HIRA LAL Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 2.02.2012 passed by the ld. ASJ whereby the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-A as recorded by the ld. M.M. vide order dated 11.06.2009, was upheld.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 15.10.1994 at about 3.15 p.m. at Outer Ring Road, Mangolpuri, Delhi, the petitioner was driving a truck bearing registration no. DIG-3698 in a rash and negligent manner and struck a bicycle going in front of it resulting in the death of two persons. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the trial Court under Sections 279/304-A IPC to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty. 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution including one eye witness PW-1, Ramesh Pandey who was also the complainant and was stated to be riding his bicycle behind the deceased persons. On the basis of evidence on record, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty, but the Appellate Court found that the petitioner was not served notice for the offence under Section 279 IPC and hence while maintaining the conviction under Section 304-A IPC, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 279 IPC.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the ld. ASJ is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. It has been submitted that the identity of the driver of the offending truck has not been established by the prosecution and even the eye witness had stated that he had allegedly seen the petitioner from the back side, from a distance of about 100/ 180feet and even his TIP was not conducted to prove his identity. It has been stated that it was erroneous to believe the testimony of PW-1 as he was the relative of the deceased persons and hence being an interested witness has falsely deposed against the petitioner. It has been further submitted that even if it is presumed that the petitioner was indeed the driver of the offending truck on the relevant day and time, still on the perusal of the evidence on record and the testimony of the eye witness PW-1, it is evident that the fact of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner has not been proved by the prosecution and hence the impugned judgment suffers from grave illegality and deserves to be set aside.