RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 12th August, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge upholding the order of conviction of the Petitioner passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the Petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 304A and 279 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 2nd January, 2008 had sentenced the Petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Imprisonment for five days for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and further to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 304A IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo Imprisonment for twenty days. Under Section 20 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the Petitioner was disqualified from driving any heavy motor vehicle and light motor vehicle except scooter, motorcycle and car for one year.

(2.) BRIEFLY the prosecution case is that on 11th February, 2001 at about 5:00 p.m. at Lajpat Rai Marg, near Defence Colony flyover, the Petitioner was driving Qualis bearing No. DL IV-6500 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and while doing so hit against Monica Francis who sustained fatal injuries due to which she succumbed to death. The statement of Ms. Rooth Francis was recorded who stated that she was going to Defence Colony market along with her mother Ms. Monica. When they got down from the bus opposite Defence Colony petrol pump, started crossing the road, and went ahead of central patri she heard a loud horn. She took turn and saw that one vehicle was coming from Mool Chand side at a very high speed and hit her mother Monica. She also sustained jerk from the vehicle and fell down. They were taken by one lady in her car. Thereafter she regained consciousness in a hospital whose name was revealed later on as Santom Hospital. She further stated that she came to know the name of that lady as Uma Pradhan who stated her not to worry and that she will pay all her expenses. She further stated that she came to know from the nurse that her mother expired and Uma Pradhan left the hospital after coming to know about the death of her mother. She further stated that the accident in which her mother died and she suffered injuries was due to high speed, rash and negligent driving of the car of Uma Pradhan. On the basis of this statement of Rooth Francis, FIR No. 86/2001 was registered under Sections 304A/279. On a notice being issued to the owner of the vehicle Sawarmal Poddar, the name of the driver, who was driving the vehicle No. DL-1V- 6500 on the date of incident, was informed as Rajesh S/o Sharda Prasad. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate after recording the prosecution evidence and statement of the Petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., convicted the Petitioner and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment and order on sentence, the Petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 12th August, 2008 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(3.) PER contra learned APP for the State submits that impugned judgments suffer from no illegality. PW2, the injured witness who was present along with the deceased, has completely supported the prosecution case and has duly identified the Petitioner. There are no contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and evidence placed on record clearly implicates the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C has stated that he was standing on the red light, when the traffic light became green he moved his vehicle but did not cause any accident nor hit the ladies, rather when he reached at the spot, the accident had already taken place. On humanitarian ground he removed the injured to the hospital but later on he was falsely implicated in the present case. Thus from the statement, it is evident that the Petitioner was driving the vehicle at the time of accident near the spot.