Sikander Singh Kamadh v. The State NCT of Delhi

% + <r iN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHI AT NEW DELHI OrderResprvf^rion: September16^ ?m 7 Order Pronounced on: October 21. POn CrI.Rev.Petition No.283/2Qnft SIKANDERSINGH KAMADH Petitioner Through: Mr.Ajay Raghav, yA/n/ct/s Curiae Advocate. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Respondent Through: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Addl. Standing Counsel (CrI.) with Ms.Urvi Kuthiala, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SUNIL GAUR. I.

¶1The findings of both the courts below of petitioner being rash and negligent in driving his vehicle i.e. TATA Sumo HR-51-B 1005 on 6.10.1998 at the intersection of Lodhi Road and at about 2:40 p.m. hitting a scooterist who was coming from Sai Baba Mandir side, is under challenge in this petition. For committing the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, petitioner has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine.

¶2The graphic version of this incident is unfolded by constable G.Vijay from Operation Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, who happened to be present at the spot and he had I I Page1of3 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. claimed in his depositionthat he had seen petitioner'svehicle coming at a fast speed from another direction and of hitting Scooter No. DL-3-SK 8578 driven by one Sushil Kumar, who had sustained multiple head injuries which had proved fatal. Petitionerwas tried in FIR No. 344/98 underSections279/304-AofthelPC.

¶3Upon petitioner pleading not guilty, trial ensued. Out of the deposition of 7 witnesses, the material deposition is of Constable G.Vijay, who purportedly had witnessed this incident from the intersection near India Habitat Centre and as per ^ deposition of this witness (PW-5) at the intersection, the traffic light was green for the scooterist but red for the petitioner but by jumping the red light, the petitioner had caused this vehicular accident and thereafter had fled away from the spot.

¶4The plea of the petitioner at trial was of bald denial. Trial court upon consideration of the evidence recorded had returned the finding of guilt against the petitioner and had accordingly sentenced the petitioner. The reliability of the eye witness account of this incident was assailed by the petitioner before the appellate Court but without any success. '•

¶5In this revision petition, the same very grounds have been urged-which stand repelled in the impugned order of

12.3.2008. When this revision petition was admitted for hearing, the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner was suspended and he was released on bail.

¶6At the final hearing, petitioner's counsel had sought discharge and accordingly bailable warrants were issued to obtain presence of the petitioner but the same were received back unexecuted with the report that 'whereabouts of the petitioner are not l<nown.' With the assistance of learned Amicus Curiae Counsel-Mr. Rajesh Raghav, record of this case ' • has been perusedand he has also raisedthe same very pleas which had not found favour with the Appellate Court and rightly so, as this Court finds that the depositionof the eye witness (PW-5) leaves no mannerof doubt that the petitioner was to be squarely blamed for this fatal vehicularaccident. Learned Amicus Curiae counsel had pointed out that the petitioner iiad already undergone substantive sentence of about 6V2 months and the facts of this case are such that:the substantive sentence ought to be reduced to the peHod already undergone.

¶7This plea for mercy cannot be entertainedfor the reason that jumping of traffic lights by professionaldrivers; like the petitioner,is rampantand is playing havoc, resultingin loss of precious human lives. Undue sympathy to such callous professional drivers would send wrong signal to the society. Therefore, the plea of mercy advanced on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. Impugned conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, requiring any interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

¶8This petition being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed. Consequently, bail bonds of the petitioner stand forfeited, requiring that he be taken into custody to serve out the remainder of the sentence. Trial court to ensure compliance of this order.

¶9This petition is disposed of with directions as aforesaid. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE October 21, 2011 rs ] i Page 3of3