Delhi District Court
Rajender Singh vs . State Ca 39/16 (54235/2016) on 21 April, 2018
Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016)
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH YADUVANSHI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 05: WEST : DELHI.
CA No. 39/16 (54235/16)
Sh.Rajender Singh
S/o Sh.Jagmohan Singh
R/o H.No. 3/1, Village Sabda,
PO Nizam Pur, Delhi - 110 081 ....... Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) .......Respondent
Date of Institution : 03.06.2016 Date of Reserving Judgment : 11.04.2018 Date of Judgment : 21.04.2018
JUDGMENT on Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dt.25.04.2016 and Order on Sentence dt. 05.05.2016
1. The Appellant was charged on 22.01.2008 for commission of offence Punishable U/s 279 IPC as well as U/s 304A IPC.
Result: Dismissed Page 1 of 23Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016)
2. After trial, he was convicted vide Judgment dt. 25.04.2016 which is challenged in this Appeal. The impugned Order on Sentence dt. 05.05.2016 is also under challenge as the Appellant was sentenced to RI for two months for offence Punishable U/s 279 IPC and also RI for six months for the offence Punishable U/s 304A IPC. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. No fine was imposed. Instead, Appellant was directed to deposit compensation of Rs.50,000/ payable to the LRs of the deceased. Sentence was suspended on an application to that effect till 05.06.2016. In the meanwhile, the appellant filed an Appeal dt.03.06.2016 and subsequent to deposit of the Compensation amount in the Ld.trial Court and on furnishing PB/SB as directed, the appellant was released on bail till the pendency of the Appeal. Record reveals that the Convict has deposited the Compensation amount in the Ld.trial Court on 06.06.2016.
3. Notice of Appeal was issued to the State and TCR was called for.
4. Case of Prosecution began on receipt of DD no.12A at PS Nangloi on 21.05.2006, Ex.PW6/A at 12:34 PM, disclosing Result: Dismissed Page 2 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) about an accident at Nilothi More, Ranhola Road, Delhi. Ct.Pratap (not examined) and Daya Chand PW6 (since retired) proceeded to the informed place and reached at Main Najafgarh Road, near Police Booth, Risaal Garden, Najafgarh, Delhi. They found one Motorcycle bearing Registration no. DL4SNB2211 make TVS Apache in accidental condition parked on side of the road. Inquiries revealed that the injured has been taken to SGM Hospital.
5. In the meanwhile, PW6 received another DD no.16A Ex.PW 6/B. It records that the PS was informed by Duty constable Raja Ram (not examined) at 01:00 PM that one Sidheshwar Chand who was brought to the hospital regarding the accident in question by his Son Udai Chand Gandhi (not examined) has been declared as "brought dead".
6. Leaving Ct.Pratap to secure the accident site, PW6 reached SGM Hospital and collected the MLC. Body of deceased had been shifted to mortuary by then. PW6 also met one boy namely Shyam Sunder Ghandhi, Son of the deceased (PW2) and recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. Result: Dismissed Page 3 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016)
7. In this statement, PW2 stated that he is student of Class 10th and was returning to his house alongwith his Father on motorcycle. When they reached at the accident spot at about 12:45 PM, a Bus No. DL1PA5628 plying on Rout no. 539 which was travelling at a very fast speed and was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit (brushed) the Motorcycle on its side due to which head of his father hit against portion near to rear door of the Bus. The Motorcycle fell towards left side and his father fell on the road towards right side. He attempted to stop the Bus but its driver fled with it from accident site. His father was unconscious. In the meanwhile, brother of PW2 namely Udai Chand Gandhi arrived at the spot and took his father to SGM hospital. As per statement, PW2 could identify the Bus driver.
8. PW6 ASI Daya Chand (retired) reached back at the spot with PW2 where he conducted further investigation and prepared the Site Plan. He arrested the accused and took into possession the offending vehicle as well as the Motorcycle. He also seized relevant documents i.e. Driving Licence of the accused, copy of RC and Insurance. Thereafter, Chargesheet was filed.
Result: Dismissed Page 4 of 23Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016)
9. I have set out the above facts from the Chargesheet to show that the circumstances in which the accused driving the vehicle, who is reported to have fled from the spot with the vehicle, are not clarified regarding how he was arrested at all. I had also perused various statements recorded by the case IO U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and even these statements do not clarify this aspect at all. It is only in the testimony of PW6 that some clarity has been brought about it. Total Six PWs were examined including PW2 who is the eye witness. The appellant took defence in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that though he was driving the bus in question on 21.05.2006 at 12:45 PM, but no accident took place at all. He took plea that the Road where the accident is stated to have taken place is a busy road and that he was driving the vehicle diligently. He also took the plea of false implication to facilitate MACT claim. Defence evidence was not produced.
10. The Trial Court was not impressed by the defence. The Ld.trial Court has observed in the Judgment impugned that there are certain contradictions amongst the testimonies of PW2 and IO/PW6. The same are not of such nature so as to disbelieve the statement of Result: Dismissed Page 5 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) PW2. The Court took notice of the plea in defence; the testimony of Auto mobile Engineer/PW3 and the Reports of Mechanical Inspection of the Vehicle that he prepared. The Court also examined the testimony of PW4/Dr.Baljeet Singh who deposed on behalf of Dr.Sawinder Singh for proving the MLC of the Victim Ex.PW4/A. The Court also took note of the Postmortem Report Ex.PW5/A proved by Dr.Manoj Dhingra.
11. It came to the conclusion that the involvement of the Bus (identity of which was not disputed by defence during trial) has been proved as the same Vehicle that was involved in the accident with the Motorcycle. It also categorically noted that accused was driving the Bus in question is not only an admitted fact but is also proven by the testimony of owner of the vehicle i.e. PW1 Dharampal. Further more, the accused was identified by PW2 as the same person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
12. The Court also took note of the corresponding damages on both the vehicles as per the Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending Bus Ex.PW3/A and Motorcycle Ex.PW3/B. The Court Result: Dismissed Page 6 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) observed that the accused was rash and negligent in driving the Vehicle and merely because the speed of the Vehicle was not established, it could not be said that he was neither rash nor negligent. The Court also observed that the driver of the offending vehicle was at fast speed and trying to over take another Bus. The Court also came to the conclusion that the accident took place as the accused must have been changing lanes. The Court also came to the conclusion that the cause of death which is "Coma" due to head injury is the direct result of the rash and negligent act of the Appellant.
13. Challenge to the Judgment is mainly on the ground that the offending vehicle was intercepted when it was coming back on the same Route from the opposite direction and therefore, it is illogical that a person causing an accident would come back on the same Route. Additionally, it is challenged for want of corroboration to testimony of PW2 as no public witnesses were examined despite availability. It is also challenged that the IO did not collect duty Register of Appellant at all. It is also urged in support of the Appeal that when the photographs (Ex.PW6/E Colly.) of the offending vehicle were produced, PW2 had submitted that the Result: Dismissed Page 7 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) colour of the Bus was different which creates doubt on the Prosecution version. It is also contended that as per the Prosecution, the offending Bus hit the Motorcycle on its rear portion from its front side whereas no damage was found on the Bus on its front side which belies the Prosecution version.
14. The present Appeal has been argued by the Appellant's Counsel Sh.Vikrant Yadav. Mr.B.B.Bhasin, Ld.Prosecutor who argued on behalf of the State, has controverted all these arguments submitting that the defence is moonshine and not plausible. It is contended that identity of the Bus was never disputed and moreover, there is an observation of the Trial Court regarding its Colour to the effect that the Superdar might have changed its colour as Blue Line Buses had been banned in Delhi.
15. It is urged that the defence has shown no reason at all as to why the PW2 would concoct a story for falsely implicating the accused particularly when it is shown from Ex.PW2/A and the statement of the IO recorded in the Court that the Registration number of the offending Vehicle was provided to the IO at the very first instance. He also clarifies that the statement of the IO throws light on the fact that when the Bus was again travelling on the same Route at Result: Dismissed Page 8 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) the same spot it was identified by its number and its driver was identified by none of the other than eye witness i.e. PW2 Shyam Sunder Gandhi.
16. I have carefully perused the record of the Ld.trial Court in the light of evidence adduced and find that the Ld.trial Court has dealt with every detail of the case including the contradictions between the statements of PW2 and IO/PW6.
17. The question that arises for consideration in this Appeal is whether the contradictions are trivial or of such nature that they introduce element of suspicion and doubt in the version of the Prosecution visavis the defence of false implication for obtaining Compensation under MACT.
18. Testimony of PW1 establishes that the offending Vehicle (identity of which is not disputed) was being driven by the Appellant on the day of incident as he was in possession of it on that day. Moreover, a specific question was put to the Appellant in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. on this aspect and he admitted to be driving this offending vehicle on 21.05.2006 at about 12:25 PM which, as per Rukka/Tehrir, is the time of actual accident. This Result: Dismissed Page 9 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) time is also provided by PW2 in his Court testimony. Incident occurred at 12:45 PM only.
19. A question may arise here regarding colour of the Bus. As per Photographs Ex.PW6/E (Colly.) the colour was white and as per PW2, the colour had been changed. This aspect was settled at that time itself when the Court made the observation (as above) on this point in the Court testimony of PW2 dt. 13.09.2012.
20. It can be therefore safely concluded that the appellant was driving the vehicle in question at the date, place and time complained of.
21. The next question arising for consideration is whether the Appellant was driving the offending vehicle in a manner so rash or negligent on the public way so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. It cannot be disputed, nor is disputed, that the offending Bus was being driven on a public way. The case IO prepared Site Plan at the instance of PW2. It is Ex.PW6/D. It is not signed by the complainant however, it is in testimony of PW6 that after the case was registered, he had prepared this Site Plan. Crossexamination on Result: Dismissed Page 10 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) this aspect is not impressive at all.
22. The Site Plan shows Point A as the place where the accident took place. The offending Bus was travelling from North to South on Najafgarh Nangloi road. As per the IO, the spot of incident is main and busy road and as per PW2, the traffic on the road at the time of incident was normal. It is therefore not in evidence that at the time of incident, the road was congested and not conducive to drive the vehicle at a reasonable speed as per the speed limit.
23. PW2 states that the offending vehicle came from behind at a fast speed. He further stated that the Bus driver was rash and negligent and he was trying to overtake another Bus. His testimony shows that the Bus stop is situated around 400 Mtrs. back as well as ahead of the place of incident and that there is a Police Check Post at some distance from the place of incident i.e. about 400 Mtrs. This is supported from the Site Plan also. No traffic signal is shown to exist near to the place of incident. Thus, the traffic was smooth and there is no reason for the Court to opine that the Bus was not travelling at a reasonable speed. According to the complainant/PW2, the Bus was at a high speed. In the cross Result: Dismissed Page 11 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) examination offered to PW2, the defence never cross questioned him about the speed of the offending vehicle or even the Motorcycle.
24. The above, coupled with testimony of PW2, that the offending vehicle was trying to overtake another Bus and in the process, hit the Motorcycle is sufficient to introduce the element of negligence as well as rashness on the part of the Bus driver regardless of the speed of the Bus.
25. The Trial Court has given opinion that an incident of such nature could take place if the offending vehicle was changing lanes. Same would be a correct inference if it is believed that the offending vehicle was trying to overtake another Bus. I agree that the inference, as above, drawn by the Trial Court on the basis of facts in hand is correct. The driver of the vehicle was duty bound to signal before changing lanes and in any case, was duty bound to observe other vehicular traffic in the rear view mirror of the Bus. The Ld.trial Court has again rightly observed that the incident could have been averted if this care and caution was exercised.
26. The conduct of the accused in escaping after the incident with the Bus is also speaking volumes about his intention to evade Result: Dismissed Page 12 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) consequences of his rash and negligent act.
27. It is not absolutely improbable that a person who commits an accident is not likely to return to the same spot. In the present case, the offending vehicle was being plied on a designated Bus Route No. 539. It is not in the trial Court file as to when the offending Bus was spotted again and on which side of the Carriageway it was travelling. It is clarified from the Appeal however that the Bus was coming back on the same Route on the opposite Carriage way. It was spotted by the case IO and the Complainant. There is some contradiction as to who spotted it first, but the main fact remains that the Bus was spotted on the basis of its Registration number which was told to the IO at the very first instance as evident from statement Ex.PW2/A. The contradiction between the testimony of PW2 and PW6 as to who spotted the Bus on the first occasion is immaterial. Moreover, it is in the testimony of PW2 that he tried to stop the Bus. He even shouted. PW2 is seen to be consistent regarding the above not only in Ex.PW2/A but also in his Court statement. He had observed the number of the Bus and later told the same to the IO.
Result: Dismissed Page 13 of 23Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016)
28. The above conduct of returning to the spot could also be out of inquisitiveness of the offender - in this case the appellant - to learn more about the consequences of the act committed by him which, in this case, is the accident in question.
29. No room for doubt is therefore left that the appellant was neither negligent nor rash in his aforestated act. The above opinion of this Court is also based on the vehicular Inspection Reports which PW3 had made a day after the incident on 22.05.2006 when both the Vehicles were standing in the premises of PS Nangloi. As per Mechanical Inspection Report Ex.PW3/A of the offending Bus, fresh damages were noted in the nature of dent on body, rear gate to back on body. In the Court, PW2 affirms it.
30. As per Mechanical Inspection Report Ex.PW3/B in respect of Motorcycle of the Victim, fresh damages were observed in the form of dent on Rt. Side back light cover and Scratch on body Lt.side. This is also affirmed by PW3 in the Court.
31. It is in evidence that the offending vehicle hit the Victim's Vehicle as it came from behind and brushed it due to which the head of the deceased banged forcefully near the rear gate of the Result: Dismissed Page 14 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) Bus.
32. Thus, the point of impact between the two vehicles is the place near rear gate of the Bus and the back light cover of the offending vehicle. This incident led to the head of the deceased bang against the offending Bus. The Motorcycle fell towards its left side. PW2 also fell towards left. On the contrary, the deceased fell towards right on the road.
33. This conclusively proves the offence Punishable U/s 279 IPC.
34. So far as offence U/s 304A IPC is concerned, the Prosecution has to prove that the accused caused death of Sidheshwar Chand by the above act of driving the offending Bus in a rash or negligent manner on the public way by hitting the said Bus against the Victim's Motorcycle and that the death did not amount to culpable homicide.
35. This court has agreed with the Ld.trial Court that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner on the date, place and time complained of. According to the eye witness PW2, upon impact with the offending vehicle, he fell down towards his left while his father fell down towards his right. In Result: Dismissed Page 15 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) Ex.PW2/A, PW2 narrated that due to the impact, his Father's head forcefully banged near the rear gate of offending Bus. His father fell unconscious and in the meantime, his brother Udai Chand Gandhi arrived. He took his father to the hospital.
36. When examined in the Court, PW2 stated that, "the above mentioned Bus passed through my father. Thereafter, I stood and brought my father towards Footpath. My father was unconscious and blood was oozing from head of my father and his face was unidentifiable."
37. He also deposed on oath that he noted down the Registration number of the Bus and in the meanwhile his brother Udai Chand came at the spot after which both of them took their father to the hospital.
38. Improvements in the Court testimony on the aspect that Bus passed through his Father and contradiction that both PW2 and his brother Udai Chand Gandhi shifted his father to the hospital can be seen.
39. In the context of determining as to whether the improvement and contradiction above introduces element of suspicion, I shall refer to the medical evidence and the evidence of the IO/PW6.
Result: Dismissed Page 16 of 23Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016)
40. The medical evidence is in the form of MLC Ex.PW4/A and the Postmortem Report Ex.PW5/A.
41. MLC was prepared by Dr.Sawinder Singh. Proxy doctor PW 4/Dr.Baljeet Singh proved it as per law. It refers to presence of "crushed injury Rt.Ear, Nasal and Ear bleeding present".
42. Dr.Manoj Dhingra had prepared the Postmortem Report Ex.
PW5/A which does not refer to any crush injury. External examination does not record disfiguration of face of Victim. On Internal examination, the doctor found Fracture of middle Cranial fossa and left temporal bone with haemetoma over both cerebellum. The injury alongwith others are antemortem in nature. Cause of death is "Coma" as a result of head injury.
43. The Prosecution's case constantly is to the effect that the impact caused such injuries which resulted into death of Victim. It is not their case that Victim was run over by the offending vehicle. There is only one line statement of PW2 that the 'Bus passed through his Father'. It can be therefore safely concluded that Prosecution's case is not to the effect that the Victim died after being run over by the Bus.
Result: Dismissed Page 17 of 23Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016)
44. The witness was a Class 10 th Student at the time of incident on 21.05.2006. He was examined after more than six years and nine months after the incident in this Court on 13.09.2012. No cross examination was offered to him on this aspect. The above aspect does not prejudice the Prosecution and is a mere improvement which may be due to passage of time. It does not create element of suspicion. Moreover, the Court can corelate it and verify the same from Photographs Ex.PW6/E (Colly.). It can be seen in the Photographs that the rear gate of the Bus is towards the back of the Bus body which is behind the rear Tyres. The point of impact is near the rear gate and thus, the Victim could not have been run over by the offending vehicle. The defence tried to take advantage of the fact that the Bus, as per Prosecution, came from behind and struck against Victim's Motorcycle. It is urged that in such circumstances, the impact would be on front of the Bus and back of the Motorcycle. This argument is itself misfounded as Prosecution never projected a case that the Bus hit from its front. In Ex.PW 5/E, Motorcycle clearly shows that the Bus had brushed against the Motorcycle while coming from behind.
45. Regarding contradiction as to who took the Victim to the Result: Dismissed Page 18 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) hospital, it is in Ex.PW2/A that Udai Chand Gandhi took the Victim to the hospital. In his examination in chief, PW2 stated that both of them took the Victim to hospital. As per case IO/ PW 6, he had met the PW2 and recorded his statement at the hospital only.
46. This aspect stands clarified in the crossexamination of PW2.
In his crossexamination, he states that his brother came after 10 minutes of incident and he took him (victim) to the hospital whereas PW2 himself remained at the spot as the Ambulance and Police were called and Motorcycle was also lying there.
47. The said version appears to be the correct version as DD no.12A Ex.PW6/A establishes that call regarding the accident was made to local PS by HC Satpal of PCR. HC Satpal is not examined. DD Writer is also not examined. However, this document is not disputed by defence and hence there is no crossexamination on it. Time of intimation is 12:34 PM. As per the IO, after receipt of this information, he reached the informed place within 10 minutes thereof. The IO claims to have reached SGM hospital around 12:45 PM which is not entirely correct as he was still at the incident place Result: Dismissed Page 19 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) when he received second DD i.e. DD no.16A Ex.PW16/B. Again, DD Writer is not examined but then the document is not challenged by defence and PW6 was not crossexamined on it. Time of information recorded therein is 01:00 PM.
48. After this information, the IO left for the hospital leaving behind Ct Pratap to lookafter the place of incident.
49. It is in evidence that when the IO reached the spot at about 12:45 PM, the Victim had been shifted to hospital and complainant was not present there. Thus, PW2 must have left for hospital between 12:30 PM to 12:45 PM. Victim was in the hospital at 12:50 PM as per Ex.PW4/A.
50. PW2 is not crossexamined as to where Ex.PW2/A was recorded and the testimony of PW6 that he recorded this statement at the PS has not been disturbed even in the crossexamination.
51. It is therefore apparent that PW2 left for the hospital after his brother had shifted his injured father from the spot of incident to the hospital. Accordingly, the above contradiction is not a major contradiction and does not introduce element of doubt in the Prosecution's case.
Result: Dismissed Page 20 of 23Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016)
52. A question may arise as to how the PW2 could say with confidence that accused was the person who was behind the Steering Wheel of the offending Bus when the Bus hit their Motorcycle. The Victim's Vehicle was on the left side of the Bus when hit. It is not possible for PW2 to have seen the person who was actually driving the offending vehicle. However, the benefit of same cannot be given to the accused in view of the testimony of PW1 and the admission of the accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he only was driving the offending vehicle at 12:45 PM on the date of incident i.e. 21.05.2006.
53. The death of the Victim is a direct consequence of the rash and negligent act of this accused/appellant. As a consequence thereof, I do not find any misappreciation of evidence or error in the impugned Judgment. It is sustained as not liable to be interfered with.
54. I may as well point out that during the course of arguments in Appeal, the Ld.counsel for the appellant did not address any arguments that aspect of infliction of Sentence as imposed upon the appellant on 05.05.2016. However, I have considered the same in Result: Dismissed Page 21 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) order to satisfy myself regarding the adequacy of Sentence. A reasonable order has been passed by the Ld.trial Court. Benefit of grant of Probation has been declined and the findings are based on the Victim Impact Report and also various Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed from time to time in such like cases. The Ld.trial Court has considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It is also apparent that instead of inflicting maximum Sentence U/s 279 IPC as well as U/s 304A IPC, the Court has shown leniency. The Court has not imposed fine and has passed an order to suitably compensate the LRs of deceased in accordance of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
55. In my considered view, the Sentence is appropriate as per Judgment which has been upheld by the Trial Court. It is also maintained by this Court.
56. As a result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The appellant be taken into custody to undergo the Sentence imposed by the Ld.trial Court as affirmed by this Court.
57. Conviction Warrant be prepared accordingly.
58. Compensation amount of Rs.50,000/ has been deposited in Result: Dismissed Page 22 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) the ld.trial Court vide Receipt No. 797401 be released to LRs of the deceased, if not so far.
Trial Court record be sent back alongwith the Copy of this Judgment.
After necessary formalities, Appeal File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court. (Manish Yaduvanshi)
Dated: 21.04.2017 ASJ05(West)Delhi
Result: Dismissed Page 23 of 23
Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016)
FOR TRIAL
WARRANT OF COMMITMENT ON A SENTENCE OF
IMPRISONMENT BY A SESSIONS JUDGE
(SECTION 383 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) IN THE COURT OF SH.MANISH YADUVANSHI: ASJ05 :
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Case No. 54235/16 CA No. 39/16 FIR No. 481/06 PS Nangloi U/S 279/304A IPC To The Superintendent of the Jail at Tihar, Delhi.
The abovesaid appeal of the appellant/accused/Convict namely Rajender Singh S/o Sh.Jagmohan Singh R/o H.No. 3/1, Village Sabda, PO Nizam Pur, Delhi, aged about 54 years, is dismissed and Judgment dt. 25.04.2016 & Order on Sentence dt. 05.05.2016 stand upheld. Conviction Warrant is attached herewith.
This is to authorize and require you, the said Superintendent, to receive the said convict into your custody in Result: Dismissed Page 24 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) the said jail together with this warrant.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this 21st April of the year 2018.
(Manish Yaduvanshi) ASJ05/West/THC/Delhi 21.04.2018 Result: Dismissed Page 25 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) IN THE COURT OF SH.MANISH YADUVANSHI: ASJ05 :
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI CONVICTION WARRANT Case No. 54235/16 CA No. 39/16 FIR No. 481/06 PS Nangloi U/S 279/304A IPC Rajender Singh Vs. State Sentence of Trial Court:
Convict was sentenced by Ld. MM on 05.05.2016 to undergo RI for two months U/s 279 IPC and RI for Six months for offence U/s 304A IPC. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. No fine was imposed. Compensation of Rs.50,000/ was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased and in default of which SI for three months was also ordered. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be available to the Convict.
Sentence of Sessions Court: Impugned Judgment dt. 25.04.2016 and Order on Sentence dated 05.05.2016 stand Result: Dismissed Page 26 of 23 Rajender Singh Vs. State CA 39/16 (54235/2016) upheld. Convict/appellant Rajender Singh is directed to undergo Sentence as awarded by the Ld.trial court and affirmed by this Court. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. is also given to the convict.
Compensation amount of Rs.50,000/ has been already deposited before the Ld.trial Court vide Receipt no. 797401.
(Manish Yaduvanshi)
ASJ05/West/THC/Delhi/21.04.2018
Digitally signed by
MANISH
MANISH YADUVANSHI
YADUVANSHI Date: 2018.04.21
16:04:37 +0530
Result: Dismissed Page 27 of 23