Delhi District Court
State vs . Jasbir Singh on 8 July, 2014
FIR no.586/98
PS Narela
U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act
State Vs. Jasbir Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NORTH): ROHINI COURT: DELHI.
FIR no.586/98
PS Narela
U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act
State Vs. Jasbir Singh
Date of Institution of case:- 29.11.99
Date of Judgment reserved:- 24.06.14
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 24.06.14
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. : 02404R0261602001
Date of Commission of offence : 27.12.98
Name of the complainant : Om Parkash S/o Sh. Karan Singh,
R/o H.No. 89, Main Bazar, Village
Bawana, Delhi.
Name and address of the accused : Jasbir, s/o. Sh. Ishwar Singh, r/o.
Village Peepli, P.S. Kharkhoda,
District Sonepat, Haryana.
Offence complained of : 279/304A IPC & 3/181 M.V. Act
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Date of order : 24.06.14
Final Order : Convicted for offence u/s 279/304A
IPC & acquitted for offence u/s
3/181 M.V. Act
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
FIR no. 586/98 Page 1 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh
1. The accused Jasbir Singh, s/o. Sh. Ishwar Singh has been sent to face trial under Section 279/304A Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) on the allegations that on 27.12.98 at about 4:00 p.m. the accused was found driving Matador bearing registration no. DL 1CC 4179 at a public road, in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving in the said manner he hit his Matador against pedestrian Ms. Shanti Devi and caused her death (not amounting to culpable homicide) and he was also found driving the said vehicle without having valid driving licence and thereby committed an offence u/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act and on the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR bearing no. 586/98 was registered at Police station Narela.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.
The copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and notice U/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.279/304A IPC & 3/181 M.V. Act was served upon the accused on 28.02.2000, to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, out of 11 witnesses as mentioned in the list of witnesses.
4. PW1 Sh. Om Parkash, s/o. Sh. Karan Singh, r/o. H.No.89, FIR no. 586/98 Page 2 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh Main Bazar, Bawana, Delhi. He is the complainant in the present case. He deposed that on 27.12.98 he alongwith his friend Devender S/o Sri Kishan were standing at the corner near tea shop, Auchandi Road, Bawana at about 4:00 p.m. and one Matador bearing registration no. DL 1CC 4179 was standing in front of them. The said Matador was already started and the driver of the said Matador suddenly took back gair without given horn and signal and hit the old lady who was standing in the back side of the Matador. The said lady fell down on the road but the said driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle for about 5-6 feet away on hearing the shout to stop the vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle ran away with his vehicle towards Auchandi Village. He further deposed that they picked up the said injured lady and then came to know that the said lady was their neighbourer and her name was Shanti. Thereafter, they took the said lady to Rajiv Nursing Home but the doctor was not available there. Ranbir son of said lady Shanti came there in his car and they all took the injured to Jaipur Golden Hospital but the doctor declared her dead. He further deposed that driver of the said vehicle caused the said accident due to rash and negligent driving. He further deposed that IO came to him at Jaipur Golden hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that case got registered and site plan was prepared at his instance. He had seen the driver while driving the said Matador. He FIR no. 586/98 Page 3 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh correctly identified the accused Jasbir Singh.
5. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he deposed that Ranbir Singh son of deceased lady is an officer in Delhi Police. He deposed that he had shown the place to the IO where he was standing while taking tea with Devender. The witness pointed out the corner of the road at point mark X in the site plan. He further deposed that Devender was standing at his right side and he was facing east. The face of the Devender was towards the same. He admitted that IO had not shown the said tea Shop in the site plan. At that time, the tea vendor was inside the tea shop whose name he did not know. He admitted that his attention was drawn on hearing the sound of impact and he had not seen the old women before the incident. He further deposed that he cannot say at what distance it was before the tempo started. He further deposed that tempo was parked 4-5 feet away from them. He further deposed that he had given the description of the driver to the IO but he cannot tell whether the IO had stated the same on his statement or not. The Matador had dragged the old lady towards east upto point A. He further said that the incident took place at point A. He admitted that he had not seen the old lady before the accident. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot and the same was his reason with regard to Devender. He deposed that he do not know whether Ranbir Singh, S/o of deceased FIR no. 586/98 Page 4 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh has filed a MACT case or not. He admitted that he was not summoned during the investigation to participate in the TIP of that driver. He also admitted that he and his friend Devender had not written the number of said Matador. He deposed that he cannot tell even by approximation the speed at which the tempo was reversed but it was at high speed. He admitted that he could not see the blood stain on the tempo.
6. PW2 ASI Jal Singh, No. 5563 PCR, North Zone, Model Town, Delhi. He is the Duty Officer who on receipt of rukka from Ct. Mange Ram sent by ASI Partap Singh, registered the present FIR no. 586/98, which he has exhibited as Ex. PW 2/A and also made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex.PW 2/B.
7. PW3 Devender S/o Sh. Kishan R/o H. No.112, Bawana, Delhi-39. He is also the eye witness of the present case. He deposed that on 27.12.98 at about 4:00 p.m. he alongwith Om Parkash were standing at tea shop. He further deposed that one green color Matador facing Auchandi bearing no. DL 1CC 4179 was being backed by the driver suddenly without the help of any helper and hit one lady namely Shanti Devi who was passing there. She fell down on road. He further deposed that after hitting Shanti Devi the driver ran away with the vehicle. He had asked the driver to stop the vehicle but he did not stop the vehicle. She was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital. She was dragged 4-5 feet away by FIR no. 586/98 Page 5 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh the abovesaid Matador. He further deposed that he and his companion Om Parkash had taken the lady to Rajiv Nursing home. The son of the lady also came there and the doctor had told to take the injured to Jaipur Golden Hospital as her condition was serious. Thereafter, they had taken her to Jaipur Golden Hospital. Other relatives of the injured also came there. He further deposed that he had seen the face of the driver of the abovesaid Matador in the side mirror affixed on the side of the driver's window and he was looking backwards to the injured by taking out his head from the window. This witness correctly identified the accused.
8. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he was not employed in police but Om Parkash and son of the injured Shanti Devi were employed in Delhi Police. He admitted that at the time of accident they were not having cups of tea in their hands and they were facing towards the road at that time. He further deposed that he had noticed the above Matador and its color only at the time of accident. He further deposed that in his previous statement made to the police he stated that he and his companion had asked the driver to stop the vehicle . Confronted with the previous statement Ex.PW3/DA where it was not so recorded instead it was recorded that the witness has given a signal to stop the vehicle to the driver. He deposed that he had not seen from which direction that lady had come before the accident. He admitted FIR no. 586/98 Page 6 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh that he had stated in his statement to the police that the driver had looked back after the accident. He admitted that the had seen the face of the driver from behind the glass of the window of the driver side and not in the side view mirror affixed on the driver window side as has been written in his examination in chief. He admitted that he had not seen any blood stain on the spot and at the time of accident the lady was wearing a salwar and shirt. He deposed that he had not participated in any TIP of the driver. He had never visited the spot again after he left the spot with the injured. At the time of accident, the tea vendor and 4-5 other persons were also present in the tea shop. He denied the suggestion that the other persons present in the tea shop had raised a noise regarding the accident and instead they raised an alarm regarding the accident. He deposed that no other vehicle was standing ahead of the Matador. He denied the suggestion that he has not seen any accident. He deposed that he was not present at the time of apprehension of accused by the police. He deposed that he does not know whether the police officials had arrested some other person namely Naboo and not the present accused. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of Ranbir, son of the deceased and a resident of his village.
9. PW4 ASI Pratap Singh, No. 4779/D, Supreme Court Security, Delhi. He deposed that on 27.12.98 he received DD entry no.
FIR no. 586/98 Page 7 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh 14A and he alongwith Ct. Mange Ram reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital and obtained the MLC no. 3772 of Smt. Shanti Devi on which the doctor has opined brought dead. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of witness Om Parkash, Ex.PW1/A. He prepared the rukka and handed over the rukka Ex.PW4/A to Ct. Mange Ram for registration of FIR. After getting the case registered Ct. Mange Ram came back at the spot with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. He further deposed that he alongwith complainant Om Parkash reached at the spot where at the instance of complainant, he prepared site plan Ex.PW4/B. He further deposed that he inquired for the Matador but could not found as driver of the Matador ran away with the Matador from the spot. Thereafter, the other investigation u/s 174 Cr.P.C. was got conducted and the postmortem of deceased was got conducted. He further deposed that on 02.1.99 Matador was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW4/C and the photocopy of RC and other documents were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D. He further deposed that notice u/s 133 M.V. Act was given to the owner of the vehicle Raj Singh Ex.PW4/E and through notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act, they came to know that Matador DL 1CC 4179 was being driven by driver Jasbir. Jasbir Singh himself surrendered before the court and he was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/F. He further deposed that FIR no. 586/98 Page 8 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh on 02.01.99 Matador was mechanically inspected. Thereafter, accused Nabbu was got discharged from the court. After completion of investigation challan was prepared and filed in the court.
10. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he admitted that notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act was given by him and till then the particulars about the accused were not known and notice was given to the registered owner. The registered owner gave answer to the notice Ex.PW4/E. He admitted that answer given by registered owner of the Matador is that driver of the Matador was Nabbu S/o Sh. Sher Singh, Village Pooth Khurd on 27.12.98. He admitted that accused Nabbu was arrested on 02.01.99 and he did not move any application before the court for conducting the TIP of accused Nabbu. He admitted that he did not record the supplementary statement of eye witness Om Parkash that Nabbu S/o Sh. Sher Singh was not the driver of the driver of the Matador at the time of accident. Arrest memo of accused Nabbu is Ex.PW4/G. He admitted that son of deceased is an officer in Delhi police but denied that a false case was registered against the accused Jasbir under his influence for obtaining the accident compensation. He admitted that he had not mentioned in the site plan Ex.4/B where the alleged eye witness was taking tea. He admitted that Om Parkash stated in his statement Ex.PW1/A that registration number of the Matador was DL 1C 4179. He FIR no. 586/98 Page 9 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh also admitted that the registration number of the Matador was DL 1CC 4179 in notice u/s 133 M.V. Act. He admitted that he did not know that the accident was caused by Metador No. DL 1CC 4179. He denied the suggestion that Om Parkash had made a complaint at the instance of police officer, whose mother died in the accident.
11. PW5 Raj Singh S/o Sh. Attar Singh, R/o H.No. 19 Village Bawana, Delhi, Teacher in Govt. School. He deposed that on 27.12.98 he identified the dead body of Mrs. Shanti Devi who was his step mother. He identified his signatures at point A on Ex.PW5/A. He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite given opportunity.
12. PW6 Retd. SI Jai Singh, S/o Sh.Ram Chand, R/o Village Hathala, District Karnal, Haryana. He deposed that on 02.01.99 he mechanically inspected one Matador no. DL 1CC 4179 at the request of ASI Pratap Singh, PS Narela and prepared his detailed report in this regard Ex.PW6/A and submitted the same to him. He deposed that as per his report the Matador was fit for road test. He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite given opportunity.
13. PW7 is Sh. Ranbir Sehrawat, S/o Sh. Charan Singh, R/o 117, Village and Post Office Bawana, Delhi. He deposed that on 27.12.98 he received the information regarding the accident of his mother and he reached at Aggarwal Nursing home, where he met one Om FIR no. 586/98 Page 10 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh Parkash and Devender. He further deposed that thereafter, they shifted his mother to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where the doctor declared her dead. Meanwhile, SI Partap Singh and Ct. Mange Ram came to the Hospital and he recorded the statement of Sh. Om Parkash. Thereafter, the said officials shifted the dead body to Subzi Mandi Mortuary. He further deposed that on 28.12.98, he alongwith Mahender Singh and Raj Singh reached at the abovesaid Mortuary. After postmortem, he received the dead body of his mother vide handing over receipt Ex.PW7/A. He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite given opportunity.
14. PW8 is Statement of Sh. P.D. Gupta (Retd.), Metropolitan Magistrate, R/o 27/1, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-7. He deposed that on 08.01.99, application for holding TIP was put up before him. The accused was produced without muffled face and refused to join the TIP proceedings. He deposed that he had warned and cautioned the accused that if he does not join the TIP proceedings and refuses, then adverse inference may be drawn against him during trial but the accused persisted in not joining the TIP proceedings. He recorded his statement. He directed to send the original TIP proceedings to the concerned court under his seal. He further deposed that Ahlmad produced one envelope sealed with the seal of PDG and TIP proceedings were taken out from the sealed envelope. His detailed TIP proceedings is Ex.PW8/A. He was not FIR no. 586/98 Page 11 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite given opportunity.
15. PW9 is Dr. Ashish Chandra, CMS, Columbia Asia Hospital, Ghaziabad. He deposed that on 27.12.98, after examination of patient Shanti Devi, W/o Sh. Charan Singh, Aged about 72 years, female with alleged history of RTA, he declared her as brought dead. He prepared the MLC no. 3772/98 Ex.PW9/A. He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite given opportunity.
16. PW10 Ct. Mange Ram, no.2149, PS Timarpur, Delhi. He deposed that on 27.12.98, on receiving of DD no.14, he alongwith ASI Partap Singh reached at Jaipu r Golden Hospital, where IO ASI Pratap Singh collected the MLC of Shanti Devi, who was declared as brought dead. At the hospital we met one Om Parkash and recorded his statement and prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. After getting case registered he returned back at the spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR and same was handed over to the IO. It is noteworthy that examination of Ct. Mange Ram was deferred since his supplementary statement was not found on record but, later on he never appeared before the court for his remaining evidence despite issuance of summon to him several times. Hence, his evidence cannot be relied upon for the purpose of adjudication in the present case.
17. It is a matter of record that after examination of all the material FIR no. 586/98 Page 12 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed on 05.05.13 and the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 27.05.13 wherein accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, he opted not to lead any defence evidence and thus the matter was listed for final arguments.
18. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for the offences U/s. 279/304A IPC. To prove a case U/s. 279/304A IPC against the accused, the prosecution has to prove the following facts:
a). that the accused was driving the Matador bearing registration no. DL ICC 4179 in a rash and negligent manner.
b). that while driving the said vehicle in the aforesaid manner, the accused has caused death of the pedestrian namely Shanti Devi (not amounting to culpable homicide).
19. I have perused the entire record and given my thoughtful consideration to the entire evidence. In the present case, there are consistent and coherent testimonies of the eye witnesses PW1 Om Parkash and PW3 Devender who have specifically deposed that the accused suddenly reversed the Matador bearing aforesaid registration number and hit the lady namely Shanti Devi. Both of these witnesses have also correctly identified the accused. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that initially in the notice given u/s 133 of M. V. Act during FIR no. 586/98 Page 13 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh investigation to the registered owner of the offending vehicle, an endorsement was made on the same that one Nabbu S/o Sh. Sher Singh was driving the said Matador on 27.12.98 and therefore, there was no ground to arrest the accused Jasbir Singh in the present case and there is no material on record to suggest as to why Nabbu was got discharged by the IO? In this regard, it is noteworthy that the said Nabbu S/o Sh. Sher Singh was already discharged by Ld. Predecessor of this court and though the registered owner of the offending vehicle never turned up for his deposition, but at the same time it cannot also be ignored that the eye witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW3 have correctly identified the accused Jasbir Singh as the person who was driving the offending vehicle on the date of alleged incident. There seems to be no plausible reason also as to why the testimonies of these eye witnesses cannot be relied upon and as such, there are no major contradictions or discrepancies in their testimonies. The argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused that son of the deceased lady Shanti Devi was in Delhi Police and therefore at his instance, both the eye witnesses have deposed falsely also does not hold any ground as there seems to be no reason to discredit the testimonies of the eye witnesses in the present case. Convincing evidence is required to discredit their testimony which is missing in the present case.
20. It may further be appreciated that since, the accused was FIR no. 586/98 Page 14 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh reversing the Matador and in that process, it hit the deceased Shanti Devi, hence, it was all the more imperative for the driver i.e. the accused to take more precautions and take proper care while driving the vehicle in the back gear. PW1 also categorically stated that the offending vehicle was being reversed without giving any horn or signal which in itself shows the rash and negligent act per se of the accused in driving the offending vehicle. It must also be kept in mind that the accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings and an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused for that aspect also. It is further significant to observe that though the offending vehicle was never brought during the stage of evidence but at the same time the accused also never disputed the identity and the existence of the offending vehicle. In fact the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C stated that he was working as a conductor in the offending vehicle at the relevant time which indicates that existence and the identity of the offending vehicle has been admitted by the accused. The accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C stated that in fact he took the deceased Shanti Devi to the hospital where as the medical documents of the deceased Shanti Devi no where suggests that she was brought by the accused in the hospital which further falsifies the defence of the accused.
21. I would also like to refer to Kalu @ Amit and Ors. Vs State of FIR no. 586/98 Page 15 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh Haryana (Criminal Appeal no.868/2008, Supreme Court) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it is well settled that conviction can be raised on the evidence of a sole eye witness if its evidence inspires confidence and in that case, the witness had meticulously narrated the accident and supported the prosecution case and therefore, he was found to be a reliable witness. Similarly in the present case both the eye witnesses PW1 Om Parkash and PW3 Devender have clearly supported the prosecution case in their testimony and have meticulously narrated the entire incident. I would also further like to observe that PW9 duly proved the MLC of deceased Shanti Devi which is Ex.PW9/A in which she was declared brought dead on 27.12.98 and though, the postmortem report of the deceased could not be exhibited but in this regard it is noteworthy that it belongs to a govt. hospital in respect of which I would like to place reliance upon, Bal Gopal Panda and Ors. Vs State ( 1990 CRiLJ, 1848, Orissa High Court) wherein it was observed that the injury reports prepared by public officer in discharge of his public duty can be preferred as being public documents moreover, this postmortem report of the deceased or his cause of death as never disputed or challenged by the accused through out the course of trial as well. I would also like to place reliance upon Krishna Mochi Vs State of Bihar [(2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 81] wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex FIR no. 586/98 Page 16 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh Court that it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the number of witnesses. Credible evidence of even a solitary witness can form the basis of conviction. It was also held that minor contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments existing in the prosecution case should not weigh with the court so long as it does not materially effect the case. Same observation was also made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukhdev Yadav Vs State of Bihar [Appeal (crl) 482 of 2000], decided on 13.09.2001 wherein it was also held that there are bound to be some discrepancies in the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in his entirety. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor, should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. The discrepancies which do not sake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded.
22. Considering the entire evidence on record, and in view of the cogent testimonies of the eye witnesses in support of the case of prosecution, it stands duly proved that offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 1CC 4179 was being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner, due to which one Shanti Devi died ( not amounting FIR no. 586/98 Page 17 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh to culpable homicide).
23. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC and the accused Jasbir Singh stands convicted in the present case for the offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC. At the same time, since there is no evidence on record to the effect that the accused was driving the offending vehicle without having valid driving licence on the date of alleged incident, hence, the accused is hereby acquitted for offence punishable u/s 3/181 of M.V. Act.
(Sandeep Gupta)
MM-01(North)/Rohini/Delhi
Announced in open court today, 24.06.2014
Dated 24.06.2014
FIR no. 586/98 Page 18 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh
FIR no.586/98
PS Narela
U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act
State Vs. Jasbir Singh
FIR no.586/98
PS Narela
U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act
State Vs. Jasbir Singh
24.06.2014
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel Mr. Kaushik for the complainant.
Accused on bail alongwith Ld. Counsel.
Record persued.
Today vide separate judgment dictated in the open court, the accused has been convicted for offence u/s 279/304A IPC and acquitted for offence u/s 3/181 M.V. Act. Let a victim impact report be called from the concerned SHO as per the recent guidelines and notice be also issued to legal heirs of the deceased Shanti Devi for NDOH.
Put up for arguments on sentence on 07.07.2014.
(Sandeep Gupta) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi FIR no. 586/98 Page 19 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh ORDER ON SENTENCE 08.07.2014 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict in person alongwith Ld. Counsel Mr. Dheeraj Bansal.
Ranbir Singh, Son/Legal heir of the deceased Shanti Devi in person.
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence and perused the entire record. It is submitted by the counsel for the convict that convict is the sole bread earner in his family. He has two daughters who are dependent upon him. The convict is not a habitual offender and he is facing trial since the year 2000 in the present case. Hence, lenient view may be taken towards the convict.
On the other hand, Ld. APP has argued that the since the offence of road accident is a very serious offence hence, stringent punishment should be imposed upon the convict.
FIR no. 586/98 Page 20 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh I have also perused the victim impact report which was called from the concerned SHO and it is also submitted by Mr. Ranbir Singh S/o deceased Shanti Devi that being legal heir, he be awarded some compensation as his mother expired because of the rash and negligent of the convict and it has caused a great deal of mental agony and trauma to him.
Since, offence of road accidents are on high rise in society and keeping in view, that rash and negligent driving of the convict has taken somebody life, hence, considering the gravity and traumatic impact of the offence, I am not inclined to release the convict on probation.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the convict is sentenced to simple imprisonment of one year and he is further liable to pay of compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- to the legal heir of the deceased Shanti Devi, in default of making the payment of compensation amount, convict is liable to further simple imprisonment for four months. Compensation not paid.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the convict Jasbir Singh FIR no. 586/98 Page 21 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh FIR no.586/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act State Vs. Jasbir Singh has filed an application u/s 389 Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence, so that convict will file the appeal in the present case before the appropriate court. Submissions heard.
The convict is admitted to bail for a period of 30 days subject to furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- alongwith one surety of like amount. Bail bond furnished and accepted for a period of 30 days.
Be listed for further proceedings on 07.08.2014.
(Sandeep Gupta) MM (Outer)-01/Rohini/Delhi 08.07.2014 FIR no. 586/98 Page 22 of 18 State V. Jasbir Singh