Raj Kumar vs State (Gnct) Of Delhi
2011 Latest Caselaw 850 Del

               *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                          Date of Reserve: 24th January 2011

                                 Date of Order: February, 2011

                                    + Crl. Rev. No. 328/2010
%                                                                              11.02.2011
         Raj Kumar                                                    ...Petitioner

         Versus

         State (GNCT) of Delhi                                        ...Respondent

Counsels:

Mr. A.J. Bhambhani with Ms. Nisha Bhambhani for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

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

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                            JUDGMENT

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C read with Section

482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner against an order passed by learned ASJ

who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction under Sections

279/304A IPC and upheld the judgment passed by learned MM.

2. The petitioner on the fateful day was driving the truck on the wrong side of the

road in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of a scooterist. The petitioner

was apprehended on the spot by an eye witness and handed over to the police. He was

tried for offences under Section 279/304A IPC. The eye witness who had apprehended

the petitioner, appeared in the court and deposed about the negligence of the petitioner

and the fact that the petitioner was driving his truck on the wrong side of the road and

Crl. Rev.P.328/2010 Page 1 Of 2 crushed the scooterist under the wheels of his truck. The entire evidence was

appreciated by the learned MM and then by learned ASJ. Both the courts below gave

concurrent findings about the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the eye witness in this case

had deposed that he had not seen the driver of the truck while he was driving the truck

and he saw the driver only when driver came down from the truck. He stated that this

creates doubt if the eye witness was actually present there or not. I consider that this

argument is a baseless argument. A person who watches an accident between a truck

and a scooter would not know the driver immediately when the accident occurs and he

would come to know as to who was the driver only when the driver comes down of the

truck after the accident. The eye witness has stated what was natural.

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

February 11, 2011                                           SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




Crl. Rev.P.328/2010                                                            Page 2 Of 2