ARUN BANSAL Vs. NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitionerArun Bansal to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 02.02.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.16/11 whereby the findings of the trial court in case FIR No.132/2004 under Sections 279/304-A PC, registered at Police Station Seema Puri were endorsed. By an order dated 30.09.2011, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had convicted the petitioner for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC; he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC and Simple Imprisonment for one year with fine Rs. 10,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on 11.04.2004 at about 7.00 a.m., at Main Road, Opposite Gate Meena Bazaar, Seema Puri, the petitioner while driving Maruti Van bearing No.HR05G5654 in a rash and negligent manner hit an old man Gyan Chand, aged around 88 years from behind and caused his death not amounting to culpable homicide. To prove its case the prosecution examined eight witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the petitioner denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction. The appeal filed by the petitioner to challenge conviction also resulted in dismissal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The petitioner's counsel urged that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error to base conviction on the testimony of PW-1 (Mukesh Kumar) who was not present at the spot. PW-1 had not taken the victim to the hospital and the FIR was not lodged on his statement. It was the petitioner who had taken the victim to GTB hospital. He further urged that the accident was not caused by the petitioner and there was no rash or negligent driving by him. In the end, prayer for lenient view was taken as the petitioner had remained in custody for certain duration. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the petitioner's conviction is based upon the dying declaration of the deceased who succumbed to the injuries later on.