(1.) ON 12th November, 2001 at about 10.15 PM at Mori Gate Chambery the Petitioner was driving truck bearing No. RJ-14-1G-3779 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, as a result of which he struck against the scooter. Mr. Nathu Ram who was driving the scooter received injuries and later succumbed to the injuries received in the said accident. A case FIR No. 502/2001 under Section 279/304A IPC was registered at P.S. Kashmere Gate, Delhi on the complaint of one Bijender Singh Shekhawat. ON filing of a charge-sheet the Petitioner was tried and convicted for said offences and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 279 IPC and one year for offence punishable under Section 304A IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. ON an appeal being filed the same was dismissed. Thus, the Petitioner is before this Court by way of the present revision petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner urges that PW1 Bijender Singh has not stated that the Petitioner was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. In fact, PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that he could not say if the truck was being driven negligently and that he did not know the meaning of "Laparwahi". It is contended that the judgment of the LEARNED Trial Court and the LEARNED Appellate Court is based on conjectures and surmises. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance is placed on State of Karnataka Vs. Satish 1999 (1) JCC (SC) 97 to contend that merely saying that the vehicle was being driven ,,at a high speed does not mean that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligently manner. There should be evidence to prove that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. Petitioner says that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 304A IPC are missing and thus he be acquitted of the charges. In the alternative, it is prayed that the Petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 8 months and, thus, he be released on the period already undergone.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner has placed great reliance on the fact that PW1 in his cross-examination has deposed that he could not say what was the speed of the truck or whether it was 40 km per house. However, this witness in his examination in chief has said that at about 10.30 p.m. he was going towards ISBT and when he reached near Mori Gate Terminal he saw that one truck bearing No. RJ-14-1G-3779 came from the side of Boulvard Road and hit a two wheeler scooter and took the same to some distance. The truck was at a very high speed and was driven in a rash and negligent manner. This witness has further stated about the factum of arrest of the Petitioner whom he had apprehended at the spot and taking of the photographs. Thus the testimony of the witness is clear and cogent and he has narrated the facts as the events unfolded PW3, Dr. K. Goel, and PW4 Dr. Jitender both of them have deposed in regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased. PW3 has opined that these injuries could not be possible by a simple fall. The post mortem report Ex. PW3/A records that the injuries caused were by blunt force impact possible in a road accident. PW7 Constable Praduman Kumar has proved the photographs Ex. P1 to Ex.P7 which were taken just after the incident on the same day. The photographs clearly show the skid marks on the road and the scooter underneath the truck. From a perusal of the testimonies of witnesses and other evidence placed on record it is clear that the truck/vehicle was being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner.