MOHD HAMID KHAN Vs. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision petition filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 3.10.2012 passed by Ms. Kaveri Baweja, Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal of the petitioner in case FIR No.726/1997, under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was sent for trial for the aforesaid offences by Police Station Patel Nagar on account of having caused death of a pillion rider, namely, Ram Dayal by rash and negligent driving. The facts of the prosecution case were that on 29.8.1997, complainant Dinesh Kumar was driving his motorcycle while as Ram Dayal was the pillion rider. Two buses bearing Nos.DL-1P-1358 and DL-1P-6766 were being driven by the appellant Mohd. Hamid Khan and one Harphool, respectively. Both the buses were being driven in a rash and negligent manner so as to compete with each other as to who will be ahead of the other. It is alleged that bus No.DL-1P-6766, which was being driven by Harphool, overtook the motorcycle while as the other bus No. DL-1P-1358, being driven by the petitioner, hit the motorcyclist from the back due to which Ram Dayal fell down and sustained injuries. Ram Dayal succumbed to the said injuries later on. After trial, the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC. For offence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs. 500/- and for offence under Section 304-A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which came to be decided by the impugned order. Ms. Kaveri Baweja, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, dismissed the appeal. In the appeal, the petitioner had taken two grounds. Firstly, that there was hardly any occasion for the sole eye-witness, Dinesh Kumar (PW-6) to testify that the buses were being driven rashly and negligently inasmuch as he had stated that buses were coming from the back. This was not accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that one bus had overtaken while as the other had hit the motorcycle from the rear side. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mechanical inspection did not show any damage to the bus on the front side and consequently this belied the theory of the bus having hit the motorcycle. This was also not accepted by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court had observed that the question of rash and negligent driving also looses significance because PW-6, who had made a statement to that effect, was not cross-examined at all.