Delhi High Court
Sh. Pramod Kumar Yadav vs State & Anr. on 7 February, 2019
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07.02.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 1134/2018 & Crl. M. (Bail) 1929/2018
SH. PRAMOD KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Nath Saini and Mr. Naman Gambheer,
Advs.
For the Respondent : Mr. Hirein Sharma, Addl. PP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 07.02.2019
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 16.05.2018 of the appellate
court whereby the appeal of the petitioner impugning judgment on
conviction dated 25.07.2017 and order on sentence dated 27.07.2017
was dismissed.
2. Petitioner has been convicted of offence under sections
279/338/304-A IPC of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Petitioner has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of six months along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-
for the offences punishable under Sections 279 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months
along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Rigorous Imprisonment
for a period of two years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to
further undergo imprisonment for a period of three months in default
of payment of fine.
4. In the appeal, the appellate court modified the order on sentence
partially and deleted the fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offences
under Sections 279/338 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and fine of Rs.
5,000/- for the offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860
and directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to
the family of the deceased Neha and Rs. 10,000/- to the injured Rinki.
5. The case against the petitioner is that while he was driving a
truck he hit a bicycle which was being ridden by PW-2 along with
three children. It is alleged that the petitioner was driving the truck in
a rash and negligent manner and accordingly hit the bicycle at a high
speed from behind. The deceased came under the rear tyre of the truck
and one other child also sustained injuries.
6. The father of the deceased Neha and injured Rinki (PW1)
deposed regarding the accident caused by the appellant. The testimony
of PW-1 was corroborated by the statement of PW-2 who was
produced as prosecution eye witness. It was further observed that the
owner of the subject truck (PW-4) deposed in his testimony that the
truck on the date of the incident was driven by the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court as
well as appellate court erred in not appreciating that there was no
evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner was
driving the truck in rash and negligent manner. Learned counsel
further submits that the only testimony with regard to manner of
driving the truck was the statement of PW-2. He submits that since
PW-2 was riding the bicycle and has is alleged to have been hit from
behind, he could not have seen the speed or manner in which the
petitioner was driving the truck.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
the sole bread earner in the family and has already undergone one year
of sentence out of the two years sentence awarded. He further submits
that petitioner has five school going children, besides wife and old
aged parents to take care of and because of his incarceration, his entire
family is suffering.
9. Learned counsel further submits that since the date of the
accident till date the petitioner has not been involved in any other case
of rash and negligent driving and has clean antecedents.
10. I have perused the record of the trial court as well as the
appellate court. Further as per the nominal roll the appellant has
undergone 9 months and 3 days of imprisonment and earned
remission of 2 months and 27 days and thereafter 3 more days have
passed.
11. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances as
also the evidence on record and the fact that the petitioner is sole
bread earner of the family and has already undergone half of the
sentence, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice if
the conviction of the petitioner is sustained, but, the sentence of the
petitioner is reduced to the period undergone.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the
compensation amount has not yet been paid.
13. Since the petitioner has not paid the compensation amount in
terms of order dated 16.05.2018 and nearly 9 months have passed, I
am of the view that interest of justice would further require slight
enhancement in the compensation amount.
14. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of
Rs. 65,000/- to the family of the deceased - Neha and a sum of Rs.
15,000/- to the injured Rinki.
15. In view of the above, on petitioner's depositing the said amount
of Rs. 80,000/- as mentioned above, petitioner be released forthwith,
if not required in another case. Superintendent (Jail) is directed to
ensure, prior to release of the petitioner, that petitioner has deposited
said amount with the trial court and furnished the proof of the deposit
of the said amount to the Superintendent (Jail).
16. On receipt of the compensation amount, trial court is directed to
disburse the same to the family of the deceased - Neha as well as to
the injured - Rinki as expeditiously as possible.
17. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Copy of the
order be communicated to the Superintendent (Jail) for compliance.
18. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
FEBRUARY 07, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'rs'
