JITENDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned judgment passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing his appeal and the order of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting and sentencing him for offences punishable under Section 279/337/304A IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that admittedly the vehicle was coming from behind and thus the eye-witness had no occasion to see the alleged accused. Moreover, after hitting it is alleged that the driver of the truck ran away and thus there was no occasion for the witness to have seen the accused. In his cross-examination PW5 has admitted that he saw the driver from the backside. Thus, PW5 could not have identified the Petitioner. Further the TIP conducted was meaningless as PW5 has admitted that he had identified the accused in the Police Station on the next evening. It is contended that it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the rash and negligent act of the accused and there is no presumption available. As per PW2, the mechanical inspector there is neither any scratch nor the light has been broken from the backside. The Petitioner has been convicted merely in view of his reply to the alleged notice given by the Police, which is treated as an admission on behalf of the Petitioner. It is stated that the reply is not admissible in evidence as that is a statement made before a Police Officer. Moreover, in this regard the explanation of the Petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not been taken into consideration according to which the Petitioner was made to sign on blank papers. Thus, whatever admission has been written was written later on by the Investigating Officer. Reliance is placed on State of Karnataka Vs. Satish, 1998 8 SCC 493to contend that mere deposition that the truck was being driven at a high speed does not prove "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. The Petitioner is aged 62 years and has to look after his wife and daughter. Thus, the impugned judgments be set aside.

(3.) Learned APP on the other hand contends that as per the inspection report there were scratch marks on the scooter. There were fresh sign of damages on the scooter and the truck. PW5 has categorically stated that he had seen the Petitioner and has identified him. Reliance is placed on State of Karnataka Vs. Murlidhar, 2009 4 SCC 463. Hence the petition be dismissed.