Delhi High Court
State Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi vs Anil Kumar on 23 May, 2012
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 275/2012
% Decided on: 23rd May, 2012
STATE GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manoj Ohri, APP with, Adv.
versus
ANIL KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Crl.M.A.No.6533/2012 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 69 days in filing of the petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.Crl.L.P. 275/2012
1. Notice to the respondent in the present case has not been issued. Before issuing notice, I deem it proper to hear the present petition on merits.
2. The present leave to appeal petition is directed against the judgment dated 27th March, 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting the Respondent, Anil Kumar, for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A/IPC.
3. Learned APP for the State contends that the impugned judgment is manifestly wrong, bad in law and contrary to the facts and evidence placed on record. Learned Trial Court while acquitting the Respondent has Crl. L.P. No. 275/2012 Page 1 of 4 overlooked the testimony of PW4 and PW5 who have fully supported the prosecution case and have deposed that the Respondent/accused was driving the Bus in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the pedestrian.
The conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge that there is no material on record to find out the manner of driving the Bus/vehicle and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent is erroneous. The testimony of PW4 HC Joginder Singh is clear and cogent hence the leave to appeal be granted and petition be allowed.
4. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 1st April, 1993 at around 4:20 p.m. at Faiz Road, near Idgah Chambray , Delhi the Respondent was driving his Bus bearing No.DL 1P 5882 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and as a result of which one person who fell down and succumbed to death. FIR No.95/1993 was registered against the Respondent/accused. The investigation was conducted and charge sheet under Sections 279/304A was filed against the Respondent. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses and statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence acquitted the Respondent of the aforesaid charges. This judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is impugned in the present petition.
5. The prosecution case is based solely upon the testimony of PW4 HC Joginder Singh, who in his statement before the Court has deposed that on 1st April, 1993 he was present at Idgah Chambray picket. At about 4:00 -4:30 p.m. one bus bearing No. DL-1P-5882 came from Filmistan side at a fast speed. One pedestrian was standing and the said bus hit against him. He fell down and was removed to H.R.Hospital by the P.C.R.Van. The driver of the said bus as well as the bus was restrained by him. In the meanwhile, Crl. L.P. No. 275/2012 Page 2 of 4 Investigating Officer SI Bhoj Raj arrived at the spot. He handed over the accused as well as the bus to him. This witness has not been cross-examined by the defence counsel. The unchallenged testimony of this witness only shows that the offending vehicle hit against one pedestrian while coming from the side of Filmistan. Nothing has been stated by the witness in regard to the manner of driving the said bus or that the same was driven is a rash and negligent manner. It is not stated that why and where exactly was the pedestrian stationed that the bus came and hit him.
6. PW5 SI Bhoj Raj has deposed that on 1st April, 1993 he was posted at PS DBG Road, PP Siddipura. On that day on receiving DD No.17 regarding the accident he along with Ct.Surender reached at Idgah Chambray, Main Faiz Raod where bus bearing No. DL-1P-9882 and bus driver Anil Kumar were present. He came to know that injured had been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital by the PCR. He went to hospital and obtained the MLC of unknown injured. The injured was declared dead by the doctor. It is relevant to note that in his entire testimony this witness has not stated anything in regard to the presence of PW4. This witness is neither the eyewitness nor does he know anything as to how the accident took place. No other witness has been examined by prosecution to prove the manner of driving. The conviction of Respondent/accused cannot be solely based upon the testimony of PW4 who does not state that the Respondent was driving in a rash and negligent manner.
7. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. For an offence under Section Crl. L.P. No. 275/2012 Page 3 of 4 304A, the act of accused must be rash and negligent, which should be responsible for the death which does not amount to culpable homicide. The prosecution, in the present case, has failed to prove that the respondent was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I find no illegality much less infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Hence no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out.
9. The present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE MAY 23, 2012/sv Crl. L.P. No. 275/2012 Page 4 of 4