STATE Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.11.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, in the case arising out of FIR No. 115/99, P.S. Mandir Marg, under Sections 279/304A IPC, whereby the respondent -accused was acquitted of the charge by giving him the benefit of doubt.

(2.) THE respondent -accused was sent to trial for the offence under Section 279/304A IPC on the allegation that on 28.02.1999 at about 1.30 p.m. at Shanker Road upper Ridge Road, near roundabout, he was found driving the delivery van Vikram bearing registration No. DL 1LC 7000 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others, and while driving in such a manner, he hit the scooter bearing registration No. DL 4SD 2850 and caused the death of Lalit Saxena. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses, of whom PW2 -Manish Suneja and PW -10 - Constable Ved Prakash are the material witnesses. The case of the prosecution is that Manish Suneja PW -2 was the pillion rider and the deceased was driving the scooter aforesaid at the time of the accident. PW10 -Constable Ved Prakash was posted as traffic constable in Chanakyapuri circle and on the fateful day, he was on duty at Upper Ridge Road, Shankar Road. He had heard the noise of the accident and reached the spot and had taken the deceased to R.M.L. Hospital along with Manish Suneja.

(3.) THE submission of Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, learned APP is that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity, since the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has misappreciated and misconstrued the testimony of both PW2 and PW10. He submits that learned Metropolitan Magistrate has proceeded on the basis of conjectures and surmises. He submits that the approach of the learned Magistrate in appreciation of the evidence is fundamentally flawed. Mr. Sawhney has referred to the testimony of PW2, who stated that on 28.02.1999, he and deceased were returning to their home from the Gurdwara. The two had reached the Gurdwara at 12.15 p.m. The scooter was being driven by Lalit Saxena -the deceased. Both deceased and PW2 were wearing helmets and PW2 was the pillion rider. He stated that at about 1.30 p.m., on the way to their home, when they reached at Chambery, Shanker Road roundabout, Ridge Road, one delivery van make Vikram bearing registration No. DL 1LC 7000 -which was being driven by the driver in a very rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came from the right side at the Chambery and hit at the right side of the scooter. Due to impact, both - the deceased and PW -2, fell down on the road along with the scooter. Lalit fell on the road, hitting his head to the road, and he received injuries upon his head. On hearing the noise of the accident, traffic constable Ved Prakash (PW10) reached at the spot. The three wheeler was being driven by Pratap Singh, the accused, who was correctly identified in the court by PW2. PW2 stated that he came to know the name of the accused when the accused was interrogated by constable Ved Prakash. Lalit Saxena was removed to RML Hospital by PW2 and constable Ved Prakash PW10 in a red colour Maruti car, which was stopped by the constable. Lalit Saxena was bleeding from his mouth, nose and ear. Lalit Saxena was admitted in hospital and he died in the hospital on the same day within half an hour or so. PW 2 further stated that it was a routine of PW2 and the deceased to visit Gurdwara Bangla Sahib every Sunday. He further stated that on 28.02.1999, which was a Sunday the accused Pratap Singh had jumped the traffic signal (red signal) and hit his scooter. PW2 further stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the delivery van by the accused at a high speed. He exhibited the site plan prepared at the site at his instance as Ex.PW2/A. PW2 also exhibited the two vehicles, and the helmets and other documents led in evidence by the prosecution.