. Further, MLC bearing no. 27807/97, 27808/97, 27809/97, 27810/97, 27811/97, 27812/97, 27813/97, 27814/97 which are Ex. D-1 to D-8, x-ray report bearing no. 14131 dated 14.04.97 of injured Idrish which is Ex. D-9, FIR which is Ex. D-10 and DD entry no. 28 which is Ex. D-11 have not been disputed by the accused as he has admitted the said documents in his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, same were dispensed with being admitted u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
26. As ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution, PE was ordered to be closed on 06.12.2013. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16.12.2013 in which the accused does not want to lead any defence evidence.
27. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence counsel. Heard. Considered.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTION To bring home the guilt of accused as regards rash and negligent driving, three things need to be proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:-
(1)That the accident actually took place.
(2)That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
(3)That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
The words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 11/18 degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
Quoting from the article "Negligence, Mens Rea and Criminal Responsibility" by H.L.A.Hart in Punishment and Responsibility the dictionary further goes on to explain the difference between an act done inadvertently and an act done negligently.
"[A] careful consideration is needed of the difference between the meaning of the expression like 'inadvertently' and 'while his mind was a blank' on the one hand, and 'negligently' on the other hand. In ordinary English, and also in Lawyer's English, when harm has resulted from someone's negligence, if we say of that person that he has acted negligently we are not thereby merely describing the frame of mind in which he acted. 'He negligently broke a saucer' is not the same kind of expression as 'he inadvertently broke a saucer'. The point of adverb 'inadvertently' is merely to inform us of the agent's psychological state, whereas if we say 'He broke it negligently' we are not merely adding to this an element of blame or reproach, but something quite specific, viz. we are referring to the fact that the agent failed to comply with a standard of conduct with which any ordinary reasonable man could and would have complied: a standard requiring him to take precautions against harm. The word 'negligently', both in legal and non legal contexts, makes an essential reference to an omission to do what is thus required: it is not a flatly descriptive psychological expression like 'his mind was a blank'."
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Sixth Edition defines 'Rash'as doing something that may not be sensible without first thinking about the possible results.
Elaborating further, in State of H.P. v. Piar Chand, Cr. Appeal No. 109 of 2003, decided on 2.6.2003, Himachal Pradesh High Court, while State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 12/18 dealing with the meaning of the expression " rashness " and " negligence "
held as follows :
"18. Criminal rashness is doing a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and may cause injury but without intention to cause injury and without knowl- edge that injury would probably be caused. Therefore, to incur criminal liability, the act must be done with rashness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negli- gence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exer- cise reasonable care and proper precaution imperative to be adopted by a person to avoid causing of injury to the public or a person or a individual."
8. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway, J. in these words :
"Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the 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 the consciousness. 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 negligence of the civic duty of circumspection." (See In Re : Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad. HCR 119)".
Reasons for Decision
28. In the present matter prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in total and the remaining documents being MLC bearing no. 27807/97, State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 13/18 27808/97, 27809/97, 27810/97, 27811/97, 27812/97, 27813/97, 27814/97, x- ray report bearing no. 14131 dated 14.04.97, FIR and DD entry no. 28 have been admitted by accused which have been exhibited as D-1 to D-11 u/s 294 Cr.P.C. and hence, the witnesses qua these documents were not summoned in the court, the genuineness of these documents being admitted by accused vide order dated 12.07.2013.
29. In the present matter around nine people received injuries ranging from simple to grievous injuries. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Baithnath Maurya as one of the injured persons who stated that on 14.04.97 when he boarded the mini truck bearing no. DL-1LA-3749 along with his friends for going for Darshan in Chatterpur Mandir and while coming back the mini truck after reaching near the liquor shop overturned which was being driven by accused Shiv Bahadur. However, even though he admitted that the accident took place by the truck being driven by accused, he did not depose anything as regards rash and negligent driving of the accused. His testimony has not been able to establish that the truck overturned due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Further, he even denied that he had given a statement earlier to the police that the accused was driving the vehicle/offending truck in a rash and negligent manner.
30. Apart from this witness, PW-4 Sh. Lal Chand was also examined as one of the other injured persons. This witness also admitted that the accused was driving the truck and that he had received injuries. However, he deposed that he cannot say as to whether the accused was responsible for the accident. He did depose that the persons sitting in the truck were asking and shouting to the accused to slow down however, the accused continued to drive at a fast speed and the truck overturned because of sudden application of brakes by the driver. This witness was cross examined at length, however State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 14/18 nothing material came out in his cross examination.
31. Apart from this witness, PW-5 Angad was examined who deposed that the accused was driving the truck at a very fast speed and many persons were shouting to him to slow down or to stop the truck. He further deposed that the driver was shouting that the truck is not in his control and was asking them to jump out of the truck and thereafter, the truck overturned.
32. Another witness namely Lalman being PW-6 was also examined who also deposed in similar line and stated that the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused on the date of accident as the vehicle was being driven at a very fast speed and the truck overturned. PW-7 Raju being one of the injured also deposed that he had received injuries on his chin, head and abrasion on his leg and also deposed that the truck was being driven by the accused at a high speed. Same deposition has been given by PW-8.
33. It is clear from the deposition of the public witnesses that on the date of accident the truck was being driven by the accused at a very high speed which was not slowed despite request being made by the passengers and as a result of high speed the truck overturned and many persons received injuries.
34. This fact has further been corroborated by testimony of PW-9 being IO ASI Umrao Singh who proved the various documents such as site plan, seizure memo of the truck, personal search memo of the accused, arrest memo of the accused, superdginama and the MLCs of the injured persons. Apart from the IO the accused has admitted the genuineness of MLC Ex. D-1 to D-8, x-ray report of injured Idrish which is Ex. D-9, FIR which is Ex. D-10 and DD entry no. 28 which is Ex. D-11, further substantiating the sequence of events leading to preparation of the documents as above State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 15/18 mentioned.
35. Even in the statement of accused recorded on 16.12.2013 the accused has not denied that he was driving the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1LA-3749. He deposed that the truck did not overturn due to his faulty driving. He admitted that 10-15 people sitting in the truck received injuries. However, he denied that he was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
36. Thus, it is clear that the factum of the accident of the vehicle bearing no. DL-1LA-3749 which was being driven by the accused Shiv Bahadur has not been denied by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. It has been settled by the various higher courts that admission under section 313 Cr.P.C. can be taken to be a relevant fact in deciding the fate of the accused.
This question has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court in case titled :
Janki Dass Vs. State 1995CriLJ2175, (1994)ILR Delhi392 In this murder reference the only question of law that arose for consideration was as to whether a admission made under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. can form the basis of conviction. The Court Held that : "The underlying object behind Section 313 is to give an opportunity to the accused to be heard not only on what is prima facie proved against him but on a very circumstance appearing in evidence against him so that he is not condemned unheard. It enables the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him in evidence. The answers given by an accused may be taken into consideration in judging not only his innocence but also judging his guilt. There is nothing in the language of State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 16/18 Section 313 to suggest that answers given by an accused admitting the evidence or circumstances proved against him, have to be ignored and have not to be taken into consideration for judging his guilt.
The weight to be attached to the statement of an accused made under Section 313 of the Code though cannot be placed in a straight jacket since it has to vary according to the circumstances of each case, yet the legal position seems to be clear that such statements can be taken into consideration in judging not only the innocence but guilt of the accused and admission made in a statement under Section 313 of the Code can be made the basis of conviction".
37. Further, mechanical inspection report is also there on record and mechanical inspector has been examined as PW-2 who inspected the offending vehicle and filed his report Ex. PW-2/A. It is clear from the mechanical inspector's report that the front wind screen, bonnet and mudguard were damaged. It is further clear that there were other damages on the right of the truck. However, the mechanical inspection reports nowhere says that the sky rod was damaged as per the report. The brakes, lights and the steering have been stated to be O.K. Thus, it is clear that the accident took place on account of faulty driving of the accused and not on account of brake failure of the offending vehicle. This fact has further been substantiated by the oral testimonies of PWs who have stated that some of them were shouting to the driver to slow down the vehicle, however he refused to slow down.
38. Thus, on the basis of the above mentioned observations this court has arrived at a conclusion that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused and hence, accused Shiv Bahadur is accordingly, convicted for offences punishable under section 279/337/338 State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 17/18 IPC.
Matter be listed for arguments on the point of sentence on 27.01.2014 at 2.00 P.M. ANNOUNCED IN THE COURT (CHETNA SINGH) ON 20.01.2014 MM-02(SD)/20.01.2014 Certified that this judgment contains 18 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM-02(SD)/20.01.2014 State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 18/18 STATE Vs. Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 U/s : 279/337/338 IPC P.S. : Malviya Nagar 01.02.2014 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Convict Shiv Bahadur along with Ld. Counsel.
The accused has been convicted for the offence under section 279/337338 IPC.
Arguments on sentence heard from both sides.
Ld. Counsel for the convict Shiv Bahadur has requested for the lenient view to be taken against him and further submitted that convict is the sole bread earner of his family. He further requests for releasing the convict on probation.
Ld. APP for the State, on the other hand, has requested to award severe punishment to the convict considering the allegations against him.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as put forth, the nature and gravity of offence committed and the fact that the accused has caused simple hurt to Lalman, Lal Chand, Angad, Rajeev, Jitender, Baij Nath, Dilip Kumar, Manoj and grievous injuries to Idrish on account of his State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 19/18 rash and negligent driving and considering all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the convict deserves to be released on probation of good conduct u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as the trial has dragged for 16 years.
However, he is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/ as cost of proceedings u/s 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Fine paid vide receipt no. 493872.
His bail bond stand cancelled. Surety is discharged.
Endorsement if any be cancelled. Original documents if any be returned to the surety.
Copy of this order and judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
(CHETNA SINGH)
MM02:SD/Saket Courts
01.02.2014
State Vs Shiv Bahadur FIR No. 376/97 20/18