Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/985/2007 on 4 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Mahender Singh
FIR No. 985/1997
PS Paschim Vihar
U/s 279/304A IPC
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 1768/2/10
Date of Institution : 26.09.1998
Date of Commission of Offence : 06.12.1997
Name of the complainant : Smt. Simmi
W/o Rajneesh
R/o 251, Behera Enclave,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi
Name & address of the accused : Mahender Singh
S/o Dalip Singh
R/o E-275, Mangol Puri, Delhi
Offence complained of : 279/304 A IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted u/s. 279/304A IPC
Date of reserve for judgment : 18.11.2014
Date of announcing of judgment : 04.12.2014
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case u/s 279/304A IPC.
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 06.12.1997 at about 11.45 State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 1/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar am, the accused was the driver of one school bus bearing no. DPB 1691 of Doon Public School and was driving the said bus to drop the children back to their respective homes from school. At about 11.45 am, the said bus reached at GH-14, DDA Market, Paschim Vihar and the children were getting down from the school bus, when the accused all of a sudden started the bus due to which one girl named Ishita fell down and came under the rear wheel of the bus and died. Thus the accused is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 279/304A IPC. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C and thereafter charge under Section 279/304A was framed against him by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 16.04.2002, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses i.e (1) Ms. Simmi (2) Dr. Komal Singh (3) Narender Seth (4) Rajender Seth (5) Satish Kumar (6) J. S. Pawar (7) Anand Swaroop (8) ASI Lata Singh (9) Ct. Amar Singh (10) R. Ramanathan (11) SI Gurdeep Singh (12) Ct. Surender Singh (13) Inspector Retired C. L. Jatav and (14) HC Azad Singh.
5. PW-1 Smt. Simmi is the eye witness and the teacher of the said school. She has deposed that on 06.12.1997 at about 11.45 am, she was travelling in bus no. DPB 1691 for going to Doon Public School. The accused was driving the bus. After the school hours, the children were being taken to their respective State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 2/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar homes in the bus. She was the teacher incharge of the said bus to see that children got down from the bus properly. She deposed that when the bus reached opposite DDA market, DDA, G-14 Flats, the bus stopped and children started getting down. One child Ishita was the first one to get down from the bus. She has deposed that the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus due to which Ishita fell down from the bus. The witness shouted at the driver to stop the bus, however, he did not stop the bus immediately and the bus was stopped only after a few meters. When the bus stopped, she got down from the bus and saw that Ishita was lying on the road totally crushed. Witness has deposed that the accident had taken place due to rashness and negligence of the accused as he had started the bus while child Ishita was in the process of getting down from the school bus. She has further deposed that police reached at the spot and recorded her statement which is Ex.PW1/A. She further deposed that photographs of the spot showing water bottle, school bag, tyre marks of the bus & blood were also taken. She identified the photographs and same are mark P1 to P6.
6. During cross examination, PW-1 stated that she could produce the proof to show that she was working in the school at that time. She further stated that school maintains a transport register in which the number of children boarding a particular bus is entered and Teacher In-charge of the bus puts her signature thereupon. She stated that she had told the name of the driver to the police and State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 3/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar she roughly knew that he was a resident of Mangolpuri. She stated that the driver was present at the spot when the police came. He was arrested in her presence. She could not tell whether the proceedings regarding arrest were prepared by the police on the spot or not as she was busy with children who were crying as there was utter chaos. She denied the suggestion that the accused was not the driver of the said bus or that the child had fallen down from the bus due to her own fault.
7. PW-2 Dr. Komal Singh, CMO, SGM Hospital deposed that on 06.12.1997 she was posted as CMO DDU hospital. On that day, she had conducted the postmortem of the deceased Ishita, aged 4 years at about 2.00 pm who was brought by ASI Gurdeep Singh. Her detailed report is Ex.PW2/A. In her opinion, the cause of death was due to crush injury to scalp and brain subsequent to road side accident. In the cross examination, she stated that there was no tyre marks on the body of the deceased. She also stated that nature of injuries could be caused only in a road traffic accident. She could not comment whether injuries could have been caused if the child had come running towards the bus and got dashed.
8. PW-3 Narender Sethi is the uncle of the deceased child Ishita who had identified her dead body in the mortuary. His statement is Ex.PW3/A.
9. PW-4 is the father of the deceased who had received her dead body and his statement was recorded as Ex.PW4/A. In the cross examination, he stated that State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 4/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar he had reached the spot of accident after about 15 minutes. There were many public persons as well as police persons present there. From the eye witnesses, he came to know that the driver had fled from the spot.
10. PW-5 Satish Kumar is the registered owner of bus bearing no. DPB 1691 and deposed that on 06.12.1997 he had given the bus for driving to driver Om Prakash and one Krishan Kumar was the conductor. In the evening, he came to know that his bus had caused the accident. He got his bus released from the police station vide superdarinama Ex.PW5/A.
11. PW-6 J. S. Pawar, Engineer Automobiles deposed that on 06.12.1997 ASI Gurdeep Singh had asked him to conduct the mechanical inspection of the bus in question. He went to PS Paschim Vihar for the said purpose. His report is Ex.PW6/A. He deposed that there was no fresh damage on the bus and mechanical functions were Ok. On 08.12.1997 ASI Gurdeep Singh again requested him to conduct the mechanical inspection of the bus regarding the emergency gate. After inspection, he gave his opinion vide Ex.PW6/B and as per his opinion, emergency gates were Ok and could not open during apply of brakes. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not carried out the inspection of the said bus.
12. PW-7 Anand Swaroop deposed that he was the manager of Doon Public School, Jawalaheri, Paschim Vihar. He deposed that there was an Agreement between the school and Sunil Transports under which the transporter was State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 5/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar responsible to handle the entire transport for the school. Ex. PW7/A is the original Agreement for the year 1997-98 which was signed by him. The seizure memo with respect to said Agreement is Ex.PW7/B.
13. During cross examination, he stated that on the date of incident, he had received telephone call from one school teacher Simmi who was in the bus with the children. She told him about the accident and that driver Anil Kumar had run away and thus she was in fix as to what to do. He went to the spot. Police was present there but the driver had fled away. He remained at the spot for about 20-25 minutes. In the evening, he went to the police station where he saw one Mahender Singh in place of Anil Kumar. He deposed that normally this bus was being driven by Anil kumar. He deposed that as per the Agreement Ex.PW7/A, the school authorities keep an account of the Provident Funds of the drivers and as per his knowledge, there is an account in the name of Anil Kumar, but there is no account in the name of Mahinder. He stated that on the date of accident, Anil Kumar was driving the bus.
14. PW-8 W/ASI Lata Singh has deposed that on 06.12.1997, she was the duty officer from 8.00 am to 5.00 pm at PS Paschim Vihar and she had recorded the present FIR Ex. PW8/A on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Azad Singh. Her endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW8/B.
15. PW-9 Ct. Amar Singh deposed that on 26.12.1997, he, on the directions of MHC(M) had collected one sample parcel duly sealed with the seal of 'GS' State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 6/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar along with form M-29 from MHC(M). He deposited the same in the excise office vide RC No. 130/21. He obtained the receipt on the RC and deposited the same with MHC (M). He deposed that the seal was not tampered with in any manner during his custody.
16. PW-10 R. Ramnanathan, MVI had inspected the vehicle no. DBP 1691 on 09.12.1997. The report regarding the same is mark X.
17. PW-11 SI Gurdeep Singh, IO had deposed that on 06.12.1997 he had reached the spot along with Ct. Azad Singh on receiving DD No. 10A. The bus in question as well as the accused were present at the spot. The injured was already removed to DDU hospital. He left Ct. Azad Singh at the spot and proceeded to DDU hospital. There he collected the MLC of deceased Ishita. Thereafter, he went back to the spot and recorded the statement of witness Simmi. He made endorsement on the statement which is Ex.PW10/A. He prepared the site plan at the instance of Ms. Simmi which is Ex. PW10/B. He prepared rukka and sent Ct. Azad for registration of FIR. Ct. Azad returned back along with rukka and copy of FIR and handed it over to the witness. The witness deposed that he had called a private photographer and got the offending vehicle as well as the spot of accident photographed. The bus was seized vide memo Ex.PW10/C and the driving license of the accused was seized vide memo Ex.PW10/D. On 06.12.1997 he arrested the driver and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW10/E. Body of the deceased State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 7/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar was sent for postmortem. He got conducted the mechanical inspection of the bus. He further deposed that on the next date the conductor the bus Krishan was arrested and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.10/G. On 10.12.1997, the mechanical inspection of the bus was again conducted after calling the CFL team from Malviya Nagar. The pieces of the skin of the deceased that had got stuck in the wheel were given to the CFL team. On 20.12.1997 the said Skin pieces were sent to FSL Malviya Nagar for examination. Thereafter, the present file was transferred to Crime District Cell.
18. PW-12 Ct. Surender Singh deposed that on 19.01.1998 he was posted at District Crime Cell. He along with inspector C.L.Jatav had gone to GH-13/196, where Narender Seth met the IO and handed over six photographs to the IO.
19. PW-13 Inspector C.L.Jatav deposed that on 19.1.1998 he along with Ct.
Surender went to GH-13/196, Paschim Vihar where Narender Seth met him and and handed over to him six photographs of the case property. He seized the same vide memo which is not on record. He also collected one contract Agreement between the school manager and the private contractor which is Ex.PW7/A. He filed the charge-sheet after completion of entire investigation. During cross examination, he stated that he did not have any personal knowledge of the case except the investigation conducted by him.
20. PW-14 HC Azad Singh deposed that on 06.12.1997 he along with SI Gurdeep had gone to the spot on receiving DD No. 10A where they found the bus no.
State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 8/20
FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar
DPB 1691 along with driver Mahender Singh. The injured was removed to DDU hospital by the PCR van. The IO left him at the spot and went to DDU hospital. IO returned back and recorded the statement of witnesses. He prepared the rukka and handed over to the witness for registration of FIR. The witness got the FIR registered at PS Paschim Vihar and returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. Vehicle no. DPB 1691 of the accused was seized in his presence and the accused was also arrested in his presence.
21. During cross examination, he stated that he had received the information regarding the accident at about 11.50 am. He could not recall whether departure entry was made by SI Gurdeep Singh or not. He denied the suggestion that no departure entry was made at the PS. He stated that they had gone to the spot on the scooter but could not recall the number of the same. He stated that IO had recorded the statement of one lady in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot and did not join the investigation.
22. Thereafter, the PE was closed. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. No DE was led despite opportunity.
23. I have heard the submissions addressed by the Ld APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 9/20
FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar
24. Counsel for accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that there is no proof on record that PW-1 Simmi was the teacher in the school on that date. He has further submitted that despite availability of public witness, no witness was joined by the IO in the investigation. Further, there is contradiction in the statement of PW-4 and PW-1. PW-4 i.e father of the deceased child had deposed that the driver of the bus was not present at the spot, while PW-1 has deposed that he did not flee from the spot and was arrested on the spot. It is submitted that PW-1 is the planted witness as she was the close relative /aunt of the deceased. He also submitted that as per the statement of PW-2 as well as CFL report, there were no tyre/skid mark on the body of the deceased. He has further argued that PW-5 Satish Kumar has deposed that he had handed over his bus to driver Om Prakash and not to the accused and that PW-7, Manager of Doon Public School has also deposed that bus was being driven by driver Anil Kumar and not Mahender Singh. He has also submitted that photographs Ex.P1 to P6 were not taken by the IO as he had only seized the same from Narender seth, relative of the deceased.
25. Ld. APP for State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused be convicted for the alleged offence.
26. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution that too beyond any reasonable State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 10/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar 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.
27. Before proceeding further, let us discuss the meaning of the expressions "rash"
and "negligent". These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
28. In "State of H.P. v. Piar Chand", Cr. Appeal No. 109 of 2003, decided on 2.6.2003, Himachal Pradesh High Court, while 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 knowledge 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 negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable care and proper State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 11/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar precaution imperative to be adopted by a person to avoid causing of injury to the public or a person or a individual."
29. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1972 SC 685 as under :
"Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstance out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted............Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case".
30. In the case at hand, the prosecution had to prove that the child Ishita had died as a result of rash and negligent act of the accused. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has raised several defenses. The court shall discuss the discuss those defenes one by one. First of all, the counsel for accused has submitted that PW-1 was not a teacher in the said school and and is a relative/aunt of the deceased. PW-1 was cross examined at length by the accused's Counsel. She State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 12/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar was asked whether she could produce any proof to show that she was working as teacher at the relevant time. To this, she replied that she could produce the Confirmation Letter from the school. She also stated that school maintains the transport Register in which the number of children boarding a particular bus is recorded and the teacher-In-Charge signs thereupon. Even though the witness had categorically stated that she could produce the proof of her being a teacher in the school, the defence Counsel did not make any request to defer the cross examination so that she could produce the same on the next date. The only inference that can be drawn from this is that the accused had accepted the answer given by the witness to be true. The accused also had the option to lead defence evidence to whereby he could have called the school record/register to prove that PW-1 was not working as teacher in the said school. however, the accused did not lead any evidence. Hence, the accused has failed to prove that the PW-1 was not working as a teacher in the Doon School as on the date of accident. Hence this defence of the accused has failed.
31. The second contention of the accused is that no tyre marks were found at the body of the deceased. As per the postmortem report Ex.PW2/A, the opinion given is that the death of the child was a result of crush injuries on the forehead and skull. PW-2 has also deposed that cause of death was due to crush injury of skull and brain subsequent to road side accident. There was no injury on the State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 13/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar other parts of the body. Hence, the question of tyre marks on the body of the child does not arise.
32. Thirdly, Ld. Counsel has submitted that as per the testimony of PW-7, it was Anil Kumar who was driving the bus in question. PW-7 has stated in his cross examination that he had received a telephone call from PW-1 Simmi who told him that an accident had taken place and the driver Anil Kumar had ran away. He went to the spot but the driver was not present. The witness stated that normally this bus was being driven by Anil Kumar and on the day of incident, he had seen Anil Kumar driving the bus. Now, first of all this portion of the testimony of the witness cannot be read in evidence as it is only a hearsay evidence. As per Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence must be direct. The said section is being reproduced verbatim here:-
"S. 60.Oral evidence must be direct - Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say-
If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
If it refers to a fact, which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 14/20
FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar
If it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatise if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the court regards as unreasonable:
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.
33. PW-7 had only heard it from Ms. Simmi that the accident was caused by driver Anil Kumar and that he had fled away. He admittedly was not present at the spot at the time of accident and had not seen who was driving the bus at that time. He has deposed what he had heard from Ms. Simmi. Hence, this portion of the testimony of PW-7 cannot be read in evidence being inadmissible. Secondly, PW-7 stated that driver Anil Kumar was driving the bus on the said date. However, when and where he saw him driving the bus has not been stated by him. Also, he has stated that normally Anil Kumar used to drive the bus. However, there is no evidence on record to show that it was driver Anil State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 15/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar Kumar who used to drive the bus in question. The accused could have called for school records or the records of the concerned transporter to show that it was Anil Kumar and not the accused who was driving the bus on the said date. But no DE was led by the accused on this point.
34. The counsel for accused has also submitted that PPF record of driver Anil Kumar was maintained by school authority, however, there is no PPF record of the accused. This contention is again not tenable as it is not supported by any documentary evidence. It is PW-7 who had stated during his cross examination that "As per my personal knowledge PPF account is in the name of Anil Kumar. To the best of my knowledge PPF account is not there in the name of Mahinder Kumar". This statement was made by the witness on basis of his personal knowledge only and is not supported by any documentary evidence whatsoever. The accused had to lead evidence in this regard that no PPF account was maintained by the school in the name of accused. However, no such evidence was led by him. Hence, this defence of the accused has also failed.
35. Another submission made by the Counsel is that even though PW-1 had deposed that accused was arrested in her presence, her signatures were not taken on the arrest memo/ personal search memo / other documents. Also the testimony of PW-1 is contradiction with that of PW-4 as PW-4 has deposed that when he reached the spot after 15 minutes, he came to know from the eye State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 16/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar witnesses that the driver had fled away from the spot.
36. It is correct that the signatures of PW-1 have not been taken by the police on the arrest memo/ personal search memo / site plan etc. However, these are only procedural lapses and do not affect the story of the prosecution.
37. At this juncture, it would not be out of place to mention the case-law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "State of U.P. v. Naresh (2011) 4 SCC 324" as follows:
"In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.... Exaggerations per se do not State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 17/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility."
Also, in "Shivaji Saheb Rao Bobade v State of Maharashtra"
1974(1)SCR 489UB, the Hon'ble Supreme court adopted a different approach to the principle of benefit of doubt and struck a note of caution that the dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence demand special emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, "Our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish marginal innocents......The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principle of golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt."
38. In light of the above stated case law, this court is of the view that the discrepancies in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 are minor and do not strike at State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 18/20 FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar the root of the prosecution case, and hence are of no significance. As such, this contention of the accused too is not tenable.
39. PW-1 has categorically deposed that the accused was driving the bus no. DPB 1691 on the date of incident and that he all of a sudden had started the bus when the child Ishita was getting down from the bus. Due to this child was crushed under the rear wheel of the bus and died. This witness has identified the accused correctly in the court. The court does not see any reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. Her credibility has remained unimpeached and veracity of her statement is unshaken. The testimony of the eye witness is further corroborated with the medical evidence i.e MLC and the postmortem report the deceased child. The photographs of the spot of accident showing scattered school bag, bottle, blood and also photographs Ex.P4 and P5 showing tyre of the bus containing blood spots and other bodily matter have further added credence to the prosecution story. Also, the FSL report which is admissible under Section 293 Cr.PC shows that blood was detected on the pieces of the skin of the deceased that had stuck in the wheels of the bus.
40. The Agreement between the school and transport Ex.PW7/A is also of no help to the accused as it no where mentions the name of the driver appointed to drive the bus. It is merely a contract between the school authorities and the transporter for supply of transport facility to the school.
State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 19/20
FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar
41. The accused, being the driver of the bus was under a duty to take due care and precaution to drive the bus carefully. This degree of care has been raised manifold as it was a school bus carrying small children. The act of the driver of starting the bus when the deceased child Ishita was getting down from the bus is out and out a rash and negligent act on part of the accused. He failed to exercise the due care and caution wanted on his part. His act falls within the purview of Section 279 IPC as well as Section 304-A IPC. Hence, it has been proved that the accused was driving the bus number DPB 1691 in a rash and negligent manner and due to his driving the said bus in such manner, child Ishita was crushed under the wheels of the bus and died.
42. In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Mahender Singh stands convicted under Section 279/304A IPC.
43. Be listed for arguments on sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON
4th December 2014
(SAUMYA CHAUHAN)
MM-07(West)/THC/04.12.2014
State v. Mahender Singh U/s 279/304A IPC 20/20
FIR No. 985/97 PS Paschim Vihar