MOHD. SHAKEEL Vs. STATE (GNCT DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner - Mohd. Shakeel to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 09.12.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No. 54939/2016 whereby orders on conviction and sentence under Section 279/304A IPC in case FIR No.286/2000 at PS Kamla Market dated 09.12.2015 / 25.06.2016 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case as reflected in the charge-sheet were that on the night intervening 30/31.07.2000 at around 11.00 p.m. at Chowk Hamdard Asaf Ali Road in front of Police Booth, the petitioner was found driving blue-line bus No. DL-1P-6807 in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving hit a rickshaw puller, Mahesh Gupta, and caused his death not amounting to culpable homicide. Information about the accident was conveyed to the police and Daily Diary (DD) No. 27 A (Ex.PW-5/A) came into existence at 11.10 p.m. at PS Kamla Market. After recording statement of SI Satyabir, the Investigating Officer SI Govind Chauhan lodged the First information Report. The petitioner was arrested; he declined to participate in the Test Identification Proceedings. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Post-mortem examination report was collected. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for commission of offence under Sections 279/304A IPC. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the petitioner denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. He examined DW-1 (Puttan) in defence. The trial resulted in conviction. The petitioner challenged the conviction / sentence in appeal and it was dismissed by an order dated 07.10.2016.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The petitioner has not denied that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1P-6807 was being driven by him at the time of occurrence. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, he admitted that at the time of occurrence, he was the driver of the vehicle in question. PW-3 (Jagdish Kumar Saini), registered owner of the vehicle, in response to the notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicles Act (Ex.PW-3/A) responded vide reply (Ex.PW-3/B) that at the relevant time, the petitioner was the driver on the said bus.