CRL.REV.P./179/2017 of JASWANT Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.REV.P. 179/2017, Crl. M.B. No. 436/2017 & Crl. M.A. No.4079/2017

JASWANT..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. R.K. Tarun, Adv.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with SIGanga Pd. Pal, P.S. Civil Lines, Delhi

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R09.03.2017

Petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304-A IPC by the trialcourt and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months withfine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fines SI for 10 days underSection 279 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of `9,000/-and in default, SI for one month under Section 304-A IPC.Both thesentences were directed to run concurrently.

Petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, which has beendismissed by the Special Judge, CBI (PC Act) – 06, Central District, Tis

Hazari Courts, Delhi.

That is how, petitioner is before this Court by way of present revisionpetition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.

There are concurrent findings of two courts, rendered on appreciationof evidence.I have perused the material placed on record and find thatfindings have been returned by the courts below on meticulous scrutiny ofthe evidence, which had come on record of the trial court.Revisionaljurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. issupervisory in nature. High Court has not to re-appreciate the evidence andreturn finding of facts afresh as if hearing an appeal.High Court willinterfere only if it is shown that there is flagrant violation of any legalprinciple or the concurrent finding has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

As per the prosecution, petitioner while driving DTC bus bearingregistration no. DL-1PB-2398 in rash and negligent manner, hit apedestrian, namely, Satbir Singh, near bus stop at Shyam Nath Marg,I.S.B.T. Road, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Civil Lines,Delhi. The pedestrian, who was hit, came under the front wheel of the busand expired at the spot itself. PW1 HC Neki Ram was on patrolling duty atSham Nath Marg and had witnessed the incident.

PW1 HC Neki Ram has supported the prosecution case.He hascorroborated his version, as contained in the FIR.Trial court as well asappellate court has noted that his testimony was trustworthy and reliable.Death of deceased in road accident stands proved from the testimony ofPW8 Dr. Kulbhushan Goel, who had conducted the post-mortem. He hadproved his report Ex. PW8/A. Trial court as well as appellate court has alsonoted that bus was seized from the spot. PW1 HC Neki Ram had identifiedthe petitioner in court correctly.Photographs of the spot were alsoconsidered.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner hasfailed to point out any flagrant violation of any legal principle; inasmuch as,has given up the challenge to the conviction of petitioner on merits. He hassimply prayed for the reduction of sentence. It is submitted that petitioner isabout 59 years of age.He is the sole bread-earner in the family, whichcomprises of his wife, two daughters and one son. Petitioner’s wife is statedto be suffering from various ailments.Petitioner has no past criminalrecord. Incident happened in the year 2006. Petitioner has faced agony oftrial for eleven years. During the trial, petitioner was on bail but has notindulged in any other accident. Petitioner is in jail for 2½ months. It is

stated that, in his absence, the whole family is living in penury.

I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, while upholding the convictionof petitioner under Sections 279/304-A IPC, his sentence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to six months. All the sentences shall run concurrently.Petitioner will also be entitled to the benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous applicationsare disposed of as infructuous. Dasti.

MARCH 09, 2017rb

A.K. PATHAK, J.