* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 615 of 2007 0/o Judgment reserved on: 7th December, 2007 Judgment delivered on: 18th January, 2008 Dharamvir Singh, S/o Shri Azad Singh Rio V & P.O. Jhatal, P.S. Sampla, Distt. Rohtak (Haryana) Presently at: H. No. 2/1, Ishwar Colony, Bawana, Delhi .... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.C. Phogat, Advocate Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) ..... Respondents Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, Advocate Coram: HON.BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? V.B. GUPTA, J. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 to 401 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated lOth August, 2007 passed by Dr. Kamini Lau, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi vide which she has Crl. R.P. No. 615/2007 Page 1 of 11 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 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner upholding the judgment dated 2.7.2007 and the order of sentence dated 1oth July, 2007 passed by the court of Shri Devender Kumar Jangala, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. 2. The present case was registered on the statement of one Balwan Singh, driver of Maruti car No. DL-2C-B-8638. As per his statement, on 22nct October, 1993, he was driving this car and was coming from Jind (Haryana) along with one Shri Prem Chand, his wife Vidya Devi, his daughter Ms. Poonam Devi and son Mukul Kumar, and were going to Pashchim Vihar via Rohtak Road, Delhi. At 11:30 am, when they reached near village Mundka, Delhi, a bus No. DL-1P- 3182, came from Nangloi side at very fast speed and the bus driver in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing any horn and without giving any signal, all of a sudden, took a turn towards village Rani Khera and hit the car, with the result that their car got turtled and all the passengers of the car sustained injuries. The bus driver after stopping the bus ran away. All the injured were removed to the hospital, where in the hospital, Ms. Poonam Devi expired. 3. Notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act Crl. R.P. No. 615/2007 Page 2 of 11 -4 a was served upon the owner of the bus who in its reply stated that the petitioner was driving the bus in question i and produced the petitioner before the police along with driving licence of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and investigation was completed. 4. The trial court vide its judgment dated 2.7.2007 convicted the petitioner under Section 279/337/304A IPG I and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a find of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Sec. 304A IPG, in default SI for 10 days. For offence punishable under Sec. 337, RI for three nionths and a fine of Rs. 500/- 1 has been awarded, in default five days' simple I imprisonment and for offence punishable under Sec. 279 RI for one month and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default SI of five days have been awarded. 5. The petitioner filed appeal in the Gourt of Session and vide impugned judgment dated 10^ August, 2007, the appeal was dismissed and; the judgment and order on sentence passed by leanred Magistrate was upheld. I 6. It has been argued |by learned counsel for the petitioner that no incriminating evidence under Section Crl. R.P. No. 615/2007 Page 3 of 11 q 313 CrPC was put to the petitioner and under these circumstances conviction of the petitioner is bad and on this point, learned counsel for the petitioner cited decision of Apex Court in Lallu Manjhi & Anr vs. State of Jharkhand 2003 (1) ]CC 137. 7. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the postmortem of deceased Ms. Poonam Devi has not been proved and the trial court wrongly relied upon the postmortem of the deceased. Further, it was the driver of the car who had stuck against the bus and this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the car driver. Moreover, the site plan in this case has not been proved nor the IO has been 1', examined and as such it is fatal for the prosecution and under these circumstances the judgment passed by the courts below are liable to the set aside. 8. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned PP that as per evidence on record, it was the petitioner who was driving the bus in question in rash and negligent manner and the impact of accident was so severe Crl. R.P. No. 615/2007 Page 4 of 11 that a lady who was sitting in the Maruti Car died in this accident and all the incriminating evidence was put to the petitioner in his statement recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC. 9. The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner was driving the bus at the time of accident or not. In his statement recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC, the petitioner has made total denial. He has denied that he was driving the bus or any accident was caused with his bus. 10. Shri Prem Chand (PW2) who is one of the injured and was traveling in the car at the time of accident in his statement has stated that the bus in question came at a fast speed and it took a turn in a rash and negligent manner and hit against their Maruti car with the result the Maruti car over turned. In his cross examination, it was put to this witness that the bus was being driven at the normal speed and the bus driver was driving the bus following all the traffic rules and the accident took place due to rash and negligent act on the part of the car driver. So, the petitioner by way of the suggestions put to this witness, has admitted this fact that the petitioner was Crl. R.P. No. 615/2007 Page 5 of 11 driving the bus, though the bus was being driven at a normal speed and as per traffic rules and regulations. 11. PW9 Shri Balwan Singh, who is the the car driver though turned hostile, has stated that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and the bus driver _,....1 has taken a turn all of a sudden and has hit his car. ' 12. In the present case, a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act was given to the owner of the bus and the owner of the bus in his reply to the notice, has stated that it was the petitioner who was the driver of his bus. 13. There is nothing on record to show that any of the prosecution witness had any enimity with the petitioner so as to falsely implicate him in this case. As per the statement of PW2, it was the petitioner who was driving the bus in question and the factum of accident with the bus in question, has been admitted by the driver of the car. 14. Further, as per mechanical inspection reports with regard to both the vehicles proved on record, it stands clearly established that the bus in question was involved in the accident and from the photographs of the vehicles, which have also been placed on record, it goes on to show Crl. R.P. No. 615/2007 Page 6 of 11 ._.-· ' that the impact of the accident was so severe that the Maruti car was almost completely crushed and one lady Smt. Poonam Devi had died while sitting as passenger inside the car and this itself speaks for the impact of the accident. 15. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that incriminating evidence under Sec. 313 CrPC has not been put to the petitioner, is against the record. As per statement of the petitioner recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC, entire incriminating evidence was put to the petitioner. The petitioner, in his statement, has denied the accident in toto. Under these circumstances, case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 16. As far as the postmortem report is concerned, PW8 (Sh. Rajiv Singh) Record Clerk has appeared and he has stated that the doctor who has prepared MLC, has left the services of the hospital. The Record Clerk has identified the signatures and hand writing of the doctor, on the respective documents. It is not the case of the petitioner that Smt. Poonam Devi did not die of this accident or she Crl. R.P. No. 615/2007 Page 7 of 11 \. was not sitting in the car. 17. Lastly, the mere fact that the investigating officer has not appeared, will not prove fatal to the case of the prosecution because, the investigating Officer is not an eye witness in this case. The eye witness has fully corroborated the prosecution story and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 the eye witness and who is also one of the passengers in the car. PW 9, the driver of the car has also stated that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the bus driver. 18. Under these circumstance, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 19. As far as the sentence awarded in this case is concerned, the trial court has already taken a very lenient view and has awarded sentence of only one year R1 to the petitioner, for causing death of a lady. 20. Road accidents by heavy vehicles, especially Blue line buses are on increase and the drivers of these buses do not care for the safety of the other road users. The photographs and the mechanical inspection reports of the Crl. R.P. No. 615/2007 Page 8 of 11 )3 /f car goes on to show that the impact of the accident was so severe that the Maruti car in question was almost fully smashed and crushed and one passenger sitting in the car died, as a result of the accident while other persons sustained injuries. J 21. Too lenient a sentence passed by the courts leads to I miscarriage of justice. In the capital city of India, number of vehicles have increased manifold since the time when Indian Penal Code was enacted. Along with it, the number of road accidents have also increased by leaps and bounds. However, there has been no corresponding improvement in the enforcement of traffic laws. The same punishment and fine continues which was prescribed more than 150 years ago. Now the time has come when the Legislature should have a relook at the offences committed by heavy vehicles in causing the road accidents and stringent punishment should be provided under the various Acts. 22. The worst sufferer in the present scenario are the road victims. Firstly, the Ambulance Service for road victims or for any kind of patients, is horrible. It is next to impossible to get any ambulance for any type of patient at Crl. R.P. No. 615/2007 Page 9 of 11 any given time. These ambulance services in the Government Hospitals and Dispensaries are available for all other purposes, except for the patients. It is not that there is any dearth of Ambulanceswith the Government Hospitals or Dispensaries. ^ 23. In casearoadvictimdies in an accident,the phghtof / his familymembersis worse. The culprit/accusedis bailed out then and there and he happilygoes back to his family, have his meals and have sound sleep whereas, the family members of the deceased undergo trauma and torture at the hands of police and hospitalauthoritiesand they run from pillar to post for getting the postmortem done. It takes hours and sometimesdays to conductpostmortemof a dead person. In the hour of grief, little solace can be provided to the family of the deceased by the concerned authorities by ensuring that at least postmortem is conducted,as early as possibleand the AmbulanceService is providedto the victimor injured,free of cost. Itis hoped that the respective Governments would take necessary steps in this regard. 24. Since the courts below have alreadytaken a lenient en. R.P. No. 615/2007 Page 10 of 11 / view, no interference is called for in the sentence awarded in this case. 25. Accordingly, the present petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 26. Trial court record be sent back forthwith. january 18, 2008 raj Crl. R.P. No. 615/2007 V.B.GUPTA, J. Page 11 of 11