Jeet Lal vs The State
2010 Latest Caselaw 3583 Del

     *            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                       Date of Reserve:28th July, 2010

                                   Date of Order: August 3rd 2010

                                    + Crl. Revision 382 of 2010
%                                                                             03.08.2010
         Jeet Lal                                                    ...Petitioner
         Through: Mr. Vimal Puggal, Advocate

         Versus

         The State                                                   ...Respondents
         Through:


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                                      Yes.

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                              Yes.


                                                JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C has been

preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 17th July, 2010 passed by Shri

B.S. Chumbhak, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi confirming the judgment dated 8th

April, 2010 and order on sentence dated 16th April, 2010 passed by learned Metropolitan

Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 279/304A IPC in case FIR No.115 of

1996 dated 24th February 1996.

2. The sole ground pressed by the counsel for petitioner is that the two courts below

committed grave illegality in inferring negligence when there was no direct evidence of

negligence of the petitioner.

3. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was driver of the truck at the time of

Crl. Revision 382/2010 Jeet Lal v The State Page 1 Of 3 accident. PW-5 and the deceased both were walking on foot alongside the road when

this truck came from behind and hit the deceased from behind. The truck driver stopped

the truck as public raised noise and he ran away from the spot after leaving the truck.

The witness, with the help of police, took the injured to the hospital. The learned

Metropolitan Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge both came to conclusion

in that since the truck driver had hit the deceased, a pedestrian from behind, negligence

of the truck driver was apparent and stood proved.

4. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the eye witness PW-5 had not

deposed that the truck driver was negligent or was driving the truck in a negligent

manner, therefore, there was no offence of negligence of the truck driver and the truck

driver was wrongly convicted.

5. Every motor vehicle that comes out of the factory has some essential features

and one the essential features of a motor vehicle is 'brake'. The brake is provided in the

motor vehicle so that while driving the motor vehicle, the driver of the motor vehicle

applies brakes to avoid any kind of collision between motor vehicle and other

commuters/ objects. If the motor vehicle is running at a moderate say speed between 40-

50 kms/hrs, with the application of brakes, the vehicle gets stopped within a few feet and

if the brake is applied with some force, the vehicle would stop instantly.

6. The pedestrians have a right to walk on the pedestrian way and if there is no

pedestrian way, they have a right to walk on the side of the road. All motor vehicles

drivers have a duty towards pedestrian and merely because a pedestrian is walking on

the side of the road, no motor vehicle driver has a right to hit the pedestrian from behind.

The very fact that the truck driver did not care for the persons walking ahead on the road

and did not apply brakes to save the pedestrian walking on the road itself shows that the

Crl. Revision 382/2010 Jeet Lal v The State Page 2 Of 3 truck driver was negligent. It is not the case of the petitioner that the deceased in this

case had suddenly jumped before the truck. No suggestion was given to the witness that

the deceased was not walking on the side of road or had suddenly come into the middle

of the road in front of the truck. The negligence of motor vehicle driver who does not

look ahead of the vehicle and does not bother to see the nature of traffic to keep

appropriate speed so that the vehicle does not hit others, is writ large. Every motor

vehicle driver is supposed to drive the vehicle in accordance with road conditions, traffic

density and presence of pedestrians on the road. Where the traffic density is more and

pedestrians are also walking on the road, the motor vehicle driver is supposed to drive in

such a manner that he does not hit the pedestrian and the motor vehicle would stop

immediately on application of brakes. If this caution of driving a vehicle in a proper

manner is not taken, this would amount to negligence and if the motor vehicle hits

somebody from behind, due to such driving or non-application of brake, this is criminal

negligence.

7. I find no force in this revision petition. The petition is hereby dismissed with no

orders as to costs.

August 03, 2010                                             SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




Crl. Revision 382/2010   Jeet Lal v The State                               Page 3 Of 3