Ram Chander v. State NCT of Delhi

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. NOVEMBER 16, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order reserved on 13th November, 2017 Order pronounced on 16th November, 2017 + CRL. REV. PETITION 686/2017, Crl. M. B. 1622/2017 RAM CHANDER ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mobin Akhtar, Mr. Ajay Singh and Mr. Noor Alam, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State with SI Sandeep Sharma, PS-Vasant Kunj (North). CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC assailing the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-02, Fast Track Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2017 whereby the order of conviction dated 10.08.2016 and order on sentence dated 26.08.2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate was upheld. 2. The relevant and necessary facts to dispose of the present petition is that a DD No. 26-A dated 07/08/2007 was recorded at the Police Station – Vasant Kunj (North) to the effect that one child has been run over by a vehicle near Crematorium (Shamshaan Ghat), Mahipalpur, Delhi; that the said DD was assigned to ASI Ramesh Kumar (PW-7), who went to the spot and found that the victim had already been removed to Safdarjung Hospital by PCR Van; that thereafter PW-7 went to the hospital and came to know that the victim was declared to have been "brought dead"; that statement of PW2 (father of the victim) of the victim was recorded to the effect that when he went to call the son, who was playing outside the home, saw that a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55-A-7142 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit his son; that the driver of the vehicle alighted from the spot and thereafter fled away from the spot; that someone called the police and PCR took him and his son to Safdarjung Hospital where doctor declared him "brought dead"; that PW-7 along with PW-2 went to the spot where PW-2 pointed towards the truck bearing registration No. HR-55-A-7142 and stated that the same truck had caused accident; that petitioner was arrested and released on bail. 3. Substance of accusation for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution relied upon seven witnesses in all, besides the exhibits produced during the trial. The statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein he reiterated his innocence and denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him. 4. Vide judgment dated 10.08.2016, the Metropolitan Magistrate held the petitioner responsible for the offence punishable under Section 279/304-A IPC and on 26.08.2017, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-A and further ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the L.R.'s of the deceased failing which he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. 5. The petitioner preferred a criminal appeal against the order of conviction dated 10.08.2016 as well as order on sentence dated 26.08.2017. The Court of Sessions dismissed the said appeal and upheld the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Petition. 6. Assailing the orders passed by the Trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders are highly presumptive, insupportable in law and based merely on conjectures and surmises; that the identification and arrest of the petitioner is very doubtful; that there is no iota of evidence to suggest that PW- 2/father of the deceased was present at the spot; that it is nowhere stated in the MLC of the deceased that he was brought to the hospital by his father/PW2; that the mechanical inspection of the vehicle involved in the present case shows that there was no fresh damage on the vehicle and even no blood stains were found on the vehicle; that the investig