Abdul Mazid vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 3091 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  RESERVED ON : MARCH 12, 2015
                                  DECIDED ON : APRIL 17, 2015

+      CRL.REV.556/2014

       ABDUL MAZID
                                                         ..... Petitioner.
                           Through :     Ms.Naomi Chandra, Advocate.

                           versus

       STATE
                                                          ..... Respondent.
                           Through :     Mr.Navin K.Jha, APP.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. By a judgment dated 05.07.2013 in case FIR No.194/99

registered at Police Station Seemapuri the petitioner Abdul Mazid was

convicted under Sections 279/337/338/304A IPC by the Court of

Metropolitan Magistrate. By an order dated 31.07.13, he was awarded

various prison terms. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the

judgment in Crl.A.No.51/2013. Aggrieved by the said orders, the

petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

2. Allegations against the petitioner were that on 03.07.99 at

about 7:55 a.m. at A&B, Chowk near the corner of park, Green Field

Modern Public School Road, he was found driving bus bearing No.DL1P-

5868 in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving, he hit against

Sonal, Gainda Lal, Pooja and Maninder Kaur. Sonal and Gainda Lal

sustained simple injuries while Pooja suffered grievous injuries; Maninder

Kaur expired. The petitioner was arrested at the spot and FIR was lodged

by the Investigating Officer after recording complainant's (Jagdeep Jalota)

statement (Ex.PW-1/A). Victims were taken to hospital for medical

examination. Post-mortem examination on the body was conducted.

Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After

completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused

for committing the above said offences. The prosecution examined 12

witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 statement, the petitioner pleaded

false implication and claimed that accident occurred due to failure of

brakes. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. Admitted position is that the offending vehicle was

being driven by the petitioner who was arrested at the spot. It is not

denied that in the accident Maninder Kaur lost her life while the other

victims sustained simple/grievous injuries. The prosecution examined

PW-1 (Jagdeep Jalota), PW-2 (Ms.Pooja), PW-3 (Ms.Sonal), PW-8

(Mamta) and PW-9 (Inderdeep) who gave consistent version that the

offending bus was being driven by the petitioner at a very fast speed,

rashly and negligently. The bus first hit PW-1's car and thereafter it hit

one cycle rickshaw. It again struck against some school going girls.

Thereafter, it turned towards left side and struck against a tree before halt.

It speaks volume as to how the petitioner was rash and negligent in

driving the vehicle and had no control over it. Apparently, the petitioner

did not take reasonable care while driving the vehicle in question as a

result of which number of victims sustained injuries. The burden was

heavily upon the accused to prove that the accident was result of failure of

brakes and there was no rash and negligent driving by him. The petitioner

did not examine any witness to prove that the brakes of the bus had failed

and he was unable to control it due to it. Contrary to that the vehicle in

question was mechanically got inspected during investigating and as per

inspection report (Ex.PW-12/K), brakes of the bus were in order. The

defence deserves outright rejection.

4. The impugned judgments are based upon fair appraisal of the

evidence. Concurrent findings on fact recorded by the courts below that

the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner are well

founded. The findings are neither perverse nor illegal. There are no

sound reasons to take a different view in the matter. PW-2 (Pooja) in the

cross-examination started crying saying that she could not see the

presence of the accused driver as he had spoiled her life. She could not

properly walk after the accident and always remained ill due to that. It

shows the gravity of the offence. The public injured witnesses who had

witnessed the occurrence had no animosity to falsely implicate the

accused. The findings on conviction are upheld.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed for modification of

the sentence order as the incident pertains to the year 1999 and the

petitioner has already served the substantial period of substantive

sentence. I find no adequate reasons to reduce the sentence awarded to

the petitioner. In the instant case a precious life has been lost due to rash

and negligent driving of the accused. School going children suffered vital

injuries on their bodies. While considering the quantum of sentence to be

imposed for the offence of causing death or injury by rash and negligent

driving, one of the prime consideration is deterrence. No sufficient

ground exists to show leniency. The sentence awarded by the trial court is

commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

6. The revision petition lacks merits and is dismissed. Trial

Court record (if any) along with a copy of this order be sent back

forthwith. A copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail

for intimation.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE APRIL 17, 2015 sa