Sunil Kumar Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Sunil Kumar vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 21, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/907640

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/907640
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
Decided On: Dec 21, 2010
Case Number: Crl.Rev. No.735/2010
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[K SREEDHAR RAO ; K.N KESHAVANARAYANA JJ.] This CRL,A. filed d/s 378(LJ & (3) CR.F.C by the- state P.P. for the state praying to grant leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal Dt. 15-04-05 passed by the S.J. Kcdagu-Madikeri, in S.C.NO.6/02, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A; Motor Vehicles Act - Section 133

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil Kumar

Advocate Mr. Sanjay Rathi, Adv.

Respondent

State (Nct of Delhi)

Advocate Mr. Sunil Sharma, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A; Motor Vehicles Act - Section 133

Excerpt

[k sreedhar rao ; k.n keshavanarayana jj.] this crl,a. filed d/s 378(lj & (3) cr.f.c by the- state p.p. for the state praying to grant leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dt. 15-04-05 passed by the s.j. kcdagu-madikeri, in s.c.no.6/02, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offences p/u/sb 498-a, 4 94 & 302 of ipc and to set aside the order......was not produced. a plea is also taken that the petitioner was not the driver of the vehicle.3. it is settled position of law that a revision cannot be treated as a second appeal and the court can interfere with the order only in revision if the court below has committed some grave irregularity and illegality or exceeded the jurisdiction or the judgment was delivered without evidence. in the present case, the petitioner was driving a government vehicle and it was a case of hit and run. the petitioner after causing the accident had run away from the spot. a notice under section 133 motor vehicles act issued to the petitioner's department which revealed the identity of the petitioner as driver. negligence of the driver of the vehicle has been proved by the witnesses and the two courts below came to conclusion that the accident was caused due to negligence of the petitioner. this court cannot disturb the concurrent findings having given by the two courts below while exercising its revisional jurisdiction.4. the counsel for the petitioner prayed for leniency in sentence. i find that the trial court and the first appellate court have already shown enough leniencies towards the petitioner. the petitioner was convicted under sections 279 and 304a ipc and sentenced the petitioner for a term of seven months and fine. i find that no further leniency could be shown towards petitioner. rather it is a case where no leniency ought to have been shown towards petitioner who after causing accident and ran away from the spot instead of taking the injured to hospital.5. the petition has no force and is hereby dismissed with no orders to costs.

Full Judgment

1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 16th November 2010 whereby the conviction of the petitioner under Section 279 and 304A IPC was upheld by the first appellate court.

2. The basic ground for revision is that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses and convicted the accused/ petitioner. The material witness namely the rickshaw puller whose rickshaw was hit by the fire brigade vehicle number DEG-2944 under the wheels driven by the petitioner was not produced. A plea is also taken that the petitioner was not the driver of the vehicle.

3. It is settled position of law that a revision cannot be treated as a second appeal and the court can interfere with the order only in revision if the court below has committed some grave irregularity and illegality or exceeded the jurisdiction or the judgment was delivered without evidence. In the present case, the petitioner was driving a government vehicle and it was a case of hit and run. The petitioner after causing the accident had run away from the spot. A notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicles Act issued to the petitioner's department which revealed the identity of the petitioner as driver. Negligence of the driver of the vehicle has been proved by the witnesses and the two courts below came to conclusion that the accident was caused due to negligence of the petitioner. This court cannot disturb the concurrent findings having given by the two courts below while exercising its revisional jurisdiction.

4. The counsel for the petitioner prayed for leniency in sentence. I find that the trial court and the first appellate court have already shown enough leniencies towards the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced the petitioner for a term of seven months and fine. I find that no further leniency could be shown towards petitioner. Rather it is a case where no leniency ought to have been shown towards petitioner who after causing accident and ran away from the spot instead of taking the injured to hospital.

5. The petition has no force and is hereby dismissed with no orders to costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2010 Same Parties Sunil Kumar vs State (Nct of Delhi) Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A; Motor Vehicles ...

Criminal