Abdul Mazid v. The State ( NCT Of Delhi)

$~29 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.REV.P. 37/2016 ABDUL MAZID ..... Petitioner Through :

Mr. Paranjay Chopra, Adv.

versus THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through :

Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP with SI Surendra Singh PS Fatehpur Beri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 23.08.2016 Petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304-A IPC by the Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide judgment dated 23rd August, 2013 and sentenced to undergo RI for one year for offence under Section 304-A IPC and to pay fine of `1,000/- for offence under Section 279 IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo two weeks SI. Petitioner preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 16th December, 2015, the same being impugned in this revision petition. As per the prosecution, petitioner, while driving the tempo bearing no. HR 38E 1419 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased Krishan Kumar in front of pillar no.103, M. G. Road, New Delhi at 11:15 pm on 18th July, 2010, as a consequence whereof deceased

sustained injuries to which he succumbed in the hospital on the same day. It is further alleged that one Bihari Das, while driving the truck bearing no. HR 38F 6819, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the tempo driven by the petitioner at the same time as a result whereof tempo over turned. Incident was witnessed by PW-1 Navin Singh, PW-2 Ram Kamal, PW-4 Phool Singh and PW-11 Suresh Barwa, who have supported the prosecution story. Petitioner was apprehended at the spot.

Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have meticulously scrutinized the statements of eye witnesses and other witnesses and have concluded that petitioner had knocked down the deceased while driving the Tata Tempo bearing no. HR 38E 1419 in a rash and negligent manner.

During the course of hearing, challenge to the conviction of petitioner has been given up by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He, however, has prayed for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

It is submitted that petitioner is a poor person and has seven children. Petitioner's father is also dependent upon him. Petitioner is the only earning member in the family. Petitioner is in incarceration for about 10 months including the period of remission.

In his absence, the whole family is on the verge of starvation.

Keeping in mind the totality of circumstances, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 279/304-A IPC, his sentence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Fine is stated to has been deposited. Petitioner be released from the jail forthwith, if not required in any other case. It is noted here that in the impugned judgment the name of the police station has been wrongly mentioned as 'Ambedkar Nagar' instead of 'Fatehpur Beri'. In the judgment of Trial Court it has been correctly mentioned as 'Fatehpur Beri'. Accordingly, in the judgment of appellate court, police station shall be read as 'Fatehpur Beri' instead of 'Ambedkar Nagar'. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

A Copy of this order be sent to Jail Superintendent for compliance. A.K. PATHAK, J.

AUGUST 23, 2016/dk