Manvender Singh vs State
2017 Latest Caselaw 3917 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                             Reserved on: 12.07.2017
                                              Delivered on: 04.08.2017
+        CRL.REV.P.83/2009

MANVENDER SINGH                                      ..... Petitioner

                          versus

STATE                                                ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner   : Mr.Anil Anand.
For the Respondent   : Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP.


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

                             JUDGMENT

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

1. Manvender Singh, the revisionist/petitioner was convicted under sections 279/304A of the IPC and sections 119/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2008 and 12.08.2008 respectively in connection with FIR No.274/2000 and was sentenced to undergo SI for 9 months, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer SI for 2 months for the offence under section 304A of the IPC and SI for three months, to pay a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer SI for one month for the offence under section 279 IPC. He was fined

Rs.100/- for the offence under sections 119/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence vide Criminal Appeal No.87/2008, which too was dismissed vide order dated 05.02.2009.

3. One Ct. Sukhbir Singh, PW.7 was on duty at red light of Nanaksir Gurdwara, Wazirabad Road from 08:00 a.m. to 09:00 p.m. on 20.09.2000. The red light signal, at that point, was out of order and therefore Ct. Sukhbir Singh, PW.7 was managing the traffic by hand. At about 09:00 a.m., one old lady came from the side of Sonia Vihar and started crossing the road towards Nanaksir Gurdwara. At that point of time, the offending vehicle which was being driven by the petitioner came from the side of Bhajanpura and the old lady came under the right side rear wheel of the vehicle. The vehicle was stopped at a distance of 50m from the red light. Ct. Sukhbir Singh had stopped the vehicle coming from the Wazirabad side. Ct. Ramesh Chand, PW.4 also came at the place of the occurrence on intimation having been given to him from the control room. Thereafter SI Ved Raj Singh, PW.10 who is IO of the case, also arrived.

4. The revisionist/petitioner was handed over to PW.10, SI Ved Raj Singh.

5. On the basis of the statement of Ct.Sukhbir Singh, PW.7 (Ex.PW.10/A), FIR (Ex.PW.5/A) was registered against the petitioner for offences under sections 279/304A of the IPC and 119/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. At the trial, 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and none on behalf of the defence.

7. Ram Gopal and Ramesh, PWs.1 & 2 respectively have identified the dead body as that of their mother, late Smt.Ram Kali Devi. The death was found to be because of the accident as per the report of Dr. Arvind Kohli, PW.3 (Ex.PW.3/A). Ct. Sukhbir Singh, PW.7 and Ct. Ramesh Chand, PW.4 were available at the place of occurrence. PW.7 had seen the occurrence whereas PW.4 had come to the place of occurrence on the intimation from the control room.

8. As against the prosecution version, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner before the Trial Court that the petitioner, as a driver of the offending vehicle, could not have been held guilty for the offence as the deceased was crushed under the rear right side wheel of the offending vehicle. It was also submitted that the accident could not have taken place because of negligent and rash driving of the petitioner as admittedly at the time of the accident, vehicles were being driven at a slow speed. PW.7 in his cross-examination had stated that all the vehicles on the road at that time moved at slow speed. No public witness was examined to bring home the charges. It was also argued that only because a lady died under the rear right side of the wheel of the offending vehicle which was being driven by him, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced and his appeal was dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The very fact that

the deceased was not hit from the front side of the vehicle was a surest evidence of the fact that the vehicle was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

10. The element of contributory negligence has been ignored by both the courts below.

11. From the deposition of PW.7, it is clearly established that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. At the red light even when the vehicles coming from Wazirabad side had been stopped, the petitioner drove his vehicle from the Wazirabad side which led to the accident. That the vehicle could be stopped 50m beyond the red light is also indicative of the vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The death of Ram Kali further affirms the aforesaid allegation.

12. Thus, so far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, this Court would not like to interfere with the same and to that extent, the order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as by the Appellate Court are affirmed and upheld.

13. However, taking into account the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 2000, the petitioner participated in the trial all through and there being nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has ever repeated the offence, this Court feels compelled to take a moderate view on the sentence imposed upon the petitioner.

14. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the occurrence is 17 years' old and the present revision petition was filed in the year 2009 which remained pending till date. It has also been argued that notwithstanding the nature of offence, greater emphasis

now is sought to be laid on the reformatory aspect of sentencing. Not always would the deterrent aspect of the sentencing be beneficial to the society.

15. In B.G. Goswami vs. Delhi Administration: AIR 1973 SC 1457, it has been held as follows:

"18. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after 7 years of the annoy and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs- 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same."

16. Taking into account the mitigating circumstances and the expectation of this Court that the petitioner, over the passage of time, has reformed himself, this Court deems it appropriate that benefit of

probation be given to the petitioner under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

17. The petitioner is granted time of four weeks from the date of this order to furnish the requisite bond of good behaviour for one year before the Registrar General of Delhi High Court as required by law. If the bond is filed, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner shall remain suspended for a period of one year. If the petitioner successfully completes the period of probation, the sentence would not be given effect to.

18. This revision petition is partially allowed to the extent indicated above.

19. LCR be returned forthwith.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J AUGUST 04, 2017 ab