RAM BHAROSE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present revision petition the Petitioner challenges the Judgement dated 6 th May, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge upholding the Judgement dated 16 th January, 2008 by learned Trial Court convicting the Petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and order dated 25 th January, 2008 sentencing him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine further Rigorous Imprisonment of one month under Section 304A IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment of one month and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten days under Section 279 IPC. Vide the impugned judgment learned Additional Session Judge reduced the sentence to six months Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine further Rigorous Imprisonment of one month under Section 304A IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment of one month and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten days under Section 279 IPC.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the prosecution case are that on 27 th March, 1998 on receipt of DD No. 18A at police station Kalyanpuri regarding an accident, SI Rakesh Kumar and Constable Sailender reached the spot in front of Ghazipur Kattha, National Highway No. 24, Delhi where they found a cycle in an accidental condition. One Shri Vijay Kumar was found who made a statement to the police stating that after closing his shop he along with his friends namely Dharmender and deceased Meghraj were going to their houses on their respective cycles via National Highway towards Mandawali. At about 7:15 PM when they were infront of Gazipur Khatta acused came driving truck bearing number HR 29 D 1616 in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly took a turn towards the khatta and struck the deceased causing his death as he got crushed under the wheel of the truck. The Petitioner then stopped the truck near the gate, got down and came near the injured but since people had gathered there, due to fear he ran away from the spot.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the statements of the two alleged eye witnesses PW12 Dharmender and PW13 Vijay Kumar made before the police and given in Court are completely contradictory. According to the complaint (rukka) the Petitioner was said to have fled from the spot however before the learned trial court PW 12 Dharmender stated that the Petitioner stopped the truck in front of the gate of the khatta and came down. It was also pointed out that the name of the deceased was initially written in the MLC as unknown and later on the name was incorporated, had any eye witnesses been present the deceased s name would have been recorded from the very beginning.