Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : NEW DELHI
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 132/2022
CNR No. DLND10063392022
In re:
Hardyal
S/o Late Jagdish
R/o V6/B, Old Nangal Village,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi ……...Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi …….Respondent
Date of Institution of Appeal : 27.07.2022
Date of hearing arguments : 13.10.2022
Date of Judgment : 20.10.2022
Appearances:
Sh. Kedar Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Ravinder Khandelwal, Addl. PP for the State.
JUDGMENT:
1. This Judgment shall decide the present Criminal Appeal
filed by the appellant under Section in terms of Section 374 (3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing Judgment dated 27.04.2022
whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 279 of the IPC followed by an order on sentence dated
29.06.2022 passed by the Court of Sh. Tarun Gupta, Ld. MM08, New
Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the appellant
CA132/2022 Hardyal v. State Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/, out of which Rs.20,000/
has been ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and
Rs.10,000/ to the State within a period of 30 days of the said order, in
default of payment of which he has been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Briefly stated, the appellant has been arraigned for trial by
the prosecution on the allegations that on 04.05.2015 at about 8.30 PM
near Shiv Mandir, Old Nangal, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS
Delhi Cantt, he was driving WagonR car bearing registration No.
DL1RT3423 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he hit
some pedestrians and caused injuries to PW1 Tarun S/o Late Sh. Omkar
and PW2 Sagar S/o Sh. Sonu, which were opined to be ‘simple’ in
nature.
3. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was given to the appellant
vide order dated 22.08.2016, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined four witnesses
viz. PW1 Tarun and PW2 Sagar besides PW3 HC Sandeep
Kumar, who was the Investigating Officer and PW4 SI Daya Ram,
who on being handed over further investigation on 26.07.2015 filed the
chargesheet. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant admitted the
MLCs as well as Xray report of the injured Tarun, which are marked A
2 and A1 respectively. On close of the prosecution evidence, the
CA132/2022 Hardyal v. State Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
appellant was examined as per Section 313 read with Section 281
Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution case and stated that he was
innocent. He stated that he was driving on the main road when all of a
sudden 78 persons came infront of his car and tried to smash his car
with dandas and jihad and he alongwith his wife went to the police
station to report the incident, where he was falsely implicated. The
appellant examined his wife Ms. Sonu as DW1, who supported such
defence.
4. Perusal of the impugned Judgment reveals that although the
offence under Section 337 of the IPC was compounded on the statement
given by the injured Tarun Kumar. However, Ld. Trial Court held that
testimony of PW1 and PW2 prove without any reasonable doubt that
the appellant was driving the offending car in a rash and negligent
manner and thereby, endangered personal safety of others, and therefore,
the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC
followed by order on sentence dated 29.06.2022.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the
Ld. Addl. PP for the State and on perusal of the trial Court record, I am
afraid I find that the impugned Judgment on conviction and order on
sentence cannot be sustained in law. It would be expedient to reproduce
Section 279 as well as Section 337 of the IPC, which provide 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 punished with imprisonment of
CA132/2022 Hardyal v. State Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
either description for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both.
337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal
safety of others.—Whoever causes hurt to any person
by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger
human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to six months, or with fine
which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that
essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that prosecution has to prove
‘rash’ and ‘negligent’ driving thereby endangering human life and
Section 337 of the IPC makes punishable causing simple hurt to any
person while doing any act ‘rashly’ or ‘negligently’ and needless to state
that such ingredients are common to both provisions. In other words,
the essential ingredients of Section 337 of the IPC encompasses all the
ingredients of Section 279 of the IPC. Once the offence under Section
337 of the IPC has been compounded by the injured PW2 Tarun and no
injuries were sustained by PW1, it lead to the acquittal of the appellant
under the said offence, charge or accusation.
7. That being the case, in the face of a situation that the
appellant was acquitted for the substantive offence under Section 337 of
the IPC, the conviction under Section 279 IPC cannot be sustained in law
as it would amount to double jeopardy. Reference in this regard can be
had to decision in the case of Adwait Surendra Aatre v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., 2011 SCC OnLine Bom. 473. In the instant case,
at the cost of repetition, the injured PW2 Tarun Kumar compounded the
CA132/2022 Hardyal v. State Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
offence, and therefore, vide impugned judgment dated 27.04.2022, Ld.
Trial Court rightly acquitted the appellant.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is
allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 279
IPC. His bail bondcumsurety bond is discharged. Documents, if any,
be returned to the appellant after cancellation of endorsement, if any.
9. Trial Court record alongwith copy of Judgment be sent
back forthwith. File of appeal be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA)
on 20th October, 2022 Principal District & Sessions Judge (NDD)
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
CA132/2022 Hardyal v. State Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --