State vs Rajinder Singh
2008 Latest Caselaw 1048 Del

           * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  Crl.L.P. 70/2008


%                                Judgment delivered on: 16th July, 2008


State                                           ...... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv.

                   versus


Rajinder Singh                                      ..... Respondent
                        Through: Nemo

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers may
        be allowed to see the judgment?                  yes

2.      To be referred to Reporter or not?               yes

3.      Whether the judgment should be reported
        in the Digest?                                   yes


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)

Crl. M.A. No. 3531/2008

By way of this application the petitioner seeks condonation of

delay in filing the criminal leave petition. For the reasons stated in the

application the same is allowed.

The application stands disposed of.

Crl.L.P. No. 70/2008

By way of the present criminal leave petition filed by the

petitioner, the petitioner seeks leave to file an appeal against the

judgment dated 30th July, 2007 passed by the Court of Shri Vidya

Prakash, Delhi whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge

leveled against him for committing offences punishable under

Sections 279/338 IPC. Mr. Pawan Sharma, APP appearing for the

State submits that learned Trial Magistrate failed to appreciate the

deposition of injured PW3 Jai Pal Singh, who in his deposition in

unequivocal terms stated that he was hit by truck bearing registration

No. HR-24-B-4200 from behind and at the time of the accident the

accused Rajinder Singh was driving the said truck. Counsel for the

appellant further submits that the evidence of the said injured was

duly corroborated by the seizure of the said truck from the spot by IO

and also from the deposition of PW-6, owner of the offending truck,

who had admitted the employment of the said accused as driver of the

said truck in question. Even in the evidence of PW-4, son of the victim,

it was duly proved that the said truck had caused the accident.

Counsel contends that the Trial Court also failed to appreciate that

the accused took a false plea in his statement recorded under Section

313 Cr.P.C denying his presence at the spot of the accident while not

disputing the seizure of the offending truck from the spot.

Based on the aforesaid grounds the appellant seeks leave to file

an appeal against the impugned order of acquittal. It is settled legal

position that no interference can be made by the High Court with the

order of the acquittal unless the approach adopted by the lower Court

is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusions arrived at by

the Court below are so perverse or improbable to be arrived at by any

Court acting reasonably and judicially. The Appellate Court while

granting leave to appeal, therefore, has to be very circumspect and

cautious and it is only where there is an absolute assurance of the

guilt of the accused on the evidence available on record, the order of

the acquittal would be interfered or disturbed. It is admitted case

between the parties that the TIP of the accused was not conducted

during the course of the investigation and the accused was not

apprehended from the site of the accident. After scrutinizing the

evidence led by the prosecution the learned Magistrate reached the

conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish beyond doubt the

involvement of the respondent accused in causing the said accident

while driving the said offending truck. The learned Metropolitan

Magistrate in the impugned order has also observed that the main

witness PW-3 victim of the accident could not establish beyond doubt

the involvement of the accused in causing the accident. In his

deposition he stated that he himself did not see the accused driving

the offending vehicle.

Counsel for the State has failed to point out any perversity,

rationality or illegality in the findings arrived at by the learned Trial

Court. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the present petition

seeking leave to file an appeal to challenge the order of acquittal

passed by the Court of Shri Vidya Prakash, Metropolitan Magistrate.

There is no merit in the present petition. The same is,

accordingly, dismissed.

July 16, 2008                          KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
rkr