H * HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI + CRL REV. P. 65 of 2010 Sohan Lal. Petitioners Through Mr. Satpal Singh, Adv. versus State Respondent Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State. CORAM: • HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER % 17.08.2011 1. By this petition the Petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 12th January, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the oder of conviction dated 21 s' April, 2009 and order• of sentence dated 22 nd April, 2009 awarding a sentence of imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and for a period of three months for the offence under Section 279 IPC by learned Trial Court in case FIR No. 2 88/04. 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the only eye witness PW1 has not supported the prosecution on the point of identity of the petitioner as being the driver of the bus in question and the petitioner has been convicted CO. Rev. P. No. 65/2010 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified merely on the statement of the owner of the bus to the effect that on the date of the alleged accident he was on duty and driving the said bus. He further contends that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to support the case that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner as even PW1 in his testimony does not depose before the learned trial court in regard to the manner of driving, whether it was rash and negligent driving or was driven at a great speed. As such, the finding that the Petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner could not have been arrived at without there being any evidence to this effect. Learned APP for the State contends that the Petitioner has been rightly convicted as the testimony of PW1 Sandeep Kumar Tiwari and PW5 SI D P Kalra confirmed that the bus bearing No. DL-1PB-3399 caused the accident. PW3 Rajeev Pal, the owner of the bus deposed before the Court that the Accused! Petitioner was driving the bus that caused the accident at the time of commission of offence. He contended that it is sufficient evidence to uphold 10 the conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by learned Appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that PW1 Sandeep Kumar Tiwari along with Pradeep Mishra (the deceased) were riding on a bicycle on their way to their Jhuggi via CO. Rev. P. No. 65/2010 Page 2 of 3 ( 9~ Maya Pun. The deceased was riding the bicyde while the complainant Sandeep Kumart Tiwari was the pillion rider. At about 11:30 PM when they reached the Metal Forging Crossing, Maya Pun, a bus bearing No. DL-1 PB- 3399 Route No. 721 being driven by the Petitioner Sohan Lal hit the bicycle from behind causing the death of Sh. Pradeep Mishra. On perusal of the evidence on record it is observed that nowhere in his testimony the only eye witness PW1 has stated that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. There is no evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Thus the ingredients of offence under section 304A IPC are not made out. Therefore in the interest of justice the order of learned Session Judge dated 12th January, 2010 and the learned trial court dated 21st April, 2009 and 22' April, 2009 convicting and sentencing the Petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279/304A are set aside. The Petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed. The bail bond and the surety bond of the Petitioner are discharged. 6. Petition is disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back. (3AUGUST , 2011 'ga' Cr1. Rev. P. No. 65/2010 I ~W~ ~U~ (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE Page 3 of 3