ABDUL HAMID KHAN Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Abdul Hamid Khan was convicted for offences punishable under Section 304-A/279 Indian Penal Code . both by the trial court of Shri J. M. Malik then Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi as also by the first appellate court of Shri B. B. Gupta Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The petitioner was sentenced by the learned trial court to -undergo R. 1. for one year and also to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 3,000.00 under S. 304-A Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo further R. 1. for 9 moths. On appeal Shri B. B. Gupta, Addl. Sessions Judge, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to 6 months for the offence under S. 304 A. Indian Penal Code . retaining the remaining part of the sentence including one month's R. 1. u/s 279 J. P. C.

(2.) The prosecution alleged that the petitioner being the driver of D.T.C. Bus No. DLP 85 on route No. 416 was driving this bus on 15-11-1979 from Khanpur Depot to Lajpat Nagar and about 12'05 P. M. on that day when he was taking a turn on the main road of Gobindpuri in the jurisdiction of Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi towards M. Block Kalkaji Road, he was driving his bus rashly and negligently as a result of which the deceased Harvinder Singh who was a boy of about 9 years of age was hit by the leftside of the bus and he fell down and started bleeding from the nose and mouth receiving injuries on other parts of his person also and after he was removed to the hospital he was declared dead. The defence taken up by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was that he had stopped his bus at Gobindpuri bus stand where some of the passengers got down from the bus whereafter he started the bus and while negotiating the turn he heard shouts raised by people coming from behind whereupon he stopped the bus and found that the deceased was lying on the Kacha foot path of the left side of the bus. He also stated that he had not seen the boy standing prior to the accident and opined that it appeared that the deceased tried to board the bus fell down on the spot. He did not lead any evindence in defence.

(3.) There are only two eye witnesses of the occurrence and they are PW 1 Malak Ram and Public Witness 7 Ashok Kumar and both the courts below relying upon their testimony as to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the appellant while turning the bus and thereby hitting the deceased as a result of which the deceased died, found the prosecution case proved and consequently convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.