Gurdev Singh vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 1607 Del

                       HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                Crl. Rev. P. 591/2007



                                      Date of Decision: 22.3.2010

        Gurdev Singh                                ...    Petitioner

                                      Through: Mr. Usman Chaudhary, Adv.

                             Versus
        State                                             ...    Respondent
                                         Through: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv.
                                         Father of the victim.
                                         Inspector Satya Pal Singh

        CORAM:

        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
        1.  Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to
            see the judgment?
        2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?
        3.      Whether the judgment should be referred in the
                Digest?

        S.L. Bhayana, J.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the

impugned order dated 2.7.2007 whereby first appellate Court has

dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was driving a

truck No. HR 38 BG 0127 in a rash and negligent manner and while so

driving at about 7.45 a.m. in front of Om Can Handicarfts, Mehrauli

Mahipalpur Road, Masood Pur, New Delhi, he hit against master Rinku,

aged about 7 years who was crossing the road at that time. Both the

legs of Rinku got damaged in the said accident. His right leg was

amputated below the knee and the other leg was also damaged which

had to be amputated later on. Charge u/s 279/338 IPC was framed

against the accused on 25.5.1999 to which the appellant pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution has examined as many as seven

witnesses.

3. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses. PW-6,

Parvesh Massi, is the star witness of the prosecution in this case. In his

statement he has deposed that on 14.9.1998 at about 7.30 am. He was

going to drop his son Rinku to his school. When they reached at

Mehrauli Road, one truck No. HR -38-BG-0127 which was driven at a

very high speed came from the side of Mehrauli and caused the

accident of his son who was trying to cross the road. It had struck

against the child at that time when his child had already crossed the

road and he was at the other side of the road when the child was hit by

the said truck. The accused present in the Court was identified by PW-

6. The accused ran away from the spot after committing the accident,

thereafter, he removed his son to the hospital. The accident took

place due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. I have

also gone through the cross examination of this witness and he has

denied the suggestion that his son was running while crossing the

road. He has denied the suggestion that at that time he was at the

shop purchasing some articles. I have also gone through the

statements of all the witnesses who have supported the case of the

prosecution. I have also gone through the statement of the accused

recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused in his statement has submitted

that he was driving a truck No. HR-38-BG-0127 on the date of incident

and when he reached speed breaker near a Government School, he

slowed down his truck. 5-6 children were standing at the Patri and

they rushed to cross the road. Accused applied his brakes but one

child got injured. Accused stopped the truck and took the child to the

hospital.

4. Arguments heard.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

already undergone imprisonment for about 3 to 4 months.

6. On the other hand learned APP for the State submited that both

the legs of the child had been damaged in the said accident and child

is handicapped for the whole of his life and he cannot walk and now he

has become a liability on his parents so no leniency should be shown to

the petitioner who has caused accident. It is the rash and negligent

driving of the petitioner which had caused the accident.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the

record. I have come to the conclusion that it was the petitioner and

none else who was driving the truck No. HR-38-BG-0127 as a result of

which this accident was caused and in that accident one small child

has lost both his legs. I do not think it is a fit case where sentence

should be reduced. The petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and

is therefore dismissed. The petitioner is directed to surrender before

the learned trial Court and serve the remaining sentence in jail

awarded by the learned trial Court.

8. With these observations the petition stands disposed of.

                                                        S.L.BHAYANA,J


MARCH         22, 2010
Kb