Delhi High Court
Mahaveer Prasad vs State Nct Of Delhi on 26 September, 2024
Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 06thAugust, 2024
Decided on: 26thSeptember, 2024
+ CRL. REV. P. 585/2007
MAHAVEER PRASAD .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. K. S. Chauhan, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Ajit
Kumar Ekka, Mr. S. P.
Singh, Mr. R.S.M. Kalky,
Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Dr.
K. Elumalai and Mr. Ajit
Kumar, Advocate
V
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh
Chauhan, APP for the State
with SI Kirandeep Kour,
P.S. K. M. Pur, Delhi
CORAM
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal revision petition is filed under sections
397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Code") to set aside the judgment dated 25.08.2007
(hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") passed by the
court of Sh. V.K. Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 1
Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court")
in Criminal Appeal bearing no. 28/2006 titled as Mahaveer Prasad
V State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) against the judgment dated
10.05.2006 and order on sentence dated 20.05.2006 passed by the
court of Sh. Manish Yadhuvanshi, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial
court") in case arising out of the FIR bearing no.229/1998 registered
under sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as "IPC") read with sections 3/181/185 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 at PS Kotla Mubarakpur.
2. The relevant facts as reflected from the impugned judgment
passed by the trial court are that SI Dinesh Kumar (hereinafter
referred to as "the Investigating Officer") along with Ct. Subhash
after receipt of DD bearing no. 18A dated 07.06.1998 recorded at PS
Kotla Mubarakpur regarding an accident went to the spot where he
found one Yamaha motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 3SP 1609
(hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") was lying in an
accidental condition. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer went to
AIIMS Hospital where he found that the injured Ramshree was under
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 2
treatment. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Satya
Prakash Gupta who was son-in-law of the injured (hereinafter
referred to as "the complainant") wherein stated that he along with
Ramshree/injured was returning from house of relative situated at
951, Nehru Road, Arjun Nagar on 07.06.1998 at around 10:20 pm
and while crossing BP Marg, near Defence Colony then a motorcycle
bearing no DL 3SP 1069 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending
vehicle") which was being driven by a police officer in a rash and
negligent manner in the wrong direction hit Ramshree. The
complainant along with Ramshree fell down on the road due to the
collision as a result of which Ramshree sustained injuries. PCR
removed Ramshree and the complainant to AIIMS hospital.
Thereafter, the present FIR bearing no.229/1998 was got registered
under sections 279/337 IPC read with sections 3/181 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") on the
basis of the statement made by the complainant. The Investigating
Officer conducted further investigation. Ramshree (hereinafter
referred to as "the deceased") died during the treatment and the post-
mortem on dead body of the deceased was conducted. The
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 3
Investigating Officer added section 304A IPC in place of section 337
IPC due to the death of the deceased. The driver during investigation
was found under the influence of alcohol and could not produce his
Driving License which resulted in addition of section 185 of the MV
Act. The driver was arrested and was identified as Mahavir Prasad
(hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner"). The charge sheet after
conclusion of investigation was filed on 05.11.2009. The concerned
court had taken the cognizance and after complying with section 207
of the Code, notice under section 251 of the Code was given to the
petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 279/304A IPC
read with sections 3/181/185 of the MV Act vide order dated
28.08.2000 to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner examined 13
witnesses including the complainant as PW3 and the Investigating
Officer as PW12. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under
section 313 of the Code read with section 281 of the Code wherein
the petitioner pleaded innocence and false implication. The petitioner
also stated that no accident was caused by him. The accident caused
by a government vehicle bearing registration no. DL 1CF 2449 being
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 4
driven by the SHO, PS Kotla Mubarakpur namely Dhanvir Dutt who
was coming from wrong direction and hit the deceased. SHO also hit
motorcycle being driven by the petitioner as SHO was driving his
vehicle at very fast speed and in rash and negligent manner. The
petitioner also received injuries and the complainant was not present
at spot. The petitioner further stated that the deceased and a child
were only present at the spot. The petitioner was falsely implicated at
the instance of the SHO Dhanvir Dutt. The petitioner was going to
Police Station Lodhi Colony where he was posted at that time at
about 9.30/9.45 pm. The accident was caused by the Govt. Gypsy
bearing no DL-lCF-2449 being driven by the SHO Dhanvir Dutt who
was coming from the wrong side from Andrews Ganj and going
towards Sewa Nagar Flyover and he struck against an old lady while
driving the Gypsy on a wrong side.The petitioner preferred to lead
defence evidence and examined Chain Singh as DW1.
2.1 The trial court vide judgment dated 10.05.2006 convicted the
petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 279/304A IPC
read with sections 3/181/185 of the MV Act. The trial court vide
order on sentence dated 20.05.2006 sentenced the petitioner to
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 5
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year i.e., 12
months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine,
to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 07 days for
the offence punishable under section 304A IPC. The petitioner was
sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine,
to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 13 days for
the offence punishable under section 279 IPC. The petitioner was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02
months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of
fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 07 days
for the offence punishable under sections 3/181 of the MV Act. The
petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 02 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default
of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a
period of 07 days for the offence punishable under section 185 of the
MV Act. The trial court ordered that all the sentences shall run
concurrently.
2.2 The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.05.2006
and the order on sentence dated 20.05.2006 passed by the trial court
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 6
preferred a Criminal Appeal bearing no. 28/2006 titled as Mahaveer
Prasad V State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) which was ordered to be
dismissed by the appellate court vide impugned judgment dated
25.08.2007.
3. The petitioner challenged the impugned judgment dated
25.08.2007 passed by the appellate court by filing the present petition
on grounds that it is contrary to law. The appellate court has not
considered evidence in accordance with law and has not relied upon
the DW1 Chain Singh who was a public eye-witness who stated that
the alleged accident was caused by the police gypsy. The prosecution
has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accident was
caused by the petitioner. The appellate court over looked that most of
PWs were related to each other and were under total influence of the
then SHO Sh. D.V. Dutt. PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta was a planted
witness. PW9 Vimla Kohli turned out to be a hostile witness. PW4 in
the departmental enquiry stated that the injured lady was removed to
the hospital in police gypsy.The trial court has failed to appreciate
PCR report which stated that SHO Kotla Mubarakpur was present on
the spot of the accident on 07.06.1998 and the injured Ramshree was
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 7
sent to the hospital in the said gypsy which was contrary to the
statement of the SHO Kotla Mubarakpur during departmental enquiry
wherein stated that the vehicle bearing no. DL 1CF 2449 was not in
working condition on 07.06.1998 but DD no. 36B dated 08.06.1998
shows that the vehicle plied on the road on 08.06.1998. The
commission of offence under section 185 of the MV Act cannot
sustain since there was no evidence that the petitioner had consumed
alcohol. The commission of offences under sections 3/181 of the MV
Act also cannot sustain since the petitioner was holding a valid
Driving Licence bearing no. P 97070435 dated 23.07.1997 on the day
of the accident with validity upto 22.07.2002. The statement of the
eye-witness PW10 Manish Kumar cannot be relied upon as it is full
of confusion. The trial court has erred in relying on the statement of
the planted eye-witness PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta who could not
clear the fact about the presence of a child with the deceased at the
time of the accident. The trial court failed to appreciate the testimony
of the PW8 Constable Subhash who stated that he reached on the spot
of the accident along with the Investigating Officer who did not
record any statement as no one claimed to be the eye-witness. There
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 8
are several contradictions in the respective statements of the
witnesses examined by the prosecution. It was prayed that the
impugned judgment dated 25.08.2007 be aside and the petitioner be
acquitted.
4. The prosecution during trial in support of its case examined the
complainant as PW3 who deposed that on he along with the deceased
were returning from their relative's house at 951, Nehru Road, Arjun
Nagar on 07.06.1998 at around 10:20 PM and while crossing BP
Marg, near Defence Colony, the offending vehicle which was being
driven by a police officer in a rash and negligent manner in the wrong
direction hit the deceased Ramshree. The complainant along with the
deceased fell down on the road due to the collision as a result of
which the deceased sustained injuries. The petitioner was
apprehended at the spot. PW3/the complainant also identified his
signature on statement Ex.PW3/A. The prosecution examined as
PW5 who mechanically inspected the offending vehicle vide report
Ex.PW5/A. The prosecution also examined PW4 Dr. T Milo
identified the signatures of Dr. Vipin Chawla who conducted the
post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 08.06.1998 vide report
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 9
Ex. PW4/A and opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem and the
cause of the death was due to hemorrhage shock due to blunt force
impact. PW12/Investigating Officer deposed about the modalities of
the investigation conducted by him.
5. The counsel for the petitioner advanced oral arguments and
submitted written synopsis wherein it was stated that the petitioner in
the present case was falsely implicated as an accused as the accident
was not caused by him. The accident was caused by the then serving
SHO of the PS Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi who to save him from
the criminal liability implicated the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded
innocence in statement recorded under section 313 of the code and
asserted that the accident was caused by the police gypsy bearing no.
DL1CF 2449 being driven by the then SHO Dhanvir Dutt, PS Kotla
Mubarakpur, New Delhi. SHO Dhanvir Dutt came from the wrong
side and first hit the deceased and thereafter hit the motor cycle of the
petitioner. The petitioner after that incident got injured seriously and
was hospitalized and the petitioner after being recovered went to the
police station to lodge the complainant which was not registered.
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 10
5.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the
complainant/PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta claiming to be the eye
witness and son-in-law of the deceased lady was never present on the
spot when the incident pertaining to the present case had happened
and testimony of DW1 reflects that the police gypsy who was coming
from the wrong side from Andrews Ganj and going towards Sewa
Nagar Flyover had caused the accident by hitting the deceased and
then the gypsy ran away from the spot and another police gypsy came
and took the injured lady and the child to the hospital. The trial court
has erred in passing the impugned order as passed without
appreciating the deposition of the DW1.
5.2 It was also argued that contention of the prosecution that the
gypsy bearing no. DL 1CF 2449 was off road and as such was not
driven by the SHO on the relevant date and time was a false
assertion. DD entry no. 36B recorded by the Inspector DV Dutt made
it clear that the SHO was on Ilaqa Gasht (patrolling duty in area).
The petitioner was falsely framed by the SHO DV Dutt.
5.3 It was also argued that as per the postmortem report bearing no.
571/98 dated 08.06.1998 EX. PW4/A pertaining to the deceased
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 11
cause of death of the deceased victim was hemorrhage shock caused
due to the injuries received and ante-mortem injuries were caused by
the blunt force but as per the medical jurisprudence the alleged
injuries can only be sustained in collusion with a four wheeler only.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied on Adambhai Sulemanbhai
Ajmeri V State of Gujarat, (2014) 7 SCC 716. It was argued that
the present revision petition be allowed.
6. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State argued
that the testimony of PW3/complainant was sufficient to prove the
guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner can
be convicted only on the basis of the testimony of PW3/complainant.
It was argued that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment
dated 10.05.2006 and order on sentence dated 20.05.2006 passed by
the trial court andthe impugned judgment dated 25.08.2007 passed by
the appellate court. The present petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Section 279 IPC deals with rash driving or riding on a public way.
It reads as under:-
279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.--Whoever
drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner
so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be
likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 12
punished with im-prisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to six months, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 304A IPC deals with causing death by negligence. It reads as
under:-
304A. Causing death by negligence.--Whoever causes the
death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not
amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
7.1 The Supreme Court in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan V
State of Andhra Pradesh, (2007)7SCC72 about rashness and
negligence observed as under:-
A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a
deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the
sense that it was done without due care and caution.
Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act
with recklessness and with indifference as to the
consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise
duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution
guarding against injury to the public generally or to any
individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the
driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper
care and precaution.
8. The trial court and the appellate court primarily relied on
testimony of PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta who as per prosecution was
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 13
eye witness of the accident and happened to be son-in-law of the
deceased. A witness in a criminal trial has pivotal role to play and is
an important component in determining the truth. A witness generally
has relevant information about commission of crime and the role of a
witness is paramount in the Criminal Justice System. The judicial
process needs witnesses to give evidence so that courts can reach at a
verdict or decision. The witness by deposing in courts assists the
court in discovering truth. The witnesses are important partner in the
dispensation of justice. The Supreme Court in Mahender Chawla V
Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.156/2016 decided on
05th December, 2018 highlighted importance of witness in a trial and
observed as under:-
Witnesses are important players in the judicial system, who
help the judges in arriving at correct factual findings. The
instrument of evidence is the medium through which facts,
either disputed or required to be proved, are effectively
conveyed to the courts. This evidence in the form of
documentary and oral is given by the witnesses. A witness
may be a partisan or interested witness, i.e., a witness who
is in a near relation with the victim of crime or is concerned
with conviction of the accused person. Even his testimony is
relevant, though, stricter scrutiny is required while
adjudging the credence of such a victim. However, apart
from these witnesses or the witnesses who may themselves
be the victims, other witnesses may not have any personal
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 14
interest in the outcome of a case. They still help the judicial
system.
9. The testimony of PW3Satya Prakash Gupta reflects that he along
with the deceased was returning from their relative's house situated
at 951, Nehru Road, Arjun Nagar on 07.06.1998 at around 10:20 pm
and while crossing BP Marg, near Defence Colony, the offending
vehicle which was being driven by the petitioner in a rash and
negligent manner came from the wrong direction hit the deceased.
PW3 along with the deceased fell down on the road due to the
collision as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and was
removed to AIIMS hospital. The defence in cross examination of
PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta attempted to establish although
unsuccessfully that PW3 was not an eye witness to the accident and
was not accompanied by the deceased. It was also alleged that PW3
was a planted witness and was not the son-in-law of the deceased.
PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta denied the suggestion that he was not
accompanying the deceased and that he was the son-in-law of the
deceased. PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta also denied the suggestion that
the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 15
the petitioner and the deceased had expired due to collusion of the
police gypsy driven by the SHO Kotla Mubarakpur. The testimony of
PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta proved that the petitioner was negligent in
taking care towards the deceased which is expected from a person of
ordinary and normal prudence. The petitioner was expected to take
appropriate care towards the deceased when she was crossing the
road. The testimony of PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta amply proved that
the petitioner caused the death of the deceased on account of his rash
and negligent act and his testimony is corroborated by the testimony
of PW10 and PW11 who were also the eye-witnesses to the said
accident. The post-mortem report Ex. PW4/A proved that all the
injuries were ante-mortem in nature consistent with road traffic
accidentand that the cause of the death was due to hemorrhage shock
due to blunt force impact. There is no factual force in argument
advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that he was
not negligent while driving the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle and
that the SHO PS Kotla Mubarakpur was the actual offender who
caused the accident by driving his police gypsy in a rash and
negligent manner and by hitting the deceased and the petitioner.
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 16
10. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the testimony
of PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta cannot be relied on as he was a planted
witness and pretended to be the son-in-law of the deceased to gain
compensation from the death of the deceased. In a criminal trial, it is
the quality and not the quantity of evidence, which matters for
proving, or disproving a fact and emphasis is laid on quality of
evidence rather than multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. The
testimony of solitary witness should be cogent, credible and
trustworthy. It was observed in Kuna @ SanjayaBehera V State of
Odisha, 2017 SCC Online Supreme Court 1336 that the conviction
can be based on the testimony of single eye witness if he or she
passes the test of reliability and that is not the number of witnesses
but the quality of evidence that is important. If the investigation did
not include any other person in investigation, it is not fatal to case of
prosecution as the testimony of PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta is credible,
cogent and does inspire confidence and there is no reason to discard
testimony of PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta which is otherwise narrative
of true facts.
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 17
11. PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta is the son-in-law of the deceased and
as such PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta and deceased were directly related
to each other. The witnesses who are related to the victim are as
competent to depose the facts as any other witness and mere
relationship does not disqualify a witness. The testimony of
interested witness is required to be carefully scrutinized and
appreciated as a matter of caution.The Supreme Court in Dalip Singh
& Others V State of Punjab, (1954) 1 SCR 145 observed as under:
Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the
real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is
true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for
enmity, that here is a tendency to drag in an innocent
person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the
guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and
the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is
often a sure guarantee of truth.
11.1 The Supreme Court in Masalti V State of UP, (1964) 8 SCR
133 also observed as under:-
There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to
appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or
interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such
evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the
evidence; whether or not the evidence strikes the Court as
genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence
is probable, are all matters which must be taken into
account.
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 18
But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that
evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the
ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested
witnesses..... The mechanical rejection of such evidence on
the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to
failure of justice".
There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be
treated as untruthful witnesses.
If the evidence of an eyewitness, though a close relative of
the victim, inspires confidence, it must be relied upon
without seeking corroboration with minute material
particulars. It is no doubt true that the Courts must be
cautious while considering the evidence of interested
witnesses.
11.2 The Supreme Court in Kartik Malhar V State of Bihar,
(1996) 1 SCC 614 also opined that a close relative who is a natural
witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness and in Thoti
Manohar V State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No
1739/2007 decided on 15th May,2012 also observed as under:-
We find that the evidence of the injured witnesses who are
close relatives to the deceased have really not embellished
or exaggerated the case of the prosecution. They are the
most natural witnesses and there is nothing on record to
doubt their presence at the place of occurrence. By no
stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the presence of
the said witnesses at the scene of the crime and at the time
of occurrence was improbable. Their version is consistent
and nothing has been suggested to bring any kind of
inherent improbabilities in their testimonies.
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 19
11.3 PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta happened to be with the deceased on
the day and time of accident as they were coming back home together
from their relative's house. If PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta is related to
the deceased being his son-in-law, it does not mean that his testimony
is liable to be rejected on this ground. In criminal cases court should
not adopt mechanical approach in appreciating evidence of
prosecution. The testimony of PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta is only
required to be scrutinized with care and caution. The testimony of
PW3 is trustworthy, credible and narrative of true facts pertaining to
accident and is corroborated by PW10 and PW11 who were also the
eye witnesses of the said accident. The plea of the petitioner that the
testimony of PW3 Satya Prakash Gupta being an interested witness
cannot be relied on is without any legal substance. The appellate
court after appreciating evidence led by the prosecution as made
observations which were based on cogent and substantial reasons and
are as under:-
7. After hearing the arguments and going through
therecord, I found that in the present case the three eye
witnesses PW3, PW10 and PW11 had consistently stated
that this accident has been caused by one motorcycle being
driven by the appellant. The defence taken is that this
accident is not caused by the motorcycle but by the gypsy.
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 20
Appellant has also examined one witness as DW1who also
stated that this accident has been caused by one gypsy and
not by the motorcycle of theappellant. PW3 was cross
examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant
and there is no such question put to him that this accident
wascaused by the gypsy No.DL ICF 2449 and not by
hismotorcycle.Infactit was suggested to the witness that he
was not present at the spot and this accident has taken
place with the scooter and not with the motorcycle. Keeping
in view the testimonies of three eye witnesses,which are
consistent on the point that accident is caused by the
motorcycle of the accused not with the gypsy coupled with
the fact that other records which are on the judicial file also
show that this accident has taken place by the motorcycle
clearly show that this accident was in between the
motorcycle and the lady. The controversy has been raised
about DD No.15A and DD No. 18 by the Ld.counsel for the
appellant but the record clearly shows that DD No. 15A was
recorded on the information given by one Lady Ct. Prabha
No.3762/PCR which was sent by SI Dinesh Kumar. This
was recorded at 10.30 p.m. and at 10.356 p.m. DD N0.I8A
was recorded on the information given by Lady Ct.
No.3699/PCR and SI Dinesh Kumar on his return made DD
entry No.51 and reported that DD No. 14 and DD No. 15
were found bogus and about DD N0.I8A he has mentioned
that case FIR has been registered i.e. the present case.
Keeping in view all these facts and the evidence on record, I
do not find any merit in the contention that the accident
was caused by the gypsy of the SHO.
8. So far as the defence witness is concernedaccording to
him he had taken the motorcycle from the spot and took to
PS K.M.Pur whereas according to PW12 the motorcycle
was on the spot. It is also mentioned in the rukka
Ex.PW12/A that when hereached the spot the motorcycle
was there and heseized it from the spot. If DW1 is to be
believedthen the motorcycle of the accused should not have
been found on the spot. But it should have been seized from
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 21
the police station. There is also nocross examination to the
IO PW12 that themotorcycle was not there on the spot and
it was in the police station from where he seized it.
9. Keeping in view all these facts, in my opinion DW1is not
believable and the defence taken by the accused is nothing
but an afterthought. Otherwisewhen PW3 was examined
the defence should have questioned him that the accident
was caused by the gypsy of the SHO and not by the accused
or withthe motorcycle. Ld.counsel for the appellant hasalso
stressed upon the time of accident given bydifferent
witnesses. But in my opinion when thereare so many other
documents from which time ofaccident can be inferred i.e.
DD No.18 which is onrecord vide which the information
about theaccident was received was recorded at 10.35 p.m.
The MLC of Ramshree according to which she wasbrought
to the hospital at 22.47 hours clearly showthat this accident
has taken place somewherearound 10.15 to 10.30 p.m. The
factum of deathdue to accident is not disputed. The post-
mortem report also have been proved on record
asEX.PW4/A. According to which the cause of death is
haemorragic shock due to the above mentionedante
mortem injuries caused by blunt force whichcan be seen in
case of road traffic accident. Thepresence of the accused on
the spot is admitted.The eye witness clearly identified that
he is the same person who was driving the vehicle at
thetime of accident. One dispute has also been raised
whether the deceased was accompanied by PW3 orby one
child. PW3 is silent as to whether any child was also there
at that time. PWIO says that onechild was there with the
lady and PW11 is silentabout the person accompanying the
lady but thatdoes not in my opinion dislodge the case of
theprosecution as the important fact is that how
thisaccident has taken place. On this aspect all thethree
witnesses are consistent. According to themaccused was
driving the motorcycle on the wrongside of the road. The
fact that accused was drivingthe vehicle on the wrong side
itself shows that hewas rash as well as negligent in his
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 22
driving coupledwith the fact that according to the MLC of
theaccused PW4A he was found to be under the influence
of liquor when he was brought to thehospital at 11.50 p.m.
This fact itself shows thatthe accused has no respect for the
traffic rules. He was not only rash and negligent but was
also under the Influence of liquor while driving the
motorcycle.Ld. Counsel for the appellant had tried to
submitthat concentration of liquor In the blood of
theaccused Is not ascertained but I found that whenthe
doctor has specifically mentioned In the MLC PW4/A that
the Injured i.e. accused herein was under the Influence of
the liquor and there Is no cross examination to PW4 on this
aspect. Then this contention that blood test had not been
conducted has no merit. The accused was also not having
the driving license while driving the motorcycle. There is
nothing on record that this witness had any enmity with the
appellant or had any other reason to falsely Implicate him
In the present case. One more controversy was tried to be
raised by the accused that PW3 Is not related to the
deceased and he has come Inonly to get the claim but In my
opinion a witness cannot be credited or discredited on the
strength of his relation with the deceased. Smt. Ramshree
according to PW3 was his mother in law and the defence
has not produced anything that he was not son in law of
Smt. Ramshree. Simply alleging that he was not related to
Ramshree has no meaning unless something material has
been brought on record.
12. The trial court and appellate court passed the judgment dated
10.05.2006 and order on sentence dated 20.05.2006 and the
impugned judgment dated 25.08.2007 respectively after considering
the relevant factors and proper appreciation of evidence and are well
reasoned. The judgment dated 10.05.2006 and order on sentence
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 23
dated 20.05.2006 passed by the trial court and the impugned
judgment dated 25.08.2007 passed by the appellate court do not call
for any interference.
13. The petitioner is first time offender and now aged about 56 years.
The petitioner is not a previous convict and no other case is pending
against him and his past antecedents are clear. The petitioner was a
Constable in the police force and is the sole bread earner for his
family comprising of 3 persons.
14. Sentencing is an important task assigned to the courts in
administration of criminal justice for future prevention of crime. It is
duty of the courts to impose sufficient punishment after considering
gravity of offence and its modalities of execution. The Supreme
Court in Dalbir Singh V State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82
observed as under:-
Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime.
One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is
imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate
sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of
crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is
no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof
of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the
twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and
correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 24
the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime,
motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other
attendant circumstances.
The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime-doer
is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of
law, proportion between 8 crime and punishment bears
most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the
crime-doer. The court has to take into consideration all
aspects including social interest and consciousness of the
society for award of appropriate sentence.
15. Any accident can be considered as unanticipated incident. The
accident causing death of a person may force entire family in
destitution if the accident results into death of a person who is the
sole bread earner for his family. The Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh
(supra) guarded against leniency in relation to the drivers found
guilty of rash driving and observed as under:-
When automobiles have become death traps any leniency
shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving
would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents.
All those who are manning the steering of automobiles,
particularly professional drivers, must be kept under
constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and
also of the consequences befalling them in cases of
dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such
drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent
element in sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them
in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous
and frolic.
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 25
Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in
India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims
and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature
of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the
benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. While
considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the
offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of
automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be
deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of
the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He
must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to
have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his
leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion....... He must
always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is
convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being
due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from
jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play,
particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the
high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of
automobiles.
15.1 In State of Karnataka V Muralidhar, (2009) 4 SCC 463 the
respondent caused a fatal accident. The trial court sentenced the
respondent to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine for
offence under Section 304A IPC. The appeal was dismissed by the
Sessions Court. The High Court waived custodial sentence and only a
fine was imposed. The Supreme Court referred to the principles
related with the offence under Section 304A IPC and also the
problems associated with the road traffic injuries and found
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 26
absolutely no reason that the High Court waived the custodial
sentence awarded to the respondent. The impugned judgment of the
High Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court restored. The
Supreme Court in Thangasamy V State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal
Appeal No 698 of 2010 decided on 20th February, 2019 also referred
Dalbir Singh (supra). The Supreme Court in State of Punjab V
Saurabh Bakshi, (2015) 5 SCC 182 also observed as under:-
Before parting with the case we are compelled to observe
that India has a disreputable record of road accidents.
There is a nonchalant attitude among the drivers. They feel
that they are the "Emperors of all they survey".
Drunkenness contributes to careless driving where the
other people become their prey. The poor feel that their
lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of uncertainty and
the civilized persons drive in constant fear but still
apprehensive about the obnoxious attitude of the people
who project themselves as "larger than life". In such
obtaining circumstances, we are bound to observe that the
lawmakers should scrutinise, relook and revisit the
sentencing policy in Section 304-A IPC. We say so with
immense anguish.
16. The petitioner due to rash and negligent driving caused death of
the deceased whose untimely death must have caused irreparable loss
to the family. The negligent act of the petitioner resulted into loss of
one precious human life. The petitioner was supposed to take care
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 27
towards pedestrians on the road. The petitioner was without driving
license and was under influence of liquor.
16.1 The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nanak Chand V State,
2015 SCC OnLine Del 13440 after considering that the accident took
place about 20 years ago, the conduct of the petitioner in the
Intervening period i.e. participation in the trial and being not
involved in any other crime reduced the sentence for the period
already undergone.
16.2 The accident happened to be in year 1998. The
petitioner/convict is stated to be facing trial and other legal
proceedings arising out of FIR bearing no. 229/98 since then. The
petitioner was a Constable in the police force and now aged about 56
years. The petitioner is the only bread earner of family comprising of
3 persons. The petitioner is first time offender and his past
antecedents are clear. The petitioner already remained in custody for
about three months.
16.3 The petitioner was identified as the driver of the offending
vehicle who due to rash and negligent driving on the wrong side of
the road hit the deceased who ultimately died due to the injuries as is
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 28
evident from the postmortem report Ex.PW4/A. The petitioner was
also under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident and
also did not have his driving license with him at the time of the
accident.The testimony of DW1 Chain Singh does not inspire
confidence of the Court and cannot be relied upon.
17. After considering all facts and by maintaining the conviction
awarded to the petitioner, the sentence of the petitioner is modified to
the extent of sentence for the period already undergone. The
petitioner is also directed to deposit fine before the concerned trial
court if not paid by the petitioner.
18. The petition is accordingly disposed of with modification of
sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate
court along with pending application, if any.
19. Copy of this order be given to the petitioner free of cost.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2024
Sk/ak
Signing Date:30.09.2024 CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 29
