Delhi High Court
Shahid Khan vs State on 18 October, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% CRL. REV.P. 535/2012
+ Date of Decision: 18th October, 2012
# SHAHID KHAN ....Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Gaurav Malhotra, Advocate
Versus
$ STATE ...Respondent
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL)
With the consent of the counsel for the petitioner and Additional
Public Prosecutor this revision petition has been heard finally today
itself.
2. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-convict
against the judgment dated 10th September, 2012 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge whereby he has affirmed the judgment of
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting him under Sections
279/304-A IPC as also the sentence awarded to him.
3. The petitioner-convict is alleged to have caused the death of one
R.B.L. Saxena on 25th March, 2001 by causing an accident while
driving Maruti car no. DL-4C-N-0636, owned by PW-3, in a rash and
negligent manner. It was alleged against him by the prosecution that he
had hit the car which he was driving against the scooter no. DL-4S-D-
3652 driven by the deceased R.B.L. Saxena, who died due to the injury
suffered by him in that accident.
4. Before the trial Court the petitioner-convict had denied that he
was driving the above referred car on the date of incident. The
prosecution had sought to establish his identity as a driver of the
Maruti car on the basis of statement made by its owner PW-3,
Rajvinder Singh, who had claimed that on the date of incident his
aforesaid car was in possession of the petitioner-convict. Though there
was an eye-witness also of the accident, PW-10 ASI Balbir but he had
only deposed about the accident and not about the identity of the
petitioner-convict as the driver of the Maruti car which had caused the
accident. The learned trial Court, however, convicted the petitioner on
the basis of the statement of owner of the car to the effect that on the
date of accident his car was in possession of the petitioner.
5. The Appellate Court also accepted the findings of the learned
trial Court and maintained the petitioner's conviction.
6. The only point urged before this Court by the learned counsel for
the petitioner was that since there was no direct evidence against the
petitioner adduced by the prosecution to show that he was driving the
Maruti car involved in the accident he should not have been convicted
merely on the statement made by the owner of the car that his car was
in possession of the petitioner on the date of accident. In support of this
argument learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a
decision of this Court in "Jagdish Prasad Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi)", 184(2011) DLT 285.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor very fairly submitted that
the sole eye witness of the accident did not claim the petitioner to be
driver of the car involved in the accident and there was no other direct
evidence to establish his identity.
8. In the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner almost
under similar circumstances this Court had acquitted the accused who
had been convicted under Sections 279/304-A IPC only on the basis of
a similar statement made by the owner of the offending vehicle to the
effect that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was being
driven by the accused. This Court had held that only on the basis of the
said claim of the owner of the offending vehicle the accused could not
have been convicted and further that the possibility of the vehicle
owner himself being involved in the accident and to avoid his own
prosecution his naming the accused as the driver could not be ruled out.
9. In my view, the said decision of this Court applies squarely to the
facts of the present case. Merely on the basis of the statement of the
owner of the offending car that on the date of the accident his car was
with the petitioner he could not be held guilty. As far as the sole eye
witness of the accident is concerned he clearly had claimed that he
could not seen the driver of the car as he had fled away with the car.
10. This revision petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and it is
allowed. The judgment of the trial Court as well as of learned
Additional Sessions Judge holding the petitioner-convict guilty of the
offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC are set aside and the petitioner
is acquitted. Presently he is stated to be lodged in jail serving out
sentence of imprisonment after dismissal of his appeal. He is now
ordered to be released from there forthwith.
11. With the acquittal of the petitioner Crl. M.B. 1730/2012 filed by
the petitioner for the suspension of his sentence has become
infructuous and so it stands disposed of accordingly.
P.K. BHASIN, J
OCTOBER 18, 2012/pg
