Delhi High Court
Bhagwan Dass vs State on 22 November, 2018
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.11.2018
+ CRL.REV.P. 753/2018
BHAGWAN DASS ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Adv (DHCLSC)
For the Respondent : Ms. Kusum Dhalla, Addl. PP for the State with SI
Sunil Chandra
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 22.11.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 27.01.2018 whereby appeal
of the petitioner impugning order on conviction dated 18.07.2014 and
order on sentence dated 06.08.2015 was dismissed.
2. Petitioner has been convicted of the offence under Sections
279/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of six months each for the offence under Sections 279 and
338 IPC and further sentenced to undergo SI for a period of one year
for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Petitioner has been further
directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for the offences under
Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and to further pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/-
as compensation for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, in default
to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner who appears through Delhi
High Court Legal Service Committee, submits that the trial court as
well as the appellate court have not appreciated the evidence
correctly.
5. Petitioner was a driver of Redline Passenger Bus. As per the
case of the prosecution, the petitioner was driving the bus in rash and
negligent manner thereby hit the scooter which was being driven by
PW1 and the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider. As per the
prosecution, the petitioner while driving the bus hit the scooter from
behind because of which the scooter fell down and the victim came
under the tyre of the bus and died.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the testimony of
PW1 cannot be believed as he has admitted in his cross-examination
that the bus was behind the scooter and thus he could not have seen
the manner in which the bus was being driven. He further submits that
the testimony of PW1 further cannot be believed that the bus was
being driven in rash and negligent manner without any averment as to
how it was being driven.
7. Learned counsel further submits that PW2 who has been
produced as a prosecution eye-witness who could not have seen the
accident as he was in a Three-Wheeler on the right side and the victim
came under the left tyre of the bus.
8. Learned Addl. PP submits that the testimony of PW2 is
sufficient to establish that the petitioner was driving the bus in rash
and negligent manner as the accident took place in the front of the bus
and scooter was in front so the testimony of PW2 cannot be doubted.
She further submits that the accident has been substantiated by the
mechanical examination report. Further, it is contended that there is
no dispute that the petitioner was driving the bus and the victim came
under the tyre of the bus.
9. I have perused the record of the trial court as well as the
appellate court. Though there may be a doubt in the manner in which
the bus was being driven and even if the testimony of PW1 is
disregarded, testimony of PW2 cannot be disregarded completely.
10. The petitioner has been in custody since 09.02.2018 and as per
the nominal roll of the petitioner as on 09.08.2018 had undergone six
months and 1 day of imprisonment and thereafter three months 12
days have passed and he may also has earned some remission during
this period. Further, it is pointed out that petitioner was a driver and
after the accident, which took place in the year 1995 he has given up
the job and thereafter started vending fruits and vegetables. The
petitioner is sole bread-earner of the family comprising of wife and
three minor children who are studying and was earning only Rs.
6,000/- per month.
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as also the
evidence recorded, I am of the view that the interest of justice would
be served in case the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period
already undergone. Keeping in view the financial condition of the
petitioner the compensation amount is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- and in
default sentence is reduced to 15 days (compensation amount for the
offence under Section 338 IPC is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs.
20,000/- and compensation amount for the offence under Section 304-
A is reduced to Rs. 40,000/- from Rs. 80,000/-).
12. Prior to release of the petitioner, the Superintendent (Jail) shall
ensure that the compensation amount as reduced by this Court has
been paid or the petitioner has undergone simple imprisonment of 15
days for in default period.
13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
14. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
NOVEMBER 22, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'rs'
