Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04:NORTH-EAST: KARKARDOOMA:
DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 53/2024
CNR No. DLNE01-000937-2024
Ram Tirath
s/o late Sh. Binda
r/o village Maindeni Lal Ka Purva
PS Harchand Pur,
District Rai Bareilly, UP
Presently at:
H. No. S-85/45F,
Lalgumbad, Panchsheel Park,
South Delhi, Delhi-110017 ..................Appellant
Versus
The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ..................Respondent
J U D G M E N T
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present
appeal filed by the appellant u/s 374 of Cr.P.C. assailing the
judgment dated 06-12-2023 and order on sentence dated 14-03-
2024 passed by the court of Sh. Rupinder Singh Dhiman, Ld.
MM-01, KKD Courts, Delhi thereby sentencing the appellant to
undergo SI for a period of 2 months and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the
offence punishable u/s 279 of IPC; RI for a period of one year
and fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable u/s 304A of IPC
and SI for a period of 3 months and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the
offence punishable u/s 337 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of this case are that on 07-04-2001, the
complainant Mukesh Kumar was driving TSR bearing no.
Crl. A. No. 53/2024; Ram Tirath Vs. State Page 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
DL1RD-5498 along with three passengers. He was going from
Seelampur to Bhajanpura. Some MCD work was going on before
C-4, Yamuna Vihar bus stop and therefore, vehicles of both sides
of road were moving on one road only. At around 10:20 pm,
when the complainant reached C-4 Yamuna Vihar bus stop, one
Tata 407 bearing no. DL1LB-2630, driven by the appellant, came
at a high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit the TSR
from front. Subsequently, the offending vehicle climbed the
divider in between the road. The appellant came out of the
offending vehicle and on seeing the injured, he ran away from
the spot. The complainant along with one of the passengers
suffered injuries. During investigation, a notice u/s 133 of M.V.
Act was issued to the registered owner. The appellant was
identified as the driver of the offending vehicle. One of the
passengers, a lady was declared ‘brought dead’ by the hospital.
On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the
appellant for the offences punishable u/s 279/337/304A of IPC.
On 14-10-2004, charge was framed against the appellant for the
offences punishable u/s 279/337/304A of IPC, to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The appellant was subjected
to trial. The prosecution got examined as many as 22 witnesses.
Thereafter, statement of appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
No defence evidence was led by the appellant despite having
given the opportunity. After hearing arguments, the Ld. Trial
Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable u/s
279/337/304A of IPC vide judgment dated 06-12-2023. Vide
order dated 14-03-2024, the appellant was sentenced to SI for a
period of 2 months and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence
punishable u/s 279 of IPC; RI for a period of one year and fine of
Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable u/s 304A of IPC and SI for
Crl. A. No. 53/2024; Ram Tirath Vs. State Page 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
a period of 3 months and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence
punishable u/s 337 of IPC. The appellant was further directed to
pay an amount of Rs. One lakh as compensation to the LRs of
deceased/ victim in terms of section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and in
view of judgment titled Karan Vs. NCT of Delhi, 277 (2021)
DLT 195 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the appellant directed
to pay a fine of Rs. 15,502 towards cost of prosecution. All the
sentences were directed to be run concurrently. Benefit of
section 428 Cr.P.C. was also made available to the appellant. No
fine was deposited by the appellant.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present
appeal against the judgment and order on sentence on the
following grounds:-
1. The Ld. Trial Court has convicted the appellant despite many
material prosecution witnesses were dropped. Sh. Nisar Ahmad,
witness at Sl. no. 2 was dropped on 20-12-2012, Sh. Irshad at Sl.
no. 3 and Sh. Suresh Kumar at Sl. no. 4 were dropped on 14-08-
2013, Sh. Amar Singh witness at Sl. no. 17 was dropped on 21-
04-2023.
2. On the point of sentence, it is prayed that the appellant
deserves leniency being 56 years old. He is sole bread earner of
his family comprising his wife and two unmarried daughters.
The appellant was not previously convicted in any other similar
case. It is requested that a chance may be given to the appellant
to reform himself.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has
submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgment and order on sentence. Ld. Trial Courtr has passed a
well reasoned order after dealing with the contentions raised by
the appellant during final arguments. Ld. Trial Court has rightly
Crl. A. No. 53/2024; Ram Tirath Vs. State Page 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
convicted the appellant for the offences punishable u/s
279/337/304B of IPC. There is no illegality in the order on
sentence which was passed as per law.
5. This court has heard arguments from ld. Counsel for
appellant, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and has perused the trial
court record.
6. It is noted that the prosecution has got examined eye
witness namely PW1 Mukesh Kumar, who also happens to be
with victim in the present case. His testimony is consistent with
the statement Ex. PW1/A recorded by the police, which forms
the basis for registration of the present FIR. He has duly
identified the accused as well as revealed the correct registration
number of the offending vehicle in his deposition dated 04-12-
2006. His admission in GTB hospital after sustaining injuries is
duly corrobarated by PW8 HC Mukesh Panwar, who was posted
as Duty Constable at GTB hospital and PW6 ASI Surender
Kumar (first IO), who met the victim at GTB hospital.
7. Now, let this court deal with the contention raised in the
present appeal on behalf of the appellant. It is contended that the
Ld. Trial Court has not taken into consideration that the
prosecution has failed to examine material witnesses namely Sh.
Nisar Ahmad, Sh. Irshad, Sh. Suresh Kumar and Sh. Amar
Singh.
8. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that there is no
requirement of examination of any particular number of
witnesses by the prosecution as per section 134 of Indian
Evidence Act. It is well settled that it is the quality of the
evidence and not the quantity of evidence which is required to be
judged by the court. It was held in the case of Raja Vs. State
(1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Delhi) that the courts are concerned with
Crl. A. No. 53/2024; Ram Tirath Vs. State Page 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
the merit of the statement of a particular witness. They are not
concerned with the number of witnesses examined by the
prosecution. In these circumstances, the contention that the ld.
Trial court has not examined some of the material witness before
proceeding to convict the appellant fails to inspire the confidence
of this court.
9. It is noted that PW5 ASI Ram Bahadur Singh, who was
performing picket duty around the place of incident has duly
corroborated the version of sole eyewitness i.e. PW1 Mukesh
Kumar. He has deposed with clarity about the manner in which
the offending vehicle was being driven. It is apparent from the
testimony of PW1 that the appellant was driving a commercial
vehicle and therefore, a greater degree of driving skill is expected
from him than a normal driver. There is no contradiction or
discrepancy in the version of PW1 Mukesh Kumar. There is no
reason to discard his testimony.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court did not find
any fault in appreciation of evidence by the Ld. Trial Court. No
illegality or infirmity is noticed in the judgment dated 06-12-
2023. However, it appears that the Ld. Trial Court has not taken
into consideration the plight of appellant and his conduct during
trial. Perusal of trial court record reveals that the appellant has
appeared on each and every date during trial which commenced
in the year 2002. Rarely any adverse order has been passed to
secure the appearance of appellant. Keeping in view the age of
appellant and length of the trial, this court is of the opinion that
appellant deserves some more leniency. Accordingly, it is
hereby ordered that the appellant be sentenced to simple
imprisonment for a period of 2 months and fine of Rs. 2000/- for
the offence punishable u/s 279 of IPC; Rigorous imprisonment
Crl. A. No. 53/2024; Ram Tirath Vs. State Page 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
for a period of six months and fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence
punishable u/s 304A of IPC instead of one year as ordered by ld.
Trial Court, and simple imprisonment for a period of one month
and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence punishable u/s 337 of IPC
instead of three months as ordered by ld. Trial Court. In default
of payment of fine / compensation, the convict/ appellant shall
undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three
months. There is no interference with regard to the directions of
Ld. Trial Court to pay an amount of Rs. One lakh as
compensation to the LR of the deceased, which shall be
deposited with the Ld. Trial Court within 30 days from today.
After the deposit of compensation / fine amount by the appellant,
the Ld. Trial Court shall disburse the compensation amount to the
LRs of victim/ deceased. Accordingly, the judgment dated 06-
12-2023 is upheld and order on sentence dated 14-03-2024
passed by Ld. Trial Court is partly modified. The appeal stands
disposed of. Trial Court record be segregated and returned to the
Ld. Trial Court with copy of this judgment and thereafter, appeal
file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
ON 28-01-2025
(PANKAJ ARORA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
KARKARDOOMA/ 28-01-2025
Note: The digital signature has expired.
Crl. A. No. 53/2024; Ram Tirath Vs. State Page 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --