RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present Revision Petition, the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 28 th February, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. By the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the judgment dated 17 th August, 2011 passed by the learned ACMM convicting the Petitioner and order on sentence dated 20 th August, 2010 whereby the Petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 304A IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

(2.) Briefly the prosecution's case is that on 2 nd April, 2000 at about 9.00 p.m. at Purana Najafgarh Road, Harizan Basti, Palam Village, New Delhi a public way. The accused was driving Bus No. DL1PA-0003 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety. While driving the said vehicle he struck against one scooter bearing No.DL 1S-5532 resulting in the death of Satish. The Petitioner was arrested and after the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against him for the offence punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC. After recording the prosecution evidence and the statement of the Petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Learned Trial Court held that the Petitioner was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner which caused death of Satish. The judgment and order on sentence passed by the Learned ACMM was appealed against before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 28 th February, 2011. The two judgments i.e. passed by the Learned ACMM and Learned Additional Sessions Judge are impugned in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned ACMM and learned Additional Sessions Judge have not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and the sentence awarded to the Petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The alleged eye witnesses to the incident that is PW1 Sat Pal Singh and PW5 Balbir Singh are not the eye witnesses and are planted by the prosecution. PW1 has not identified the Petitioner as he was not related to the deceased in any manner. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the alleged spot of incident was a dark place and it was not possible to see the Petitioner, as there was no independent source of light or street light. No TIP was conducted as the Petitioner was shown to the witnesses in the Police Station and this version has been admitted by PW 10 in his cross-examination. The testimony of PW5 is full of improvements and embellishment and is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that the investigating officer was not competent to prove the notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicle Act. Thus the legal requirement of proving the notice has not been complied with. The present case is a case of false implication, thus his conviction is liable to be set aside. In the alternative it is prayed that the Petitioner has no previous involvement in any case and has faced trial for ten years, thus, he be released on probation.