Mohd. Hamid Khan vs The State (Nct) Of Delhi
2012 Latest Caselaw 6437 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.611 OF 2012

                                       Decided on : 2nd November, 2012

MOHD. HAMID KHAN                                     ...... Petitioner
             Through:               Mr. V.K. Vats, Advocate.

                           Versus

THE STATE (NCT) OF DELHI                   ....... Respondent
              Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State with
                        SI Birender Singh, P.S. Patel Nagar.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

Crl. M.A. No.18354/2012 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to the deficiency being rectified. The application stands disposed of.

Crl. Rev. P. No.611/2012 & Crl. M.B. No.1940/2012

1. This is a criminal revision petition filed under Section 397/401

Cr.P.C. read with section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 3.10.2012

passed by Ms. Kaveri Baweja, Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the

appeal of the petitioner in case FIR No.726/1997, under Sections

279/337/304-A IPC, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was sent

for trial for the aforesaid offences by Police Station Patel Nagar on

account of having caused death of a pillion rider, namely, Ram Dayal by

rash and negligent driving. The facts of the prosecution case were that on

29.8.1997, complainant Dinesh Kumar was driving his motorcycle while

as Ram Dayal was the pillion rider. Two buses bearing Nos.DL-1P-1358

and DL-1P-6766 were being driven by the appellant Mohd. Hamid Khan

and one Harphool, respectively. Both the buses were being driven in a

rash and negligent manner so as to compete with each other as to who

will be ahead of the other. It is alleged that bus No.DL-1P-6766, which

was being driven by Harphool, overtook the motorcycle while as the

other bus No. DL-1P-1358, being driven by the petitioner, hit the

motorcyclist from the back due to which Ram Dayal fell down and

sustained injuries. Ram Dayal succumbed to the said injuries later on.

After trial, the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections

279/337/304-A IPC. For offence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, the

petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three

months with a fine of `500/- and for offence under Section 304-A IPC, he

was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine

of `1,000/-.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge which came to be decided by the impugned order. Ms. Kaveri

Baweja, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the learned

counsel for the petitioner, dismissed the appeal. In the appeal, the

petitioner had taken two grounds. Firstly, that there was hardly any

occasion for the sole eye-witness, Dinesh Kumar (PW-6) to testify that

the buses were being driven rashly and negligently inasmuch as he had

stated that buses were coming from the back. This was not accepted by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that one bus had

overtaken while as the other had hit the motorcycle from the rear side.

The second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the mechanical inspection did not show any damage to the bus on the

front side and consequently this belied the theory of the bus having hit the

motorcycle. This was also not accepted by the Appellate Court. The

Appellate Court had observed that the question of rash and negligent

driving also looses significance because PW-6, who had made a

statement to that effect, was not cross-examined at all.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone

through the impugned judgment. These arguments which were urged

before the learned Appellate Court have been urged afresh before this

court. At the outset, I must say that it is well-settled by now that the

doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine which is applicable in cases of

accidents also. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was driving one of

the buses which is purported to have hit or touched the motorcycle

because of which the deceased/victim/pillion rider had fallen and suffered

injuries resulting in his death. The death is also not in dispute. The only

question, therefore, remains that whether the bus was being driven rashly

and negligently. There is a specific statement made by the petitioner that

the two buses were being driven by the petitioner and his so-called

colleague Harphool who were competing with each other so far as

speeding vehicle on the road is concerned. This clearly shows that both

these persons were having scant regard for the other users of the road and

were driving their buses in a rash and negligent manner. Curiously, the

witness has not been cross-examined on this score and, therefore, the

testimony of PW-6 cannot be disbelieved. The question of the bus not

having suffered any mechanical damage from the front is inconsequential

because the impact may be very minor or it may be only due to touching

of the bus to the body of the deceased but it may be sufficient enough to

result in imbalance and cause the fall of any person driving or walking on

the road. That is why in such cases, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, i.e.

the facts speaks for themselves, is taken help of. It was for the

accused/petitioner to have adduced evidence to establish as to how the

accident had taken place which he has failed to do in the instant case.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity, impropriety

or illegality in the order of conviction or sentence passed by the learned

Magistrate or in the impugned order dated 3.10.2012 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was

driving a lethal vehicle on the road and he has been visited with a very

light punishment of only six months. There is no denial of the fact that of

late there has been a steady increase in the accidents being caused by the

heavy vehicles being driven rashly and negligently on the roads and

majority of these accidents pertain to either the pedestrians or two-

wheeler drivers. Therefore, these reckless law breakers do not deserve

any sympathies from the court. The petition is without any merit and

accordingly, the same is dismissed.

NOVEMBER 02, 2012/'AA'                              V.K. SHALI, J.