Delhi High Court
State vs Raj Bahadur on 26 March, 2019
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26.03.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 813/2016
STATE ..... Petitioner
versus
RAJ BAHADUR ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State.
ASI Ram Roop, PS Subhash Place.
For the Respondent : Ms. Mallika Parmar, Advocate, (DHCLSC)
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.REV.P. 813/2016 & Crl.M.A.19624/2016 (for condonation of
delay)
1. Petitioner State impugns judgment dated 07.06.2016, whereby, the
Appellate Court has reversed the judgment dated 18.09.2014, whereby, the
respondent was held guilty of the offence under Sections 279/377/304A
IPC and Sections 3/181 Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 2 years for the offence under Section 304A and 6 months for the
offence under Section 279 IPC and 3 months for the offence under Section
337 IPC and one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section
3/181 Motor Vehicle Act and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the
legal heirs of the deceased.
3. The Trial Court was of the view that the prosecution had proved the
case beyond reasonable doubt and established that the accident between the
bus being driven by the respondent and the Maruti car being driven by the
brother of the deceased occurred on account of rash and negligent driving
by the respondent.
4. The Appellate Court, on perusal inter alia of the testimony of PW5,
the injured i.e. the brother of the deceased, who was driving the car, found
that the testimony did not establish rash and negligent driving on the part of
the respondent.
5. On 23.09.2003, the complainant was driving his Maruti car with his
brother, the deceased, sitting beside him. The case of the prosecution is
that when they reached near Prembadi Pul, a DTC bus being driven by the
respondent came from the front side in a rash and negligent manner and
with a fast speed hit against the front left side of the car. Both the brothers
sustained injuries. The deceased succumbed to his injuries after nearly a
month.
6. Since the case was not treated as an MLC case, there was no Post
Mortem Report giving an opinion with regard to the cause of death.
However subsequent report from AIIMS has been placed on record which
states that the death could have been caused by the accident.
7. Learned APP for the State has referred to the statement of PW5 as
also the photographs of the Maruti car being driven by the complainant as
also the site plan to contend that the Appellate Court has erred in returning
a finding that the prosecution has failed to establish that the respondent was
driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
material on record clearly establishes that the respondent was not driving
the bus in a rash and negligent manner and the collision occurred on
account of the negligence of the complainant, who had taken a sudden turn
and come in front of the bus.
9. PW5 in his testimony has deposed that he was driving the car with
his brother sitting beside him. He has deposed that when he reached near
Prembadi Pul, the offending bus came from the front side in a rash and
negligent manner and with a fast speed hit against the front left side of the
car.
10. Perusal of the photographs of the Maruti car, which form part of the
Trial Court record, show that the impact has taken place on the left side of
the Maruti car and there is damage on account of the collision to the front
side of the car.
11. Perusal of the site plan exhibited as Ex.PW9/A shows that there is a
divider with a break in the median where the accident has taken place. The
mechanical inspection report of the DTC bus shows that the damage is to
the front bumper fender, front grill and front right-side corner of the bus.
When the site plan is examined along with the inspection report of the bus
and the photographs, it shows that the collision took place not on the front
but on the side of the Maruti car, which establishes that the two vehicles
were nearly perpendicular to each other.
12. It is not a case of the prosecution that the bus had taken a turn rather
the case of the defence was that the Maruti car, being driven by the brother
of the deceased, had taken a sudden right turn in the median and come in
front of the bus. This is apparent from the suggestion given to PW-5 at the
time of his cross-examination.
13. Perusal from the material on record indicates that the view taken by
the Appellate Court that the prosecution has failed to establish that the bus
was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent and the
accident occurred on account of his rash and negligent driving, does not
seem to be unreasonable.
14. As there was a divider in between the road, the accident could not
have been possible unless either the bus had gone on to the wrong side or
the Maruti car had come on the wrong side. The site plan indicates that the
accident took place on the left side of the road i.e. on the side where the bus
was being driven, which further fortifies the theory of the defence that the
car being driven by the brother of the deceased had taken a turn and come
in front of the bus.
15. On perusal of the record I am satisfied that there is no infirmity in
the view taken by the Appellate Court in holding that the prosecution has
failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accident occurred on
account of rash and negligent act on the part of the respondent.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further contends that
the subject revision petition is not maintainable in view of the express bar
laid down in sub Sections (3) and (4) of Sections 401 Cr.P.C..
17. In view of the fact that I have considered the evidence on record and
found no merit in the case of the prosecution and also found that the
prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the
respondent was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and the
accident occurred on account of his rash and negligent act, this question is
left open.
18. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. The Petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
19. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 26, 2019/st
