Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Shakil Ahmed on 23 March, 2015

        IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN 
               MAGISTRATE, SAKET COURTS, DELHI. 

FIR No. 421/02
PS. OIA
U/s.279/304 A IPC
State Vs. Shakil Ahmed
                                     JUDGMENT

A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE                :      833/2/03
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION                :      04.04.2003
C. DATE OF OFFENCE                    :      26.07.2002
D. NAME OF THE                        :      Ct. Ramesh.  
     COMPLAINANT
E. NAME OF THE          :                           Shakil Ahmed
     ACCUSED                                        S/o Abdul Shakoor Khan
F.  OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF:                          U/s 279/304A IPC 
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED      :                           Pleaded not guilty. 
H. FINAL ORDER          :                           Convicted 
I.  DATE OF SUCH ORDER  :                           23.03.2015

                     Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision

1. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution and as unfolded from chargesheet are that on receipt of DD no. 23B at 6 pm on 23.07.2002, PS­OIA, regarding fatal road traffic accident, SI Bharat Singh alongwith Ct. Sukhvir reached the spot of accident i.e. at SA road, near MB road T­point, New Delhi. There they found a bus bearing no. DL­1PB­1807 and a scooter no. DL­7ST­1078 in accidental condition. They further found that the said scooter was entangled in the right side front bumper of the said bus and the driver of the offending bus was found to have escaped from the spot after commission of the accident. Eye witness Ct. Ramesh was also found present at the spot and his statement was recorded. In his complaint, he had alleged that on 26.07.2002, he was posted as Ct. at PS­OIA and after attending briefing at PS­OIA, he was going to Tughlakabad Railway colony. He had further alleged that one scooterist on a scooter bearing registration no. DL­7ST­1078 was also separately riding near him on the said road. In the meantime, a bus plying on route no. 414 bearing registration no. DL­1PB­1807, which was coming from SA road and was going to M.B. Road, hit the above stated scooter from back side at the T­point of M.B.Road. The said scooter got struck in the front right side bumper of the bus, dragged it for a distance and rear right side tyre of the bus crushed the head of the said scooterist. The said scooterist died on the spot and his name was later revealed as Surender Kumar s/o Trilok Chand. He had further alleged that after accident, the bus stopped on the left side of the road and he stopped his scooter near the said bus. He had asserted that, on seeing him, the driver of the bus escaped from the spot and he had asserted that he can identify the said driver/accused, if shown to him. The said complaint was endorsed by IO/SI Bharat Singh and the present FIR under section 279/304A IPC was got lodged at PS­OIA. The IO got the place of accident photographed. The site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant Ct. Ramesh. Both the vehicles were seized. During investigation, a notice under section 133 MV Act was given to the registered owner of the offending bus namely Sh. Om Prakash. In his reply, he told that it was being driven by the accused Shakil Ahmed at the time of the accident. Thereafter, the accused was arrested. The vehicles were got mechanically inspected. The postmortem of the deceased Surender was got conducted. After completion of investigation, the present challan under section 279/304A IPC was filed in the court.

2. The accused was summoned by the court for facing trial for the aforesaid offences. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused. Prima facie charge U/s 279/304A IPC was made out against the accused. Accordingly, on 21.10.2003, Ld. Predecessor of this court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.

3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.

4. Sh. Shadi Lal (PW1) had conducted the mechanical inspection of the scooter bearing registration no. DL­7SD­1078 and the offending bus bearing registration no. DL­1PB­1807. He has proved his mechanical inspection reports of the said vehicles as Ex. PW­1/A and Ex. PW­1/B respectively.

5. Dr. M.G.Joyen (PW­2) SR, AIIMS had conducted the postmortem report of the deceased Surender Kumar on 26.07.2002 and he has proved his said postmortem report as Ex. PW­2/A. He has testified that the cause of death was due to antemortem head injury caused by blunt force which is possible in road traffic accident.

6. Sh. Om Prakash (PW­3) is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and he has testified that on 26.07.2002, at about 5.45 pm, accused Shakil Ahmed was driving his bus bearing registration no. DL­1PB­1807 at the time of the accident. He has further testified that on receipt of notice under section 133 MV Act, he had replied the same and he has proved the said reply as Ex. PW­3/A. On 30.07.2002, he had produced the accused in the PS and he was arrested. He has further testified that the said vehicle was released to him on superdari. The identity of the vehicle was not disputed by the accused and the photograph of the said vehicle is Ex. PW­3/D.

7. HC. Ramesh (PW­4) is the complainant and one of the eye witnesses of the incident/accident. He has consistently reiterated his complaint on oath and he has testified that he gave his statement to the IO. He has correctly identified the accused to be the driver of the offending bus. The photographs of the bus, scooter and dead body of the deceased were shown to him. He has correctly identified the offending bus, scooter and the dead body of the deceased at the spot in the photographs Ex. PW­4/A to Ex. PW­4/H. In the cross examination, the said witness has categorically testified that the offending bus hit the scooter from behind and the deceased was crushed under the rear right tyre of the bus.

8. Sh. Anand Goyal (PW­5) has testified that on 26.07.2002, he and deceased Surender were working at SSG Electronics Pvt. Ltd at shop no. 25­A, South Ankarkali, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. He has further testified that on that day, they were going towards Mehrauli through M.B.Road. He has testified that he was on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL­7ST­7339 and deceased Surender was on his scooter bearing registration no. DL­7ST­1078. He has further testified that when they reached near ESI hospital, suddenly a bus bearing registration no. DL­1PB­1807 hit the scooter of Surender and dragged him till M.B.Road T­ point and the body of Surender got entangled under rear right side wheel of the bus. He has further testified that the offending vehicle was running at a fast speed and due to the said impact, Surender died at the spot. In his cross examination, he has testified that he was about 1 km ahead of the victim and he had not seen the accident. He has further testified that when he reached the spot, the accident had already taken place and he did not see the driver of the said offending vehicle.

9. HC Sukhvir Singh (PW­6) was with IO/SI Bharat Singh at the time of investigation and he has deposed on the similar lines as that of PW­7 SI Bharat Singh. Therefore, his testimony is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

10. SI Bharat Singh (PW­7) is the IO of the case and he has deposed that on 23.07.2002, he was posted as SI at PS­OIA and on that day, on receipt of DD regarding accident, he alongwith Ct. Sukhvir reached the spot i.e. SA road near MB road T­point where they saw a bus bearing registration no. DL­1PB­1807 and a scooter in accidental condition. He has testified that the said scooter was lying under the front right tyre of the bus and it was entangled in the said tyre. He has further deposed that a crushed dead body was also lying near. He has deposed that one eye witness namely Ct. Ramesh met him at the spot and he recorded his statement. He has proved his statement as Ex. PW­7/A. He prepared the rukka Ex. PW­7/B and got the present FIR lodged. He has testified that he seized both the said vehicles and gave a notice under section 133 MV Act to the owner of the offending vehicle Sh. Om Prakash, who produced the accused in the police station. He has further testified that the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was got conducted at AIIMS hospital and thereafter, the same was handed over to the relatives. He has further deposed that he got carried out the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles. He has testified that the accused was identified by the eye witness Ct. Ramesh at the police station. The nine photographs of the spot of the accident i.e. Ex. PW­6/A­1 to Ex. PW­6/A­9 were correctly identified by the IO to have been taken by him. The negatives of the said photographs are Ex. P­1 (colly). He has correctly identified the accused.

11. The copy of the FIR Ex. A­1 was put to the accused and he admitted the registration of the same under section 294 Cr PC, though he disputed its contents. Thereafter, PE was closed.

12. The statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. In the said statement all the incriminating evidence against the accused were put to him for seeking his explanation. He has stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has conceded that he was driving bus bearing registration no. DL­1PB­1807 on the time, date and place of accident. However, he has stated that the said accident was committed by an unknown truck that was going ahead of his bus and the accident had already taken place when he in his bus reached t he spot. He opted for leading defence evidence. However, he did not examine any witness and on 13.12.2014, he submitted that he wants to close his defence evidence. Accordingly, the same was closed. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.

13. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused. I have carefully perused the case file.

14. The cardinal principle of criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.

15. Prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients to establish the guilt of the accused U/s 279/304 A IPC:­

(i)The accused was driving his vehicle on a public way;

(ii)Death of any person must have been caused;

(iii)It must have been caused by rash or negligent act/driving of the accused; and

(iv)Such death must not amount to culpable homicide.

16. To impose criminal liability under this section it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash or negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. Culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that the mischievous and the illegal consequence 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. 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 required of him, and that if he had he would have had the consciousness. Rash or negligent act is an act done not intentionally or designedly. A rash act is primarily an over­ hasty act, and is thus opposed to a deliberate act, but it also includes an act which, though it may be said to be deliberate is yet done without due deliberation and caution. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is the genus of which rashness is a species. In order that rashness or negligence may be criminal it must be of such a degree as to amount to taking hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely to be caused thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk or doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences.

17. As per prosecution, the accused had escaped from the spot after commission of the offence/accident. PW­4 HC Ramesh is the eye witness of the accident and he has deposed that he had seen the accused driving the offending vehicle and committing the present offence/accident. He has testified that the accused fled away from the spot after commission of the accident and he has correctly identified the accused to be the driver of the offending bus bearing registration no. DL­1PB­1807. Further, the registered owner of the offending bus namely PW­3 Om Prakash has categorically testified that the accused Shakil Ahmed was driving his offending bus at the time of the accident. The said witness is admittedly not an eye witness to the accident. However, his testimony has remained unimpeached. Moreover, accused Shakil Ahmed in his statement under section 313 Cr PC has conceded that he was driving the offending vehicle, though he has denied that the accident took place with his bus. Therefore, it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the offending bus bearing registration no. DL­1PB­1807.

18. PW­2 Dr. M.G.Joyen has testified that on 26.07.2002, he conducted the postmortem of deceased Surender Kumar s/o Sh. Trilok Chand and he has proved the postmortem report as Ex. PW­2/A. The testimony of the said witness has remained unchallenged. Further, the accused has also not disputed the death of Surender Kumar in road traffic accident at the time, place and spot of the accident. Rather, the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr PC, has conceded the factum of death of deceased Surender Kumar in an accident, though he has stated that the same was committed by an unknown truck that was going ahead of his bus. Thus, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Surender Kumar died on account of fatal injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred at the time, date and place as alleged by the prosecution.

19. Now, only two contentious issues survive. Firstly, whether the accident was committed by the bus being driven by the accused and if reply to the said query is in affirmative, secondly whether the same occurred due to culpable rash and negligent driving of the accused. In respect of first contentious issue, PW­4 HC Ramesh has categorically testified that the bus bearing registration no. DL­1PB­1807, being driven by the accused, hit the scooter from behind. The mechanical inspection report of the bus Ex. PW­1/B dated 29.07.2002 reflects that there were scratch marks on the front right bumper of the bus. Further, the said bus was found stationed and in accidental condition at the spot by the IO PW­7 SI Bharat Singh and PW­6 HC Sukhvir, when they reached the spot on receipt of the call regarding an accident. The photographs that were taken at the spot i.e. Ex. PW­6/A­1 to Ex. PW­6/A­9 shows that the scooter was lying under the front right side of the bus. The conspicuous skid marks on the road are observed in the said photographs, which further reflects that the bus after hitting the scooter, dragged it for some distance before it finally halted. Moreover, the accused escaped after leaving behind the bus at the spot. If the assertions made by the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr PC regarding the commission of the accident by an unknown/unidentified truck, are assumed to be correct than there was no occasion or reason for the accused to leave the bus at the spot and escape. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is not even an iota of doubt that the fatal accident took place with the bus that was being driven by the accused.

20. After the first issue is decided against the accused, the aforesaid second issue attains relevance. Thus, now the point that requires deliberation is whether the accident in the present case took place on account of culpable rash and negligent driving of the accused or it is merely a mis­chance/mis­happening. The prosecution has examined one eye witness to establish the culpable rash and negligent driving of the accused. The prosecution has conclusively established that the accident was committed by a bus bearing no. DL­1PB­1807, which was found abandoned at the spot in accidental condition. Moreover, complainant PW­4 Ct. Ramesh has categorically stated that the said bus is culpably responsible for the said accident as it hit the scooter from behind and crushed the deceased/rider of the said scooter under the right tyre of the bus. The photographs of the spot of accident i.e. Ex. PW­6/A­1 to Ex. PW­6/A­9 shows that the scooter is lying under the right side front bumper of the bus and the skid marks in the photographs manifest that the scooter must have been dragged for a considerable distance before the offending bus finally stopped. Hence, the statement of eye witness PW­4 Ct. Ramesh regarding high speed of the bus and it being driven in a rash and negligent manner is also corroborated by the said photographs. The site plan Ex. PW­7/D shows that the accident took place near T­point of M.B.Road and SA road. The accused should have been more circumspect, slow and cautious at the turn of the road. However, the accused in grave disregard of human life chose to drive it at a high speed on the turn of the road. The accused preferred to show his unwarranted and ugly racing skills on a heavy vehicle resulting in death of a helpless and innocent person. Therefore, not only the place but even the type of vehicle was misplaced for its driver to accelerate as he must have known the result of the risk he had undertaken and therefore, he must be prepared to face its ramifications.

21. The impact of the said accident is so gruesome that the possibility of it being driven carefully and slowly are next to impossible. The manner in which the accident took place reflects that the accused was driving at such a high speed that its momentum only terminated after dragging the said scooter for considerable distance and crushing the driver of the said scooter under it. A reasonable man has to be more cautious in driving his vehicle on seeing the vehicle running ahead of his vehicle. However, in the present case, the accused culpably omitted to take the aforesaid requisite precaution and drove his vehicle at a high speed. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW­4 HC Ramesh Chand regarding the rash and negligent act of the driver of the said bus. The manner in which the accident took place and the harrowing consequences that followed it, can lead to only one inescapable inference that the driver of the offending bus was culpably rash and negligent. Moreover, the legal maxim "res ipsa locquitor" i.e. the things speaks for themselves further fortifies the allegations of the prosecution regarding the culpable rash and negligent driving of the accused.

22. In the present case, the offending bus hit the scooter of the victim from behind. The accused has not taken any defence that the scooter suddenly stopped or the brakes of the offending bus failed. It is reasonably expected from a heavy vehicle running behind a smaller vehicle to ensure the safety of the vehicle running ahead of it. The findings given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Paras Nath Vs. State of Delhi 2003 (III) JCC 1500, are apposite and are reproduced as under:­ Delhi 2003 (III) JCC 1500 "I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Merely because the witnesses did not use the words rashness or negligence in his testimony and instead used the words high­speed, cannot be taken that the appellant was not driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, what is important is to find out if the driver of the offending vehicle was driving in public place rashly and in negligent manner so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause heart or death to any other person. In the case in hand the appellant hit the scooterist from behind. It is not the case of the appellant that the scooterist had applied break all of a sudden and therefore the appellant was taken unaware which led the appellant's truck hitting the scooter from behind. Act of negligence can be clearly attributed to the petitioner in this case as he is solely responsible for causing this accident without any fault of the scooterist. Rashness or negligence can be determined from the manner in which the accident had take place. Even the site plan prepared by the investigator which was exhibited as PW­5/C speaks about the negligence attributed to the petitioner. The appellant also admitted in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that accident had taken place with his truck but denied that it was due to negligent and rash driving on his part".

23. Moreover, the mechanical inspection report of the said scooter Ex. PW­1/A reflects that it was severely damaged in the said accident. Furthermore, the mechanical inspection report of the offending bus reflects that its brakes were perfectly alright, which rules out the possibility of the accident taking place on account of failure of brakes. The accident could not have resulted in unfortunate death of a person and grave damage to the scooter, had the accused would have taken sufficient precautions that were expected and required from him as a reasonable and prudent man confronted with the same situation. Hence, the act/driving of the accused of offending bus bearing no. DL­1PB­1807 is duly established to be criminally rash and negligent.

24. It is argued by the Ld. counsel for the accused that the offending vehicle/bus and the accidental scooter have not been produced in the court. Therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. This contention of the Ld. counsel for the accused is not sustainable. The said vehicles are merely corroborative piece of evidence and the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be discarded merely because the said corroborative piece of evidence has not been produced in the court.

25. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has proved all the essential ingredients of section 279/304A IPC beyond any reasonable doubt by leading convincing and clinching evidence against the accused Shakil Ahmed. Hence, the accused is hereby convicted U/s 279/304A IPC.

Put up on 30.03.2015 for arguments on quantum of sentence.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY I. E. 23.03.2015 (DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SAKET COURTS: DELHI FIR No. 421/02 PS. OIA U/s.279/304A IPC State Vs. Shakil Ahmed 23.03.2015 Present: Sh. Narender Yadav, Ld. APP for the State.

Accused on bail.

Vide my separate judgment of even date announced in the open Court, the accused stands convicted for offence punishable U/s 279/304A IPC.

Put up for hearing on quantum of sentence on 30.03.2015.

(DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SAKET COURTS: DELHI 23.03.2015 FIR No. 421/02 PS. OIA U/s.279/304A IPC State Vs. Shakil Ahmed 30.03.2015 Present: Sh. Narender Yadav, Ld. APP for the State.

Convict Shakil Ahmed on bail.

SHO­PS­OIA is directed to file Victim Impact Report on the NDOH.

Put up for hearing on quantum of sentence on 09.04.2015 as well as for awaiting Victim Impact Report.

(DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SAKET COURTS: DELHI 30.03.2015 FIR No. 421/02 PS. OIA U/s.279/304A IPC State Vs. Shakil Ahmed 09.04.2015 Present: Sh. Narender Yadav, Ld. APP for the State with IO/SI Ganga Prakash.

Convict Sh. Accused on bail with his counsel.

Victim Impact Report of the deceased Surender Kumar is filed.

Arguments on sentence are heard.

Put up on 25.04.2015 for orders on sentence. Let the Lrs of the deceased Surender Kumar be summoned for the NDOH.

(DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SAKET COURTS: DELHI 09.04.2015 FIR No. 421/02 PS. OIA U/s.279/304A IPC State Vs. Shakil Ahmed 25.04.2015 Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State with IO/SI Ganga Prakash.

Convict on bail.

Lrs of the deceased have failed to appear. Let they be summoned afresh for the NDOH.

Put up on 06.05.2015 for orders on sentence.

(DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SAKET COURTS: DELHI 25.04.2015 FIR No. 437/95 PS. Model Town U/s.279/337/338/304 A IPC State Vs. Inderjeet Singh 03.01.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State Convict on bail with counsel.

Ld. Counsel for the convict have sought some time for addressing arguments on quantum of sentence. The said request is allowed.

Put up on 16.01.2013 for aforesaid purpose.

(Dheeraj Mor) MM/Rohini/Delhi 03.01.2013.

16.01.2013 Present: Ld. S.APP for the state.

Convict in person.

The convict has submitted that his counsel is not available today. Accordingly, at request matter is adjourned to 21.01.2013 for arguments on quantum of sentence.

(Dheeraj Mor) MM/Rohini/Delhi 16.01.2013.

FIR No. 437/95

PS. Model Town U/s.279/337/338/304 A IPC State Vs. Inderjeet Singh 24.01.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State Convict on bail with counsel.

A report is received from probation officer. Its copy is supplied to the convict. Arguments on quantum of sentence heard.

Put up on 31.01.2013 for orders.

(Dheeraj Mor) MM/Rohini/Delhi 24.01.2013.

FIR No. 437/95

PS. Model Town U/s.279/337/338/304 A IPC State Vs. Inderjeet Singh 31.01.2013 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld. APP for the State.

Convict on bail with counsel.

The Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the convict be awarded maximum substantive sentence so that it has deterrent effect on the like minded persons.

On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the convict has submitted that the convict is 62 years of age and he is suffering from epilepsy. He has further submitted that he cannot walk independently and he needs assistance of another person for moving around. He has further submitted that the convict is not in physical condition to face the imprisonment. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for the convict has placed on record a certificate of the doctor of the convict that reflects that he is suffering from incurable epilepsy and he suffers fits attack on very regular basis. He has also pointed out that the convict is remorseful for his conduct and he is facing arduous trial of this case since last 18 years and after commission of this offence, he has committed no other offence. He has therefore, submitted that keeping in view the abovesaid mitigating factor the convict be given an opportunity for reformation and he be released on probation.

I have perused the social investigation report dated 24.01.2013 filed by the Probation Officer. The submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the convict are duly corroborated by the aforesaid report. No single theory whether deterrent, preventive, retributive or reformative can help in eliminating crimes and criminals from society. It is only through an effective combination of two or more of these theories that an ideal penal programme can be drawn to combat crimes. It is also essential to understand crime as a social and individual phenomenon and the need to prevent its commission or repetition by adapting an attitude conducive to the resocialisation or reformation of the criminal. The criminal's reformation serves a great social purpose and society itself becomes the greatest beneficiary of this reformation by being freed from his depredations. If the society cannot reform an offender, it is punishment for the society.

Convict is facing trial in this case since last almost 18 years and he has shown genuine remorse for the offence committed by him. Further, the convict has not committed any offence, subsequent to the commission of present offence. Therefore, his desire to reform also seems to be genuine. There has been increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offender as useful and self­reliant member of the society without subjecting him to deleterious effects of jail life. Further, it is apparent that the convict is not a hardened criminal and therefore, he must be shielded from the hardened criminals in the Jail and must be given an opportunity to reflect upon the offence committed by them and to reform.

The physical condition of the convict is apparently fragile and it is also not denied that he is not a habitual offender. The apparent poor physical condition of the convict coupled with his medical reports, reflects that if stern punishment of imprisonment is awarded to him it shall be extremely harsh for him.

Keeping in view the old age of the convict, the character of the offender, his medical and physical condition and social ramifications, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct on his entering into a bond for an amount of Rs.10,000/­ with one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior. Bonds and surety bonds furnished and they are accepted. Convict is also directed to pay the cost of proceedings as Rs. 10,000/­ in accordance with section 5 of Probation of Offender Act 1958. Same is paid. Copy of this order be given to the convict free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY I.E. 31.01.2013.

(DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS: DELHI FIR No. 437/95 PS. Model Town U/s.279/337/338/304 A IPC State Vs. Inderjeet Singh 31.01.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State.

Ld. Counsel for the convict along with the convict.

Arguments on the quantum of sentence heard.

Vide separate order on sentence the convict Inderjeet Singh is released on probation of good conduct on his entering into a bond for an amount of Rs.10,000/­ with one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior. Bonds and surety bonds furnished and they are accepted. Convict is also directed to pay the cost of proceedings as Rs. 10,000/­ in accordance with section 5 of Probation of Offender Act 1958. Same is paid.

File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

(Dheeraj Mor) MM/Rohini/Delhi 31.01.2013 of another's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enoughthatitmayhavebeenthecausasine qua non.