State (Gnct of Delhi) vs.ram Naresh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1219780
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnDec-05-2018
AppellantState (Gnct of Delhi)
RespondentRam Naresh
Excerpt:
* % + in the high court of delhi at new delhi decided on:5. h december, 2018 crl.l.p. 806/2018 state (gnct of delhi) ........ petitioner represented by: ms. meenakshi chauhan, app for the state with si gaurav dalal, ps mehrauli. versus represented by: none ..... respondent ram naresh coram: hon'ble ms. justice mukta gupta mukta gupta, j.(oral) crl. m.a. no.48886/2018 (exemption) exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. crl.l.p. 806/2018 1. aggrieved by the judgment dated 18th september, 2018, whereby the learned additional sessions judge acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under sections 279/304a ipc, the state has preferred the present leave petition.2. briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 12th october, 2008, dd no.20b regarding an accident at bhati mines road near mallu farm was received by si gajraj singh. he along with ct. mann singh went to the spot and found one bus bearing no.dl-1-pa-5249 and dead body of the deceased lying on the road. he recorded the statement of t.m. mylarappa who stated that he and his friend t.h. sathyappa boarded one blue line bus bearing no.dl-1-pa-5249 which was going from radha soami satsang crl.l.p. 806/2018 page 1 of 4 towards dhaula kuan and they were both standing at the front door and his friend was behind him on the stairs of front door and driver of the bus drove the bus in a fast and negligent manner. when the bus crossed chandan hola, the respondent started driving the bus in a zig zag manner and suddenly used brakes and thereafter again all of a sudden started the vehicle and due to the jerk, his friend satyappa fell down, came under the front wheel due to which he suffered head injury and died on the spot. on the basis of the aforesaid statement, fir no.5was registered at ps mehrauli for offences punishable under sections 279/304a ipc.3. thereafter, the site plan was prepared vide ex.pw-9/b. the belongings of the deceased were seized vide ex.pw-1/b. the bus was seized vide ex.pw-1/c. the driving license of the respondent was seized vide ex.pw-3/b, he was arrested vide arrest memo ex.pw-1/d and his personal search was conducted vide ex.pw-3/e. his disclosure statement was recorded vide ex.pw-3/a. the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted vide ex.pw-9/c wherein it was opined that the deceased died due to craneo cerebral injuries caused by blunt force which could be possible in a road traffic accident. on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. charge was framed for offences punishable under sections 279/304a ipc4 5. prosecution examined 9 witnesses. t.m. mylarappa (pw-1) deposed that the bus was very crowded on the day of the incident and there was very little space for only 2-3 passengers near the front side of the gate. he was standing behind the foot board while the deceased was standing near the foot board. in his cross- examination, he stated that due to the ongoing satsang, there were many crl.l.p. 806/2018 page 2 of 4 public persons present at the spot. he further stated that the deceased fell down from the bus and came down the rear tyre of the bus. in his cross- examination he stated that the deceased fell down on the road because the bus had passed through a pot hole on the road. the vehicle which the bus overtook was rtv/mini bus.6. hc subhash chand (pw-2) deposed that the bus overtook his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and the bus driver applied the break due to which the one passenger fell down and came under the rear tyre of the bus.7. respondent in his statement recorded under section 313 cr.p.c. stated that he was not driving the bus in a speedy manner and the deceased himself had fallen from the bus as the bus was very crowded and he must have lost grip.8. the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of t.m. mylarappa who was a friend of the deceased. this witness in his testimony stated that they boarded the bus from the front gate as there was heavy rush in the bus and only a little space for 2-3 passengers from the front side of the gate. in his cross-examination he stated that the respondent overtook one rtv/mini bus. contrary to his testimony, hc subhash in his testimony stated that the respondent overtook his motorcycle and then immediately applied the brake and without stopping the bus moved ahead.9. t.m. mylarappa in his cross-examination stated that the deceased fell down from the road because the bus had passed through a pot hole on the road. but in his statement before the police he stated that the deceased fell down as the respondent was driving in a rash and negligent manner. since the bus was overcrowded and there was hardly any place for the persons to crl.l.p. 806/2018 page 3 of 4 stand, it is very unlikely that they could have seen the driver in that scenario.10. the deceased and t.m. mylarappa were not carrying any ticket and were found to be travelling on the front door footsteps. the vehicle was found to be overloaded. the tyre marks of the vehicle do not show that it was being driven at high speed. since the area where the incident took place was a crowded area, it was not possible for the respondent to drive the bus in a speedy manner.11. considering the evidence as noted above findings of the learned additional sessions judge in the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference of this court.12. leave to appeal petition is dismissed. (mukta gupta) judge december05 2018 mamta crl.l.p. 806/2018 page 4 of 4
Judgment:

* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:

5. h December, 2018 CRL.L.P. 806/2018 STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ........ Petitioner

Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State with SI Gaurav Dalal, PS Mehrauli. versus Represented by: None ..... Respondent RAM NARESH CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.

(ORAL) Crl. M.A. No.48886/2018 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CRL.L.P. 806/2018 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 18th September, 2018, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC, the State has preferred the present leave petition.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 12th October, 2008, DD No.20B regarding an accident at Bhati Mines Road near Mallu Farm was received by SI Gajraj Singh. He along with Ct. Mann Singh went to the spot and found one bus bearing No.DL-1-PA-5249 and dead body of the deceased lying on the road. He recorded the statement of T.M. Mylarappa who stated that he and his friend T.H. Sathyappa boarded one blue line bus bearing No.DL-1-PA-5249 which was going from Radha Soami Satsang CRL.L.P. 806/2018 Page 1 of 4 towards Dhaula Kuan and they were both standing at the front door and his friend was behind him on the stairs of front door and driver of the bus drove the bus in a fast and negligent manner. When the bus crossed Chandan Hola, the respondent started driving the bus in a zig zag manner and suddenly used brakes and thereafter again all of a sudden started the vehicle and due to the jerk, his friend Satyappa fell down, came under the front wheel due to which he suffered head injury and died on the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR No.5
was registered at PS Mehrauli for offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC.

3. Thereafter, the site plan was prepared vide Ex.PW-9/B. The belongings of the deceased were seized vide Ex.PW-1/B. The bus was seized vide Ex.PW-1/C. The driving license of the respondent was seized vide Ex.PW-3/B, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-1/D and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW-3/E. His disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW-3/A. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted vide Ex.PW-9/C wherein it was opined that the deceased died due to craneo cerebral injuries caused by blunt force which could be possible in a road traffic accident. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Charge was framed for offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC4 5. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses. T.M. Mylarappa (PW-1) deposed that the bus was very crowded on the day of the incident and there was very little space for only 2-3 passengers near the front side of the gate. He was standing behind the foot board while the deceased was standing near the foot board. In his cross- examination, he stated that due to the ongoing satsang, there were many CRL.L.P. 806/2018 Page 2 of 4 public persons present at the spot. He further stated that the deceased fell down from the bus and came down the rear tyre of the bus. In his cross- examination he stated that the deceased fell down on the road because the bus had passed through a pot hole on the road. The vehicle which the bus overtook was RTV/mini bus.

6. HC Subhash Chand (PW-2) deposed that the bus overtook his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and the bus driver applied the break due to which the one passenger fell down and came under the rear tyre of the bus.

7. Respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he was not driving the bus in a speedy manner and the deceased himself had fallen from the bus as the bus was very crowded and he must have lost grip.

8. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of T.M. Mylarappa who was a friend of the deceased. This witness in his testimony stated that they boarded the bus from the front gate as there was heavy rush in the bus and only a little space for 2-3 passengers from the front side of the gate. In his cross-examination he stated that the respondent overtook one RTV/mini bus. Contrary to his testimony, HC Subhash in his testimony stated that the respondent overtook his motorcycle and then immediately applied the brake and without stopping the bus moved ahead.

9. T.M. Mylarappa in his cross-examination stated that the deceased fell down from the road because the bus had passed through a pot hole on the road. But in his statement before the police he stated that the deceased fell down as the respondent was driving in a rash and negligent manner. Since the bus was overcrowded and there was hardly any place for the persons to CRL.L.P. 806/2018 Page 3 of 4 stand, it is very unlikely that they could have seen the driver in that scenario.

10. The deceased and T.M. Mylarappa were not carrying any ticket and were found to be travelling on the front door footsteps. The vehicle was found to be overloaded. The tyre marks of the vehicle do not show that it was being driven at high speed. Since the area where the incident took place was a crowded area, it was not possible for the respondent to drive the bus in a speedy manner.

11. Considering the evidence as noted above findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference of this Court.

12. Leave to appeal petition is dismissed. (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE DECEMBER05 2018 mamta CRL.L.P. 806/2018 Page 4 of 4