Anoop Singh vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 7758 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          RESERVED ON : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2015
                          DECIDED ON : 9th OCTOBER, 2015

+                       CRL.REV.P.733/2014

      ANOOP SINGH                                      ..... Petitioner

                        Through :    Dr.Vijendra Mahndiyan, Advocate
                                     with Ms.Pallavi Awasthi,
                                     Advocate.
                        versus

      STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)                    ..... Respondent

                        Through :    Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP.

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

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the

petitioner - Anoop Singh to challenge the legality and propriety of a

judgment dated 30.10.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in

Crl.A.37/14 by which order of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

dated 03.09.2014 convicting him under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC was

upheld. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for three months with

fine `500/- each under Sections 279/337 IPC and SI for nine months with

fine `9,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. The substantive sentences were to

operate concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-

sheet was that on 16.09.1997 at about 01.15 p.m. near Jeewan Hospital,

New Rohtak Road, Delhi, while driving bus No.DL-1PA-0014 on route

No.805 in a rash and negligent manner the petitioner hit it against a cycle-

rickshaw from behind and caused injuries to Kiran Anand and Sushma

Duggal. Sushma Duggal subsequently succumbed to the injuries and

expired. Daily Diary (DD) No.14, Police Post Siddhipura, Mark 'B' came

into existence at 01.20 pm on getting information about the accident. DD

No.17 Mark 'A' was recorded at 02.35 p.m. intimating that two women

were admitted at Jeewan Hospital in injured condition. PW-9 (SI Jai Pal

Singh) along with Const.Ram Avtar went to the spot. After recording

statement (Ex.PW-1/A) of the victim - Kiran Anand; he lodged First

Information Report. The accused was arrested. Post-mortem examination

on Sushma's body was conducted. Statements of the witnesses conversant

with the facts were recorded. On completion of investigation, a charge-

sheet was filed in the Court. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses

to establish its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the petitioner pleaded false

implication. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on

appreciation of the evidence, by the judgment dated 03.09.2014, the

petitioner was found guilty of the aforesaid offences. Crl.A.37/14 to

challenge the conviction and sentence resulted in its dismissal vide order

dated 30.10.2014. Aggrieved by the said verdicts, the instant revision

petition has been filed.

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

examined the file. The judgments of the Courts below are based upon fair

appraisal of the evidence and all the relevant contentions raised by the

petitioner have been duly considered. Petitioner's counsel has failed to

point out any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgments

to intervene.

4. Material testimony is that of PW-1 (Kiran Anand), who was

one of the victims. On her statement (Ex.PW-1/A), the FIR was lodged on

the same day without any delay. In her statement (Ex.PW-1/A), Kiran

Anand disclosed that when she and her friend Sushma Duggal were

coming to their home on a cycle-rickshaw and reached near Jeewan

Hospital at around 01.15 p.m., a blue line bus No.DL-1PA-0014 driven by

Anoop Singh in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and struck

against the cycle-rickshaw as a result of which they both fell down and

sustained injuries. In her Court statement also, proved the version given to

the police at the very first instance without any variation. She elaborated

that the bus driver was in a hurry to reach the bus stop to prevent another

bus to reach there before him. She reiterated that the bus was at a very fast

speed and it hit the cycle-rickshaw suddenly from behind as a result of

which it turned turtle. She revealed that number of the offending vehicle

was A-0014. In the cross-examination initially she informed that the

driver of the offending vehicle was not seen by her at the time of accident.

However, when cross-examined by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, she

clarified that the accused was seated on the driver-seat of Bus No.A-0014

and she had seen him through the window screen. She categorically

denied that the accident was due to negligence of the rickshaw-puller or

that the bus was not being driven by the accused. It is pertinent to mention

that bus No. DL-1PA-0014 was seized at the spot vide seizure memo

Ex.PW-4/B. The relevant documents pertaining to the said bus were

seized from the petitioner vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/A. Petitioner's

driving licence was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-9/C. The

offending vehicle was got mechanically inspected vide report Ex.PW-6/A.

The accused did not furnish any explanation about his presence at the

place of occurrence when he was not driving the vehicle. He did not

inform if he had no concern with the offending vehicle and it was never

driven by him. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, he wished to examine

Pardeep, its conductor which he subsequently failed to do so. It falsifies

his plea that the bus was not being driven by him. He did not summon the

registered owner of the vehicle in defence to establish that he was not

employed as a driver on the said bus. Conflicting and inconsistent defence

has been taken by the accused to buttress his plea. He even denied his

presence at the spot and claimed that he was arrested from his house. In

313 Cr.P.C. statement, he did not claim his arrest from his house. Rather

in response to Question No.2, he stated that he was stopped by the police

officials at the spot and was falsely implicated in this case. The

prosecution examined PW-13 (Anil Kumar), who had taken the vehicle on

superdari. Nothing was suggested to him in the cross-examination that the

bus was not being driven by him at the relevant time.

5. Non-examination of rickshaw-puller is inconsequential as

process issued to secure his presence repeatedly remained unexecuted and

could not be traced. Under these circumstances, no adverse inference can

be drawn against the prosecution for his non-examination. Failure to

conduct Test Identification Parade (TIP) is not fatal as the accused was

arrested at the spot and was identified by one of the victims. He was

named in the FIR. Similarly failure of the Investigating Officer to serve

notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicle Act to the registered owner of the

vehicle is of no relevance due to apprehension of the accused at the spot.

6. Minor discrepancies and improvements highlighted by the

petitioner's counsel do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The

victims were returning to their homes at about 1.15 p.m. when there was

no possibility of heavy traffic at the spot. The accused hit the cycle-

rickshaw from behind as a result of which it turned turtle and the

passengers sitting on it sustained injuries due to fall. It appears that due to

his anxiety to reach the bus stop to pick up passengers before the rival bus

could reach there, the vehicle was being driven at a high speed by the

accused. No contributory negligence was attributed to the rickshaw-puller.

Petitioner's conduct is unnatural and unreasonable. He did not take the

victims to the hospital and even denied to have driven the offending

vehicle.

7. Petitioner's conviction is based upon acceptable legal

evidence and needs no intervention. No sound reasons exist to differ from

the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Since the Trial Court has

already taken lenient view, sentence awarded to the petitioner requires no

modification. The petition lack merits and is dismissed.

8. The petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court on 16th

November 2015 to serve out the remaining period of substantive sentence.

9. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the

order. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for

information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE OCTOBER 09, 2015 / tr