VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner who has been convicted by the trial court under Section 279/304A IPC and whose appeal against conviction was dismissed by the first appellate court. At the time of admission of this revision, the counsel for the petitioner told the court that an imposter appeared as PW-12, since Ram Kumar, brother of Vinod Kumar was produced as Vinod Kumar and the real Vinod Kumar never appeared before the trial court. The accused was having a counsel namely Mr. Ombir Singh, Advocate, representing him before the trial court and said Ombir Singh colluded with Ram Kumar and Addl. Public Prosecutor (Addl. PP) and he deliberately allowed Ram Kumar to be examined as Vinod Kumar. When accused wanted to examine real Vinod Kumar as a defence witness, the defence counsel did not take interest and closed the defence evidence.

(2.) THE allegations made by the counsel during arguments on admission were serious since it was alleged that someone impersonated as Vinod Kumar with the help of counsel for the accused and Addl. PP. This court, therefore, considered that an FIR should have been got registered by the person who had alleged that he was impersonated in the Court. Vinod Kumar was present in the court at that time and he was directed to lodge a complaint to the trial court where the trial had taken place and a complaint to Bar Council of Delhi as well as Bar Council of India in respect of professional mis-conduct of the Advocate. An FIR was got registered by Vinod Kumar after this and investigation was done by P.S. Subzi Mandi. Vinod Kumar filed an affidavit before police of P.S. Subzi Mandi that he was made to sign certain English written documents by the counsel of the accused. He did not understand English. He was told that the documents were being got signed from him so that he may do pairvi of the case of the accused. He submitted that whatever was written in the document or in the complaint made to police, was not known to him. He was only made to sign. One Jeet Singh was examined as defence witness before the trial court. Jeet Singh was stated to be the conductor of the truck being driven by the accused. Jeet Singh had stated in the court that it was Rambir, who was driving the truck and accused Vinod Kumar was not driving the truck. Police traced Jeet Singh. He made statement to the police that he had never been a conductor on the truck. He had not even appeared in the court. He did not know the driver and he had nothing to do with the case. This implied that the person who was produced as Jeet Singh before the trial court was not the real Jeet Singh.

(3.) THE revision petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.