Delhi High Court
Sukhpal Singh vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi ) on 19 August, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 696/2016 and CRL.M.A. 373/2018 (direction)
Reserved on : 05.08.2019
Date of Decision : 19.08.2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
SUKHPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Vyas, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State
with SI Ajay Kumar, P.S. Kashmere Gate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
1. The present proceedings are instituted challenging the impugned
order dated 14.09.2016, passed by ASJ (Central), Delhi arising out of CA
No.41/16 whereby while dismissing the appeal, the court upheld the
order dated 28.05.2016 and order on sentence dated 13.07.2016
convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section
279/304-A IPC. For the offence under section 304A IPC, the revisionist
was directed to undergo SI for two years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in
default thereof to undergo SI for a period of one month and for the
offence under section 279 IPC, the revisionist was directed to undergo SI
for six months with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof to undergo SI
for a further period of 10 days.
2. The facts of the prosecution, as noted by the Metropolitan
Magistrate, are that:-
"It is the case of prosecution that on 23.04.2008 at about 4.35
a.m. near ISBT Flyover, Kashmere Gate, accused Sukhpal was
found driving one Truck bearing no. HR-38F-9897 in a rash &
negligent manner and while driving the vehicle in such manner
hit against two persons namely Sharafat & Sanjay and caused
their death. The present case was registered on the complaint
of HC Rajpal. After completion of investigation charge-sheet
was filed against the accused Sukhpal for the offences
punishable under Section 279/304-A IPC."
3. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and was charged for the offences
punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC was framed.
4. The prosecution examined total of 14 witnesses during the trial.
5. The prosecution had examined the complainant, HC Rajpal Singh
as PW-6. He was an eyewitness to the incident. He along with PW-14
was on patrolling duty in the area and had seen the accident.
6. Mr. Bhanwar Singh was the registered owner of the truck No. HR-
-38F-9897. He was examined as PW-7. He deposed that the revisionist
was driving the truck at the time of the accident.
7. A perusal of the records shows that the revisionist has not disputed
his presence at the spot.
8. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the
revisionist has argued that the accident did not occur in the manner as
alleged by the prosecution. He contended that the scooter driven by the
deceased had hit the truck in the middle on the left side. He submitted
that the scooter was coming from the direction of Shyam Nath Marg
whereas the truck was moving from the side of Tis Hazari to ISBT. The
contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is belied not only by the
oral testimony of PW-6 and PW-14 but also by the mechanical
inspection report of the truck as well as the photographs placed on the
record.
9. Both the eyewitnesses have deposed that the scooter was hit from
the backside. The mechanical inspection report was proved by ASI
Devender Kumar, who was examined as PW-4. As per the mechanical
inspection report, Ex. 4/A, there were scratches on the front axle beam
on the front side of the truck. Even the photographs show that the body
of the scooter was entangled under the front two wheels of the truck.
Both the eyewitnesses have deposed that truck was driven in a rash and
negligent manner. It was contended that no public witness joined the
investigation. I do not find much force in the contention as the accident
had occurred in early morning on 23.04.2008 at about 4:35 am. Even
otherwise, PW-6 and PW-14, being on patrolling duty, witnessed the
accident.
10. Dr. B.K. Sharma, who conducted the postmortem, was examined
as PW-2. As per the postmortem, the injuries were antemortem in nature
caused by blunt force impact, possible in road side accident. The cause
of death was found to be hemorrhagic shock consequent upon grievous
injuries.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the
revisionist has suffered the trial for 11 years. He has also submitted that
he is the sole bread earner for his family consisting of his wife, three
minor school going children aged about 13 years, 12 years and 4 years
respectively. He also submitted that the elder daughter who is aged about
13 years is suffering from Convulsion Disorder since birth. Her medical
documents are placed on record.
12. A perusal of the Nominal Roll shows that as on 07.08.2019, the
revisionist has undergone 1 year, 9 months and 18 days including period
of remission and his unexpired portion of sentence 2 months and 12
days.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the
revisionist is upheld. The sentence of the appellant is modified to the
period already undergone subject to deposit of fine, if not already paid.
In the event, the find is not paid, the revisionist will undergo the sentence
in default of payment of fine.
14. In view of the above, I find no infirmity or perversity in the
impugned judgment and the concurrent findings reached by both the
courts. As a result, the revision petition is allowed to the extent that
revisionist is sentenced to the period already undergone.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 19th, 2019
na
