Delhi District Court
Ram Lal vs . State C.A. No. 104/13 on 11 August, 2014
1
Ram Lal Vs. State C.A. No. 104/13
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJ RANI MITTRA: ASJ - 03 : SOUTH -
EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 104/2013
Ram Lal,
S/o Sh. Bhawar Lal,
R/o Villa Arniya Mal,
District Tonk,
Rajasthan. ......... APPELLANT / CONVICT
V E R S U S
State
.........RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 01.07.2013
DATE OF ORDER: 11.08.2014
O R D E R
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant U/s 374 IPC against the judgment dated 27.05.2013 and order on sentence dated 29.05.2013 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in case FIR No. 315/08 U/s 279/304A IPC, whereby the appellant was held guilty and sentenced to undergo RI for two months for offence punishable U/s 279 IPC and further RI for six months and fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default SI for 15 days for offence U/s 304A IPC.
2 Brief facts of the case are that on 08.08.2008 at unknown time, Ring Road, near Ashis Petrol Pump, Sarai Kale Khan, accused 2 Ram Lal Vs. State C.A. No. 104/13 was driving truck bearing no. RJ14GB9406 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle had hit against motorcycle bearing no. JH02K2914 and caused death of Tohid Khan. The FIR was registered on the complaint of HC Shubh Karan. After completion of proceedings challan was filed and charges were accordingly framed. Prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of its case. PW1 is Mohit Tuli, PW2 is Shabbir, PW3 is T.U. Siddiqui, PW4 is Const. Surender, PW5 is Const. Ravinder, PW6 is HC Amit Kumar, PW7 is HC Subh Karan and PW8 is SI Giri Raj. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. After hearing arguments accused has been convicted U/s 279/304A and sentenced to undergo RI for two months for offence punishable U/s 279 IPC and further RI for six months and fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default SI for 15 days for offence U/s 304A IPC. Both the sentences are run concurrently. Hence the present appeal. 3 Notice of the appeal was given to the State and Trial Court record has been summoned.
4 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the sole eye witness of the accident PW1 Mohit Tuli stated that he and deceased Tohid Khan came out from their office on 08.09.2008 and were going to their houses on their respective motorcycles. That the deceased was driving his motorcycle in front of PW1, suddenly the offending truck came from back side at a hight speed and hit the 3 Ram Lal Vs. State C.A. No. 104/13 motorcycle of deceased. That if the statement of PW1 be relied then how it is possible that the offending truck only hit the ahead going motorcycle of deceased without hitting the motorcycle of PW1 as his motorcycle was on the back side of the motorcycle of the deceased. That PW1 was not the eye witness of the accident, but planted a false and fabricated story. That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant was driving the offending truck at a very high speed. That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that as per mechanical inspection report of the truck, everything on the truck like break etc. were o.k. That in the mechanical inspection report it is no where categorically stated that the damaged front left side of the truck was due to the present accident with motorcycle in question. That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the statement of PW3 was not a trustworthy statement and he had given his statement as stereo type. That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the statement of PW4 Const. Surender Kumar who stated that on 08.09.2008 he alongwith HC Subh Karan reached at the spot and saw one motorcycle and one truck in accidental condition present there. That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the IO / PW8 being a police officer did not fairly investigate the matter and mechanically did all the legal formalities and proceedings. That it is unbelievable that PW1, PW3 and PW4 who stated that the appellant was present there at the spot then why PW8, IO to issued notice 4 Ram Lal Vs. State C.A. No. 104/13 U/s 133 M.V. Act. That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the refusal of TIP by the appellant was on a genuine reason as he was earlier seen by PW1, who already deposed that he stopped his truck. That prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. That the punishment meted out to the appellant is very harsh and he definitely deserved leniency as he is the only person to look after his poor family.
5 Ld. Addl. PP for State has vehemently opposed the appeal and has stated that Ld. Trial Court has passed a well reasoned judgment. That PW1 Mohit Tuli has vividly explained the manner in which the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and had hit against the motorcycle of deceased Tohid Khan. That he had seen the accused / appellant and that appellant / driver of the truck. That he chased the offending vehicle and apprehended the accused i.e. truck driver.
6 I have heard arguments addressed by Sh. Ashok Kotnala, Advocate on behalf of appellant and Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State on the criminal appeal and carefully perused the material before me.
7 Keeping in view the totality of circumstances of the case, the fact that PW1 who is the eye witness of the incident has narrated the entire incident and has also proved the identity of the accused / 5 Ram Lal Vs. State C.A. No. 104/13 appellant which was also corroborated by the fact that on receipt of notice U/s 133 M.V. Act, the registered owner of the truck bearing no. RJ14GB9406, which was found in accident condition by the IO, in his reply had named the accused / appellant to be the driver of the truck at the time of accident and he had stated that at the time of accident accused Ram Lal was driving the truck. Further, on the application of the IO for test identification parade, accused / appellant had refused to participate giving the reason that public witnesses have already identified him at the spot. The presence of both the accused / appellant and PW1 Mohit Tuli has been well established by the prosecution by way of evidence. To prove offence U/s 279/304A prosecution has to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and had caused the accident and that the accident has resulted in the death of the deceased. The prosecution has established the same by adducing eight witnesses who have completely supported the prosecution version. PW1 is the eye witness of the case and has vividly explained about the accident. He stated that the offending truck had come from behind in a high speed and hit against the motorcycle of Tohid Khan due to which he died at the spot. PW1 had identified the accused person to be the driver of the offending Truck. PW2 Shabbir identified the dead body of the deceased vide memos Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B. PW3 T.U. Siddiqui conducted the mechanical inspection of 6 Ram Lal Vs. State C.A. No. 104/13 motorcycle of deceased and of offending vehicle vide memos Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B respectively. PW4 Const. Surender Kumar was with the IO and had visited the spot. PW5 Const. Ravinder also visited the spot with PW4 and stated that both the vehicles were seized vide memo Ex. PW5/A and PW5/B. He stated that Helmate of deceased was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/C. PW6 recorded the information in DD No.9A Ex. PW6/A. PW7 HC Shub Karan is initial IO of the case. PW8 is the IO of the case. Ld. Trial Court has already discussed and well appreciated the arguments raised by Ld. Counsel for the accused / appellant. The judgment passed by Ld. Trial Court is well reasoned and I see no reason to interfere with the same. The order dated 27.05.2013 is hereby confirmed.
8 In case 2008 Crl. L.J. 3932 SC Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in cases related to rash and negligent driving accused cannot be dealt lenient view. In case 2012 Crl. L.J. 1069 SC Mohd. Hussain alias Julfikar Ali Vs. State (Govt, of NCT), Delhi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases of rash and negligence driving deterrence should be the prime consideration. It was held that it is settled law that sentencing must have a policy of correction. If anyone has to become a good driver, must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb. 7
Ram Lal Vs. State C.A. No. 104/13 Considering the increased number of road accidents, this Court, on several occasions, has reminded the criminal courts dealing with the offences relating to motor accidents that they cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304A, IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. we fully endorse the view expressed by this Court in Dalbir Singh (AIR 2000 SC 1677 : 2000 AIR SCW 1653).
9 The fact that accused / appellant has been facing trial since 2008 and that he is the only person to look after his poor family has already been considered by Ld. Trial Court and a lenient view in sentencing RI for two months for offence Us 279 IPC and RI for six months with fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default SI for 15 days U/s 304A IPC has been awarded and both the sentences have to run concurrently. The punishment awarded is appropriate and no interference in that is required. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9 A copy of this order alongwith the Trial Court Record be sent to the Ld. Trial Court. Criminal appeal be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on the 11 day of August, 2014 th (RAJ RANI MITTRA) Addl. Sessions Judge03/SE Saket Courts, New Delhi