OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 12 th 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 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 APP on the other hand contends that a perusal of the testimony of PW1 Virender Singh Shekhawat, the sole eye-witness and PW7 Constable Praduman Kumar clearly shows that the truck was being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, that is, the photographs of the spot show the skid marks which were caused due to applying brakes at high speed. The same shows the rashness with which the Petitioner was driving the vehicle. Even PW1 in his testimony has stated that the scooter was dragged to a distance which fact is corroborated by the skid marks of the truck. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below and there being no perversity in the judgment, no interference is warranted by this Court.