Raj Kumar v. State (GNCT) of Delhi
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The revision petition is hereby dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 397, 401, 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 279, 304A
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. I find no force in this revision petition. The revision petition is hereby dismissed. February 11, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J Crl. Rev.P.328/2010 Page 2 Of 2
Judgment
Order
February, 2011 + Crl. Rev. No. 328/2010
11.02.2011 ...Petitioner % Raj Kumar Versus State (GNCT) of Delhi ...Respondent Counsels:
Mr. A.J. Bhambhani with Ms. Nisha Bhambhani for petitioner. Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.
#3. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the reporter or not? Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT
#1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner against an order passed by learned ASJ who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction under Sections 279/304A IPC and upheld the judgment passed by learned MM.
#2. The petitioner on the fateful day was driving the truck on the wrong side of the road in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of a scooterist. The petitioner was apprehended on the spot by an eye witness and handed over to the police. He was tried for offences under Section 279/304A IPC. The eye witness who had apprehended the petitioner, appeared in the court and deposed about the negligence of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner was driving his truck on the wrong side of the road and Crl. Rev.P.328/2010 Page 1 Of 2 crushed the scooterist under the wheels of his truck. The entire evidence was appreciated by the learned MM and then by learned ASJ. Both the courts below gave concurrent findings about the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.
#3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the eye witness in this case had deposed that he had not seen the driver of the truck while he was driving the truck and he saw the driver only when driver came down from the truck. He stated that this creates doubt if the eye witness was actually present there or not. I consider that this argument is a baseless argument. A person who watches an accident between a truck and a scooter would not know the driver immediately when the accident occurs and he would come to know as to who was the driver only when the driver comes down of the truck after the accident. The eye witness has stated what was natural.
#4. I find no force in this revision petition. The revision petition is hereby dismissed. February 11, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J Crl. Rev.P.328/2010 Page 2 Of 2
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The revision petition is hereby dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 397, 401, 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 279, 304A.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 24 Jan 2011. The bench was SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.