BACHCHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 23.02.2006 in an appeal against the judgment dated 19.11.2005 and the order on sentence dated 28.11.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The Metropolitan Magistrate had convicted the petitioner under Sections 279/304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The said conviction and sentence was maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by virtue of the impugned order.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are contradictions in the depositions of the three purported eye-witnesses, namely, PW-5 (Abdul Khaliq), PW-9 (Shahida Begum) and PW-10 (Parvez Ahmed). He submitted that these contradictions are of such a nature that they would be fatal to the prosecution case.

(3.) The entire statements as well as the cross-examination of the said three witnesses were read out in an attempt to point out the contradictions. I find that insofar as PWs-9 and 10 are concerned, they have entirely corroborated each other and if their testimonies alone are taken, then the prosecution case is established. However, there is some substance in what the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are some contradictions in the testimony of PW-5 (Abdul Khaliq) which are not entirely in consonance with the prosecution case. But, as rightly observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the contradictions are of such a nature as would not amount to being fatal to the prosecution case. All the witnesses have clearly stated that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle (DBL-2420). All of them have stated that the said vehicle was the offending vehicle whereby the deceased (Abdul Shahid), who was a boy of about 8 years of age, was run over. The vehicle was apprehended on the spot as also the petitioner. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make a submission that there was another vehicle which caused the fatal injury, no such stand was taken by the petitioner either before the trial court or before the appellate court.