Delhi District Court
Anurag vs State on 10 March, 2025
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CA No.:- 295/2023
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-007062-2023
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Anurag
S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder Aggarwal
R/o H.No.D-57-A, Gali No.8,
Harphool Vihar, Baprola, Delhi .... Appellant
VERSUS
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) .... Respondent
Date of institution of the appeal : 28/08/2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 25/02/2025
Date of judgment : 10/03/2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall
conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal appeal under section
374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:07:30 -0200CA No. 295/2023 Page No.1/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) filed by the appellant against the
judgment dated 19/04/2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned
judgment’) and order on sentence dated 31/07/2023 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘impugned order’) passed by Sh. Aakash Sharma,
Ld. MM-08, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case FIR
In the present appeal, the appellant has prayed to set-
aside/ quash the impugned judgment dated 19/04/2023 and order
on sentence dated 31/07/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court and
to acquit the appellant for the offences u/s. 279/337/304-A IPC.
2. Appellant has preferred the present appeal against
the judgment dated 19/04/2023 and order on sentence dated
31/07/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Vide judgment dated
19/04/2023, the appellant/accused was convicted by the Ld. Trial
Court for the offences u/s. 279/337/304-A IPC. Vide order on
sentence dated 31/07/2023, the appellant/accused was sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of six months
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:07:38 -0200CA No. 295/2023 Page No.2/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)for the offence u/s. 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for the period of six months for the offence
u/s. 337 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the
period of two years for the offence u/s. 304-A IPC and he was
also directed to pay compensation u/s. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. of
Rs.6,00,000/- to the LRs of the deceased Smt. Kavita Devi and
victim Sh. Ram Pujan Singh and in default of payment of
compensation, the appellant/accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for the period of six months. It was also directed
that all the imprisonments shall run consecutively.
3. BRIEF FACTS AS MENTIONED IN THE APPEAL
Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the
present appeal as stated in the present appeal are that the
appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated
19/04/2023 and order on sentence dated 31/07/2023 passed by
the Ld. Trial Court. Impugned judgment and order on sentence
passed by the Ld. Trial Court are illegal, unjust, unwarranted,
arbitrary and against the material and evidence available on
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:07:43 -0200CA No. 295/2023 Page No.3/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)record as well as principles of natural justice. Till date, the
appellant has not filed any similar appeal before any Court of law
including the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi or Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India.
Appellant has challenged the impugned judgment
and order on sentence on the grounds, as mentioned in the
present appeal.
Grounds of appeal- Impugned judgment and order on sentence
are based on conjectures and surmises. Impugned judgment and
order on sentence were passed by the Ld. Trial Court in a very
hasty manner without applying its judicial mind. Ld. Trial Court
has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove its case against the appellant/accused as PW-1, who is
the complainant/injured, has failed to support the prosecution
case and also failed to prove that his wife Smt. Kavita Devi
(deceased) has died due to rash and negligent driving of the
appellant/accused of vehicle Ecco van bearing no. DL-1LT-7346.
PW-1 did not identify the appellant as driver and offending
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:07:54 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.4/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
vehicle. APP for the State has duly cross-examined PW-1 but
nothing incriminating has come out from the cross-examination
of PW-1. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the post-mortem report
of deceased Smt. Kavita Devi and in the absence of the same,
offence u/s. 304-A IPC against the appellant has not been proved.
Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that PW-2 has made
improvements in his evidence and has failed to prove that he was
present at the spot at the time of alleged incident but Ld. Trial
Court illegally and arbitrarily has given weightage to the
evidence of PW-2 and did not consider the evidence of
complainant/injured/PW-1. Therefore, impugned judgment is
cryptic and liable to be set-aside/quashed. Ld. Trial Court has
wrongly appreciated that the appellant was under the influence of
liquor at the time of alleged incident but the said fact has not
been proved by the prosecution as no medical evidence has
brought on record by the prosecution for the same. Ld. Trial
Court has wrongly awarded the compensation of Rs.6 Lakh to the
LRs of the deceased Smt. Kavita Devi as the LRs of deceased
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:08:00 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.5/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
have already received a sum of Rs.14 Lakh from the Ld. MACT,
therefore, impugned judgment and order on sentence are perverse
and same are liable to be quashed. Ld. Trial Court has failed to
appreciate that the appellant/accused has faced the trial for the
period of about 7½ years and he never misused the privilege of
bail nor tried to influence the prosecution witnesses. Ld. Trial
Court has failed to appreciate that the antecedents of the
appellant were clean and clear and he never indulged in any
criminal activities nor convicted by the Court of law and report
of the Probation Officer also supported the said averment.
Therefore, the appellant/accused had to be released on probation.
4. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention
here the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
(i) In the present case, on the complaint of the
complainant Sh. Ram Pujan Singh, FIR No.917/2014, Police
Station Ranhola u/s. 279/337 IPC was got registered by the
Police of Police Station Ranhola. After registration of the FIR,
the matter was investigated by the police and on completion of
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:08:07 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.6/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
the investigation, charge-sheet for the offences
u/s. 279/337/304-A IPC was submitted in the Ld. Trial Court on
12/10/2015 for trial of the accused.
(ii) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as per
charge-sheet is that on 22/11/2014 at about 7:30 PM at Mangal
Bazar Road near Raj Property Office, Dass Garden, Delhi within
the jurisdiction of PS Ranhola, accused Anurag was driving the
offending vehicle Ecco Van bearing registration
no. DL-1LT-7346 in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger
human life and personal safety of others and the accused had hit
the aforesaid offending vehicle against Sh. Ram Pujan Singh and
caused simple injuries to him and accused had also hit the
aforesaid offending vehicle against Smt. Kavita Devi (deceased)
and the accused had caused her death due to rash and negligent
act not amounting to culpable homicide.
(iii) Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Ld. Trial
Court vide order dated 07/06/2016. Copy of the charge-sheet was
supplied to the accused Anurag in compliance of section 207
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:08:14 -0200CA No. 295/2023 Page No.7/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
(iv) Finding a prima-facie case against the accused
Anurag, notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences
u/s. 279/337/304-A IPC was served upon the accused Anurag, to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(v) Prosecution was then called upon to substantiate its
case by examining its witnesses. The prosecution in support of its
case had examined six witnesses i.e. complainant/PW-1 Sh. Ram
Pujan Singh, PW-2 Sh. Sonu Kumar, PW-3 Ct. Pawan Kumar,
PW-4 Retired ASI/Tech. Devender, PW-5 Sh. Mukesh Chand and
PW-6 SI Bajrang Lal.
PW-1 in his testimony had categorically, elaborately
and graphically described as to how the offence of rash and
negligent driving resulted into death of Smt. Kavita Devi
(deceased), was committed by driver of the offending vehicle at
the relevant time, date and place. PW-1 had also deposed that he
had also sustained severe injuries and remained in an
unconscious condition. PW-1 had also deposed that he could not
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:08:19 -0200CA No. 295/2023 Page No.8/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)see the driver of the offending vehicle. APP for the State sought
permission to put leading questions to PW-1 and APP for the
State was permitted for the same and leading questions were put
to PW-1. PW-1 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
PW-2, who is the son of the complainant/PW-1 Sh.
Ram Pujan Singh and deceased Smt. Kavita Devi, in his
testimony had categorically, elaborately and graphically
described as to how the offence of rash and negligent driving
resulted into death of Smt. Kavita Devi (deceased), was
committed by the accused Anurag at the relevant time, date and
place. PW-2 in his testimony had also deposed that in the
accident, his father had also sustained injuries. PW-2 had also
deposed that the accused/driver Anurag was apprehended by him
at the spot and he was under the influence of liquor. PW-2 was
cross-examined by counsel for the accused. PW-2 was permitted
to re-examine by APP for the State and he was re-examined by
APP for the State. PW-2 was again cross-examined by counsel
for the accused.
PW-3 in his testimony had deposed that on
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:08:25 -0200CA No. 295/2023 Page No.9/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)22/11/2024, he had joined the investigation of the present case
alongwith IO. PW-3 was cross-examined by counsel for the
accused.
PW-4 in his testimony had deposed that on
28/11/2014, he had conducted the mechanical inspection of
offending vehicle Maruti Ecco bearing no. DL-1LT-7346 and his
detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW-4/A. PW-4 was cross-
examined by counsel for the accused.
PW-5 in his testimony had deposed that he is the
registered owner of vehicle bearing no. DL-1LT-7346 and the
aforesaid vehicle was seized by the police in the present case and
he got released the same on superdari vide superdarinama
Ex.PW-5/A. PW-5 was cross-examined by counsel for the
accused.
PW-6 is the IO in the present case, who deposed
regarding investigation conducted by him and he duly proved on
record the documents relating to the investigation conducted by
him. PW-6 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:08:30 -
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.10/46
(vi) The prosecution in support of its case has relied
upon the documents i.e. statement/complaint of the complainant
Ex.PW-1/A, statement regarding dead body identification
Ex.PW-2/A, dead body handing over memo Ex.PW-2/B, three
photographs showing the spot as well as offending vehicle and
rehri Ex.P-1 (colly), seizure memo of offending vehicle bearing
no. DL-1LT-7346 Ex.PW-3/A, seizure memo of rehri
Ex.PW-3/B, arrest memo of the accused Ex.PW-3/C, personal
search memo of the accused Ex.PW-3/D, seizure memo of RC of
vehicle bearing no. DL-1LT-7346 Ex.PW-3/E, seizure memo of
insurance and fitness of vehicle bearing no. DL-1LT-7346
Ex.PW-3/F, seizure memo of driving license of the accused
Ex.PW-3/G, site plan of the spot Ex.PW-3/H, mechanical
inspection report of vehicle bearing no. DL-1LT-7346
Ex.PW-4/A, superdarinama of offending vehicle bearing no.
DL-1LT-7346 Ex.PW-5/A and rukka Ex.PW-6/A.
It is pertinent to mention here that statement u/s. 161
Cr.P.C. of PW-2 Sonu Kumar Mark-X was exhibited during the
course of cross-examination of PW-2.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:08:36 -0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.11/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
It is pertinent to mention here that vide separate
statement of the accused recorded on 19/12/2018, accused had
admitted the MLC no.945/14 of injured Ram Pujan Singh, post-
mortem report of deceased Smt. Kavita Devi and MLC no.944/14
of deceased Smt. Kavita Devi and same were exhibited as
Ex.X-1, Ex.X-2 and Ex.X-3 respectively. Vide separate statement
of the accused recorded on 24/07/2019, accused had also
admitted the FIR No. 917/2014 and DD No. 67A dated
27/11/2014 and same were exhibited as Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2
respectively.
(vii) Separate statement of the accused Anurag was
recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations
against him and rebutted the prosecution evidence against him
and claimed that he is innocent and he has been falsely
implicated in this case. It was also stated by the accused that no
accident has been caused by him. It was also stated that he wants
to lead evidence in his defence.
(viii) On 28/01/2023, it was submitted by counsel for the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:08:42 -0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.12/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
accused that accused does not want to lead any defence evidence.
(ix) Thereafter, final arguments were heard by the Ld.
Trial Court. Vide impugned judgment passed by the Ld.
Trial Court, accused was convicted for the offences
u/s. 279/337/304-A IPC and order on sentence was passed by the
Ld. Trial Court.
ARGUMENTS ON THE APPEAL
5. This Court heard the arguments on the present
appeal advanced by Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ld. Addl.
PP for the State/respondent. Perused the material available on
record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by
Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and
order on sentence are liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as
mentioned in the present appeal. On the other hand, it was
submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent that the Ld.
Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order on
sentence in accordance with law and there is no merits in the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:08:50 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.13/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
FINDINGS
6. It is well settled law that in order to bring home
conviction the prosecution has to show on record an unbroken
chain of events leading to commission of actual offence. Further,
it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case in such a manner
so as to bring it outside the pale of any reasonable doubt.
Before proceeding further, it is relevant to discuss
the relevant case laws relating to appreciation of evidence.
Law relating to appreciation of evidence of the
witnesses has been elaborated by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in case titled as “Satish @ Bombaiya Vs. State” { 44
(1991) DLT 561} and it was held that :-
“…….. While appreciating the evidence of a
witness approach must be whether the
evidence of the witness, read as a whole,
appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed then undoubtedly it is
necessary for the Court to scrutinise the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:08:56 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.14/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
evidence more particularly keeping in view
the deficiencies, drawbacks, and infirmities
pointed out in the evidence as a whole and
evaluate them to find out whether it is against
the general tenor of the evidence given by the
witness and whether earlier evaluation of the
evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of
behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters
not touching the core of the case, hyper
technical approach by taking sentences torn
out of context here and there from the
evidence, attaching importance to some
technical error committed by the investigating
officer not going to the root of the matter,
would not ordinarily permit rejection of the
evidence as a whole. The main thing to be
seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to
the root of the matter or pertain to
insignificant aspects thereof. In the former
case, the defense may be justified in seeking
advantage of the inconsistencies in the
evidence. In the latter, however, no such
benefit may be available to it. That is a
salutary method of appreciation of evidence in
criminal cases.”
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:09:03 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.15/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)Law relating to appreciation of ocular evidence has
been elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
titled as ” Shahaja @ Shahjahan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State
of Maharashtra” {Crl. Appeal No. 739/2017 decided on
14/07/2022} and it was held that :-
“27. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a
hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket
formula for appreciation of the ocular
evidence. The judicially evolved principles
for appreciation of ocular evidence in a
criminal case can be enumerated as under :-
I. While appreciating the evidence of a
witness, the approach must be whether the
evidence of the witness read as a whole
appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly
necessary for the Court to scrutinize the
evidence more particularly keeping in view
the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities
pointed out in the evidence as a whole and
evaluate them to find out whether it is against
the general tenor of the evidence given by the
witness and whether the earlier evaluation of
the evidence is shaken as to render it
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:09:12 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.16/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives
evidence had the opportunity to form the
opinion about the general tenor of evidence
given by the witness, the appellate court
which had not this benefit will have to attach
due weight to the appreciation of evidence by
the trial court and unless there are reasons
weighty and formidable it would not be
proper to reject the evidence on the ground of
minor variations or infirmities in the matter
of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it
is quite possible for him to make some
discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind
that it is only when discrepancies in the
evidence of a witness are so incompatible
with the credibility of his version that the
court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not
touching the core of the case, hyper technical
approach by taking sentences torn out of
context here or there from the evidence,
attaching importance to some technical error
committed by the investigating officer not
going to the root of the matter would not
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:09:17 -0200CA No. 295/2023 Page No.17/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as
a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere
variations falling in the narration of an
incident (either as between the evidence of
two witnesses or as between two statements
of the same witness) is an unrealistic
approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected
to possess a photographic memory and to
recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a
video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is
overtaken by events. The witness could not
have anticipated the occurrence which so
often has an element of surprise. The mental
faculties therefore cannot be expected to be
attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from
person to person. What one may notice,
another may not. An object or movement
might emboss its image on one person’s mind
whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of
another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately
recall a conversation and reproduce the very
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:09:23 -0200CA No. 295/2023 Page No.18/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)words used by them or heard by them. They
can only recall the main purport of the
conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a
witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or
the time duration of an occurrence, usually,
people make their estimates by guess work on
the spur of the moment at the time of
interrogation. And one cannot expect people
to make very precise or reliable estimates in
such matters. Again, it depends on the time-
sense of individuals which varies from person
to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to
recall accurately the sequence of events
which take place in rapid succession or in a
short time span. A witness is liable to get
confused, or mixed up when interrogated later
on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is
liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere
and the piercing cross examination by counsel
and out of nervousness mix up facts, get
confused regarding sequence of events, or fill
up details from imagination on the spur of the
moment. The sub- conscious mind of the Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:09:29 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.19/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
witness sometimes so operates on account of
the fear of looking foolish or being
disbelieved though the witness is giving a
truthful and honest account of the occurrence
witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly
inconsistent with the evidence need not
necessarily be sufficient to amount to
contradiction. Unless the former statement has
the potency to discredit the later statement,
even if the later statement is at variance with
the former to some extent it would not be
helpful to contradict that witness.”
7. Now, this Court shall proceed to discuss the merits
of the case.
(i) Testimonies of the complainant and eye-witness
In the present case, notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the
offences u/s. 279/337304-A IPC was served/framed against the
accused.
PW-1 is the complainant in the present case. PW-1
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:09:36 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.20/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)in his testimony had categorically, elaborately and graphically
described as to how the offence of rash and negligent driving
resulted into death of his wife Smt. Kavita Devi (deceased), was
committed by driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time,
date and place. PW-1 had also deposed that he had also sustained
severe injuries and remained in an unconscious condition. PW-1
had also deposed that he could not see the driver of the offending
vehicle and he cannot identify the offending vehicle.
Complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution on the
aspect of identification of the accused and offending vehicle.
However, factum regarding accident by the offending vehicle has
been admitted by complainant/PW-1 in his testimony. Factum
regarding making of complaint/statement Ex.PW-1/A has also
been admitted by the complainant/PW-1 in his testimony.
Complainant/PW-1 in his testimony had duly proved on record
the complaint Ex.PW-1/A, on the basis of which, the present case
FIR was got registered. The contents of complaint Ex.PW-1/A
and FIR Ex.A-1 have been duly proved on record and
corroborated by PW-1 and other prosecution witnesses.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:09:41 -
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.21/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
PW-2 is stated to be eye-witness of the
accident/incident. PW-2, who is the son of the complainant/PW-1
Sh. Ram Pujan Singh and deceased Smt. Kavita Devi, in his
testimony had categorically, elaborately and graphically
described as to how the offence of rash and negligent driving
resulted into death of Smt. Kavita Devi (deceased), was
committed by the accused Anurag at the relevant time, date and
place. PW-2 in his testimony had also deposed that in the
accident, his father had also sustained injuries. PW-2 had also
deposed that the accused/driver Anurag was apprehended by him
at the spot and he was under the influence of liquor.
PW-2 has duly supported the case of the prosecution.
Testimony of PW-2 is corroborated with the testimonies of other
prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence as well as other
evidence relied upon by the prosecution. There is nothing on the
record to disbelieve the testimony/version of PW-2. In the cross-
examination of PW-2, no material contradiction/inconsistency
has been surfaced or pointed out except some minor ones which
are but natural.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:09:46 -
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.22/46
(ii) Identity of deceased
PW-2 in his testimony had deposed regarding
identification of dead body of deceased Smt. Kavita Devi and he
identified the dead body of deceased Smt. Kavita Devi vide dead
body identification statement Ex.PW-2/A. Accused/counsel had
not put any question in the cross-examination of PW-2 to dispute
the identity of the deceased Smt. Kavita Devi. Hence, identity of
the deceased Smt. Kavita Devi is duly established by the
prosecution.
(iii) Identity of the accused
PW-2 and PW-3 during the course of their
testimonies have duly identified the appellant/ accused Anurag.
Arrest memo Ex.PW-3/C of the accused Anurag is bearing the
signatures of PW-3 and PW-6 and personal search memo of the
accused Anurag is also bearing the signatures of PW-3 and PW-6.
Accused/counsel had not put any question in the cross-
examination of PW-2 and PW-3 to dispute the identity of the
accused Anurag. Hence, identity of the appellant/ accused
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:09:52 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.23/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)Anurag is duly established by the prosecution.
(iv) Presence of the accused
PW-2 in his testimony had specifically deposed that
the accused Anurag was present at the place of accident/incident
at the relevant time and date and the accused had caused the
accident. As per accused, he has not caused any accident. In the
present case, the accused neither examined any independent
witness nor proved on record any documentary evidence to show
that at the relevant time and date of accident/incident, he was not
present at the spot. On the other hand, PW-2 has duly supported
the case of the prosecution and the case of the prosecution is duly
supported and corroborated with the testimony of PW-2.
Prosecution has duly proved the fact that the accused was present
at the spot at the relevant time and date. Hence, presence of the
accused at the place of the accident/incident at the relevant time
and date is duly established by the prosecution.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:09:57 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.24/46
(v) Identity of offending vehicle as well as rehri
In the present case, photographs of the spot showing
the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1LT-7346 and rehri Ex.P-1
(colly) have been duly proved on record by the prosecution.
PW-2 in his testimony had specifically mentioned the registration
number of offending vehicle as DL-1LT- 7346. During the course
of their examination, PW-2 and PW-3 have duly identified the
offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LT-7346 and
rehri from the photographs Ex.P-1 (colly). Accused/counsel had
not put any question in the cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-3
to dispute the identity of the offending vehicle as well as rehri.
Seizure memo of the offending vehicle Ex.PW-3/A and seizure
memo of the rehri Ex.PW-3/B were duly proved on record by the
prosecution. Hence, identity of the offending vehicle as well as
rehri is duly established/proved by the prosecution.
(vi) Medical witnesses and medical documents
In the present case, PWs Dr. Rakesh, Dr. Abhishek
and Dr. Praveen Yadav were cited as medical witnesses.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:10:03 -
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.25/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
It is pertinent to mention here that vide separate
statement of the accused recorded on 19/12/2018, accused had
admitted the MLC no.945/14 of injured Sh. Ram Pujan Singh,
post-mortem report of deceased Smt. Kavita Devi and MLC
no.944/14 of deceased Smt. Kavita Devi and same were
exhibited as Ex.X-1, Ex.X-2 and Ex.X-3 respectively. In view of
the admission/ statement of the accused, examination of the
aforesaid medical witnesses was dispensed with vide order dated
19/12/2018 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
Hence, aforesaid medical documents Ex.X-1,
Ex.X-2 and Ex.X-3 were duly proved on record by the
prosecution. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the
aforesaid medical documents.
(vii) Testimonies of police witnesses
In the present case, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 are the
police officials. From the testimonies of the aforesaid police
witnesses, it is evident that investigation conducted including the
documents prepared in the present case during the course of
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:10:09 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.26/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)investigation have been substantially proved by the aforesaid
police witnesses.
PW-6 is the IO in the present case, who deposed
regarding investigation conducted by him and he duly proved on
record the documents relating to the investigation conducted by
him.
(viii) Other factors
In the present case, mode & manner of offence,
nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and injured, intention
and knowledge are relevant factors. The aforesaid factors have
been duly proved on record by the prosecution from the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence
as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
In the present case, mechanical inspection report
Ex.PW-4/A of offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1LT-7346 has
been duly proved on record by the prosecution. PW-4 in his
testimony had deposed that he had conducted the mechanical
inspection of the aforesaid offending vehicle and as per his report
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:10:15 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.27/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Ex.PW-4/A, front bumper was damaged from right side, right
side head light and fender was damaged, bonnet was damaged
from right side and right side mirror was damaged and vehicle
was found fit for road test. Mechanical inspection report
Ex.PW-4/A has been corroborated with the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses and documentary as well as other evidence
relied upon by the prosecution.
8. CONTENTIONS
(a) It is the contention of the appellant that in the
present case, complainant/ PW-1 had turned hostile and he had
not supported the case of the prosecution as PW-1 in his
testimony had deposed that he could not see the driver of the
offending vehicle and he cannot identify the offending vehicle
and in view of the same, impugned judgment and order on
sentence are liable to be set-aside.
It is well settled law that evidence of a hostile
witness cannot be discarded as a whole and relevant parts thereof
which are admissible in law can be used by the prosecution or the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:10:20 -0200CA No. 295/2023 Page No.28/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)defence.
Law relating to hostile witness has been elaborated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as ” Rajesh
Yadav & Anr Vs. State of UP” {Criminal Appeal No.339-
340/2014 decided on 04/02/2022} and it was held that :-
“The expression “hostile witness” does not
find a place in the Indian Evidence Act. It is
coined to mean testimony of a witness turning
to depose in favour of the opposite party. We
must bear it in mind that a witness may
depose in favour of a party in whose favour it
is meant to be giving through his chief
examination, while later on change his view
in favour of the opposite side. Similarly, there
would be cases where a witness does not
support the case of the party starting from
chief examination itself. This classification
has to be borne in mind by the Court. With
respect to the first category, the Court is not
denuded of its power to make an appropriate
assessment of the evidence rendered by such a
witness. Even a chief examination could be
termed as evidence. Such evidence would
become complete after the cross examination.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:10:25 -
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.29/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Once evidence is completed, the said
testimony as a whole is meant for the court to
assess and appreciate qua a fact. Therefore,
not only the specific part in which a witness
has turned hostile but the circumstances under
which it happened can also be considered,
particularly in a situation where the chief
examination was completed and there are
circumstances indicating the reasons behind
the subsequent statement, which could be
deciphered by the court. It is well within the
powers of the court to make an assessment,
being a matter before it and come to the
correct conclusion.”
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as ” Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)”
{Criminal Appeal No.1669/2009 decided on 15/12/2022} that :-
“Therefore, this Court cautioned that even if a
witness is treated as “hostile” and is cross-
examined, his evidence cannot be written off
altogether but must be considered with due
care and circumspection and that part of the
testimony which is creditworthy must be
considered and acted upon. It is for the judge
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:10:31 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.30/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
as a matter of prudence to consider the extent
of evidence which is creditworthy for the
purpose of proof of the case. In other words,
the fact that a witness has been declared
“hostile” does not result in an automatic
rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence
of a “hostile witness” if it finds corroboration
from the facts of the case may be taken into
account while judging the guilt of the
accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a
conviction upon a “hostile witness” testimony
if corroborated by other reliable evidence.”
In the present case, PW-1 was not completely
hostile. PW-1 in his testimony had categorically, elaborately and
graphically described as to how the offence of rash and negligent
driving resulted into death of Smt. Kavita Devi (deceased), was
committed by driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time,
date and place. PW-1 had also deposed that he had also sustained
severe injuries and remained in an unconscious condition. PW-1
had also deposed that he could not see the driver of the offending
vehicle and he cannot identify the offending vehicle.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:10:37 -
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.31/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution only
on the aspect of identification of the accused and offending
vehicle. However, factum regarding accident by the offending
vehicle has been admitted by complainant/PW-1. Factum
regarding making of complaint/ statement Ex.PW-1/A has also
been admitted by the complainant/ PW-1. Complainant/PW-1 in
his testimony had duly proved on record the complaint
Ex.PW-1/A, on the basis of which, the present case FIR was got
registered. The contents of complaint Ex.PW-1/A and FIR
Ex.A-1 have been duly proved on record and corroborated by
PW-1 and other prosecution witnesses.
Factum regarding aforesaid accident/offence has not
been denied by the PW-1 in his testimony. PW-2, who is the eye-
witness of the accident, has duly supported the case of the
prosecution. PW-2 in his testimony had categorically, elaborately
and graphically described as to how the offence of rash and
negligent driving resulted into death of his mother Smt. Kavita
Devi (deceased), was committed by the accused Anurag at the
relevant time, date and place. PW-2 in his testimony had also
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:10:41 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.32/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)deposed that in the accident, his father had also sustained
injuries. PW-2 had also deposed that the accused/driver Anurag
was apprehended by him at the spot and he was under the
influence of liquor. During the course of his examination, PW-2
had duly identified the accused as driver of the offending vehicle
and he had also duly identified the offending vehicle from the
photographs Ex.P-1 (colly).
In view of the above, the whole testimony of PW-1
as well as case of the prosecution cannot be completely washed
off/discarded in view of the fact that PW-2/ eye-witness and
other prosecution witnesses have duly supported the case of the
prosecution. In view of the same, the contention of the appellant
in this regard is not tenable.
(b) It is the contention of the appellant that PW-1 is the
husband and PW-2 is the son of the deceased and being the
husband and son of the deceased, PW-1 and PW-2 have falsely
deposed against the accused to falsely implicate the accused in
the present case and in view of the same, impugned judgment
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:10:47 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.33/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
and order on sentence are liable to be set-aside.
It is well settled law that merely because the
witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their
evidence cannot be thrown out.
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as ” Waman & Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra”
{Criminal Appeal No. 364/2009 decided on 29/06/2011} that :-
“It is clear that merely because the witnesses
are related to the complainant or the deceased,
their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their
evidence is found to be consistent and true,
the fact of being a relative cannot by itself
discredit their evidence. In other words, the
relationship is not a factor to affect the
credibility of a witness and the courts have to
scrutinize their evidence meticulously with a
little care.”
In view of the specific testimonies of PW-1 and
PW-2 and other concerned prosecution witnesses regarding
commission of offence by the accused, the contention of the
appellant in this regard is not tenable.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:10:53 -
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.34/46
(c) It is the contention of the appellant that in the
present case, no independent public witness was joined in the
investigation of the present case by the IO nor cited/examined in
the present case and in view of the same, impugned judgment
and order on sentence are liable to be set-aside.
It is well settled law that non-examination of any
witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution and it
depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses
and its importance.
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as ” Rajesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of UP”, {Criminal
Appeal No.339-340/2014 decided on 04/02/2022} that:-
“A mere non-examination of the witness per
se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution.
It depends upon the quality and not the
quantity of the witnesses and its importance.
If the court is satisfied with the explanation
given by the prosecution along with the
adequacy of the materials sufficient enough to
proceed with the trial and convict the accused,
there cannot be any prejudice. Similarly, if the
court is of the view that the evidence is not
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:11:00 -0200CA No. 295/2023 Page No.35/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)screened and could well be produced by the
other side in support of its case, no adverse
inference can be drawn. Onus is on the part of
the party who alleges that a witness has not
been produced deliberately to prove it….”
It is well settled law that non-joining of public
witness in the investigation is not fatal in every case. In the
present case, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 were joined in the
investigation of the present case. PW-1, PW-2 and other
concerned prosecution witnesses have duly supported the case of
the prosecution. In view of the same, the contention of the
appellant in this regard is not tenable.
(d) It is the contention of the appellant that in the
present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of
the offences u/s. 279/337/304-A IPC and in view of the same,
impugned judgment and order on sentence are liable to be set-
aside. PW-1 and PW-2 are eye-witnesses of the accident/incident.
PW-2 has duly supported the case of the prosecution. In the
present case, the prosecution has been successful to prove the fact
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:11:07 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.36/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)that on on 22/11/2014 at about 7:30 PM at Mangal Bazar Road
near Raj Property Office, Dass Garden, Delhi within the
jurisdiction of PS Ranhola, accused Anurag was driving the
offending vehicle Ecco Van bearing registration
no. DL-1LT-7346 in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger
human life and personal safety of others and the accused had hit
the aforesaid offending vehicle against Sh. Ram Pujan Singh and
caused simple injuries to him and accused had also hit the
aforesaid offending vehicle against Smt. Kavita Devi and the
accused had caused her death due to rash and negligent act not
amounting to culpable homicide.
In the present case, all the essential ingredients of
the offences u/s. 279/337/304-A IPC have been duly proved on
record from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and
documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the
prosecution. The prosecution has been successful to prove its case
against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt for the
offences u/s. 279/337/304-A IPC. In view of the same, the
contention of the appellant in this regard is not tenable.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:11:12 -
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.37/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
(e) It is the contention of the appellant that the
prosecution has failed to prove the post-mortem report of the
deceased Smt. Kavita Devi and in the absence of the same,
offence u/s 304-A IPC has not been proved against the accused
and in view of the same, impugned judgment and order on
sentence are liable to be set-aside.
It is pertinent to mention here that vide separate
statement of the accused recorded on 19/12/2018, accused had
admitted the MLC no.945/14 of injured Sh. Ram Pujan Singh,
post-mortem report of deceased Smt. Kavita Devi and MLC
no.944/14 of deceased Smt. Kavita Devi and same were exhibited
as Ex.X-1, Ex.X-2 and Ex.X-3 respectively. In view of the
admission/ statement of the accused, examination of the medical
witnesses was dispensed with vide order dated 19/12/2018 passed
by the Ld. Trial Court. Hence, aforesaid medical documents
Ex.X-1, Ex.X-2 and Ex.X-3 were duly proved on record by the
prosecution. On the one hand, the appellant/accused had admitted
the post-mortem report Ex.X-2 of the deceased Smt. Kavita Devi
before the Ld. Trial Court, on the other hand, the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:11:17 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.38/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
appellant/accused is disputing the same in the present appeal. No
reasonable explanation has been furnished for the same. A party
cannot be permitted to admit and dispute the same document in
the same case. In view of the same, the contention of the
appellant in this regard is not tenable.
(f) It is the contention of the appellant that as per case
of the prosecution, the accused/appellant was under the influence
of alcohol at the time of alleged accident/incident but no medical
document of the accused in this regard has been proved on record
by the prosecution and in view of the same, impugned judgment
and order on sentence are liable to be set-aside.
Merely because the medical document of the
accused has not been proved on record to show that the
appellant/accused was under the influence of liquor at the time of
accident/incident, the case of the prosecution cannot be
completely washed off/discarded in view of the fact that PW-2/
eye-witness and other prosecution witnesses have duly supported
the case of the prosecution. It is admitted fact that in the present
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:11:22 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.39/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)case, the accused has not been convicted for the offence of
drunken driving. In view of the same, the contention of the
appellant in this regard is not tenable.
(g) It is the contention of the appellant that the Ld. Trial
Court had picked and chosen evidence available on record as per
its convenience for conviction of the accused/appellant and in
view of the same, impugned judgment and order on sentence are
liable to be set-aside. Ld. Trial Court has passed the detailed and
reasoned judgment and all the points and contentions of both the
parties were duly dealt with by the Ld. Trial Court in the
impugned judgment. In view of the same, the contention of the
appellant in this regard is not tenable.
(h) It is the contention of the appellant that IO had not
investigated the present matter properly and in view of the same,
impugned judgment and order on sentence are liable to be set-
aside.
There is nothing on the record to show that IO had
not investigated the present matter properly and investigation
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:11:27 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.40/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)was defective.
Even otherwise, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in case titled as “Ambika Prasad & Anr. Vs. State
(Delhi Administration)” (AIR 2000 SC 718) that :-
…..Dealing with a case of negligence on the
part of the investigating officer, this Court in
Karnel Singh v. State of MP {(1995) 5 SCC
518} observed that in a case of defective
investigation it would not be proper to acquit
the accused if the case is otherwise established
conclusively because in that event it would
tantamount to be falling in the hands of erring
investigating officer…”
Hence, the contention of the appellant in this regard is
not tenable.
(i) It is the contention of the appellant that there are
material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses and in view of the same, impugned
judgment and order on sentence are liable to be set-aside.
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as “Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta Vs. State of
Maharashtra“, { (2010) 13 SCC 657} that:-
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:11:32 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.41/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
“While appreciating the evidence, the court
has to take into consideration whether the
contradictions/ omissions had been of such
magnitude that they may materially affect the
trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies,
embellishments or improvements on trivial
matters without effecting the core of the
prosecution case should not be made a
ground to reject the evidence in its entirety.
The Trial Court, after going through the
entire evidence, must form an opinion about
the credibility of the witnesses and the
appellate Court in normal course would not
be justified in reviewing the same again
without justifiable reasons.”
In the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, no
material contradiction and inconsistency has been surfaced
except some minor ones which are but natural. Hence, the
contention of the appellant in this regard is not tenable.
9. In the present case, no defence evidence had been
led by the accused in support of his defence and to rebut and
contradict the case of the prosecution.
CONCLUSION
10. It is well settled law that the Appellate Court will
usually not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Trial
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:11:38 -0200CA No. 295/2023 Page No.42/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)Court and the Appellate Court will interfere only if it is found that
the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously and
perversely. The first Appellate Court is required to examine the
case of the appellant with reference to the grounds urged in the
appeal.
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as ” Rajan Vs. State of MP“, {(1999) 6 SCC 29} that:-
“Appellate Court’s jurisdiction is co-extensive
with that of the trial Court in the matter of
assessment, appraisal and appreciation of the
evidence and also to determine the disputed
issues.”.
All the points and contentions were duly dealt with
by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment. Ld. Trial Court
has rightly held that the prosecution had successfully proved all
the ingredients of the offences u/s 279/337/304-A IPC against the
appellant/ accused. There is nothing on the record to show that
the Ld. Trial Court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily,
capriciously and perversely. There is no illegality, impropriety
and infirmity in the impugned judgment and order on sentence
passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:11:43 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.43/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
11. Vide judgment dated 19/04/2023, the
appellant/accused was convicted by the Ld. Trial Court for the
offences u/s. 279/337/304-A IPC. Vide order on sentence dated
31/07/2023, the appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for the period of six months for the
offence u/s. 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
the period of six months for the offence u/s. 337 IPC and to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years for
the offence u/s. 304-A IPC and he was also directed to pay
compensation u/s. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. of Rs.6,00,000/- to the LRs of
the deceased Smt. Kavita Devi and victim Sh. Ram Pujan Singh
and in default of payment of compensation, the appellant shall
undergo simple imprisonment for the period of six months and all
the imprisonments shall run consecutively.
Sentence and compensation amount were awarded
by the Ld. Trial Court to the appellant/ accused after considering
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Sentences awarded by the Ld. Trial Court for the
offences u/s. 279/337/304-A IPC are reasonable and justified.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:11:49 -
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.44/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
On 06/07/2023, it was submitted by the LRs of the
deceased namely Ram Pujan Singh and Sonu Kumar before the
Ld. Trial Court that they have received the compensation of
Rs.14,00,000/- from the insurance company before the Ld.
MACT Court. Vide impugned order on sentence,
appellant/accused was directed to pay compensation u/s. 357 (3)
Cr.P.C. of Rs.6,00,000/- to the LRs of the deceased Smt. Kavita
Devi and victim Sh. Ram Pujan Singh. Compensation u/s 357(3)
Cr.P.C. of Rs.6,00,000/- awarded by the Ld. Trial Court is also
reasonable and justified.
12. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the
aforesaid case laws, this Court is held that there is no illegality,
impropriety and infirmity in the impugned judgment and order
on sentence passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Impugned judgment
dated 19/04/2023 and order on sentence dated 31/07/2023 passed
by the Ld. Trial Court are upheld. Accordingly, the present appeal
of the appellant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Appellant is already in JC in the present case. He be
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
16:11:54 –
0200
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.45/46
Anurag Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)kept in jail to serve the sentence awarded by the Ld. Trial Court.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the appellant.
Copy of this judgment supplied to the appellant free
of cost. Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of
this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due
Digitally
compliance. signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.10
Announced in the open Court 16:12:00 –
on 10/03/2025 0200
(VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CA No. 295/2023 Page No.46/46
[ad_1]
Source link