53 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.REV.P. 6/2009 & Crt M (Bail) No. 12/2009 Date of order: 9th January, 2009 OM PARKASH@ PARKASH ..... Petitioner . Through Mr. R. S. Malik, Advocate versus STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Crl Rev Petition No. 6/2009 & Crl M (Bail) No. 12/2009 1. This petition challenges an order dated 16th 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (' ASJ'), Delhi dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2007 filed by the Petitioner. By the said judgment the learned ASJ affirmed the judgment dated ih September 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Delhi convicting the Petitioner for the offences under· Sections 279/337/304 A IPC as well as the order of th sentence dated 25 September 2007 passed by the learned MM whereby the Petitioner was sentenced to go rigorous imprisonment ('RI') for the period of one year and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, to three months' Sl and fine of Rs.l,OOO/-for the offence under Section 337 IPC, and to one month's SI and fine of Rs.SOO/- for the offence under Crt Revision Petition No. 6/2009 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 Section 279 IPC. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The Petitioner was the driver of a truck which, according to the prosecution, hit the scooter driven by the deceased from the rear causing the deceased to fall on the ground and suffer fatal head injuries. The deceased was brought dead to the hospital. 3. PW-3 who is the brother of the Petitioner was sitting by his side in the truck. Although during the examination-in-chief he stated that the deceased had slipped on the road due to the mud, during his cross-examination he admitted that the truck had hit the scooter from the rear, as a result of which the deceased and the pillion rider fell down on the road and received In JUnes. 4. PW -9 who was the pillion rider has corroborated the above version of · PW -3 in its material parts. 5. The learned MM and the learned ASJ have concurrently held that the death of the deceased occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of A.faharashtra 1968 A C.J. 51, that there is nothing in the evidence to prove Crt Revision Petition No. 6/2009 Pagel of3 that the Petitioner had driven the truck rashly and negligently or that the act of the Petitioner was the proximate cause of the death. This Court is unable to accept this submission. The evidence clearly shows that the deceased fell down from the scooter after the truck driven by the Petitioner hit the scooter from the rear side. The deceased was brought dead to the hospital soon after. These facts show that the death was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the Petitioner. 7. It is then submitted that the conviction for both the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC is impermissible as each constitutes a distinct .offence. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in B.D. Vittal Shetty v. State of Karnataka 1979 Crl L.J. NOC 150 (Kar). In the instant case the sentences awarded for the separate offence under Section 337 and 279 IPC have been directly to be concurrently with the sentence for the offence under Section 304A IPC. Therefore nothing really turns on . objection. Also, in the fact and circumstances of the case, the sentence of 1 year's RI for the offence under Section 304A cannot be said to be excessive. 8. There is no merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed as such. 9. The pending application also stands dismissed. JANUARY 09,2009 rk Crl Revision Petition No. 6/2009 Page3 of3