ABDUL MAZID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a judgment dated 05.07.2013 in case FIR No.194/99 registered at Police Station Seemapuri the petitioner Abdul Mazid was convicted under Sections 279/337/338/304A IPC by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. By an order dated 31.07.13, he was awarded various prison terms. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the judgment in Crl.A.No.51/2013. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) Allegations against the petitioner were that on 03.07.99 at about 7:55 a.m. at A&B, Chowk near the corner of park, Green Field Modern Public School Road, he was found driving bus bearing No.DL1P- 5868 in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving, he hit against Sonal, Gainda Lal, Pooja and Maninder Kaur. Sonal and Gainda Lal sustained simple injuries while Pooja suffered grievous injuries; Maninder Kaur expired. The petitioner was arrested at the spot and FIR was lodged by the Investigating Officer after recording complainant s (Jagdeep Jalota) statement (Ex.PW-1/A). Victims were taken to hospital for medical examination. Post-mortem examination on the body was conducted. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for committing the above said offences. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 statement, the petitioner pleaded false implication and claimed that accident occurred due to failure of brakes. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Admitted position is that the offending vehicle was being driven by the petitioner who was arrested at the spot. It is not denied that in the accident Maninder Kaur lost her life while the other victims sustained simple/grievous injuries. The prosecution examined PW-1 (Jagdeep Jalota), PW-2 (Ms.Pooja), PW-3 (Ms.Sonal), PW-8 (Mamta) and PW-9 (Inderdeep) who gave consistent version that the offending bus was being driven by the petitioner at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently. The bus first hit PW-1 s car and thereafter it hit one cycle rickshaw. It again struck against some school going girls. Thereafter, it turned towards left side and struck against a tree before halt. It speaks volume as to how the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and had no control over it. Apparently, the petitioner did not take reasonable care while driving the vehicle in question as a result of which number of victims sustained injuries. The burden was heavily upon the accused to prove that the accident was result of failure of brakes and there was no rash and negligent driving by him. The petitioner did not examine any witness to prove that the brakes of the bus had failed and he was unable to control it due to it. Contrary to that the vehicle in question was mechanically got inspected during investigating and as per inspection report (Ex.PW-12/K), brakes of the bus were in order. The defence deserves outright rejection.