TARIF Vs. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitionerTarif to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 2.2.2018 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in CA No.279/2017 by which conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court by orders dated 29.05.2017 and 30.05.2017 respectively under Section 279/304-A IPC were upheld. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court by a judgment dated 29.05.2017 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC. By an order dated 30.05.2017, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with fine Rs.5,000/- under Section 304-A IPC and simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Petitioner's counsel urged that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence in true and proper perspective and based conviction on the sole testimony of police official HC Sanjeev Kumar whose presence at the spot could not be established. The prosecution was unable to establish beyond doubt that the petitioner was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle. Material discrepancies and inconsistencies were overlooked by the trial court without cogent reasons. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that no valid reasons exist to disbelieve the testimony of HC Sanjeev Kumar who categorically implicated the petitioner for driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner.

(3.) The occurrence took place at around 4.30 a.m. on 16.08.2010. DD No.25-A (Ex.PW-6/A) came to be recorded at 4.35 a.m. at Police Station Sun Light Colony. The investigation was assigned to SI Prafful Kumar who along with Const.Praveen reached the spot without delay. They were informed that the injured had already been taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre. The Investigating Officer after recording the statement of HC Sanjeev Kumar (Ex.PW-1/A) lodged First Information Report. In the complaint HC Sanjeev Kumar gave detailed account as to how and in what manner, the petitioner while driving the offending vehicle i.e. truck No.HR-55H-2434 in a rash and negligent manner caused the death of the pedestrian, aged around 25 years. The petitioner was named in the FIR and specific role was assigned to him in the incident. The Investigating Officer sent the rukka promptly at 6.45 a.m. Since the petitioner's involvement emerged soon after the incident, there was least possibility of the police official to concoct a false story in such a short period.