The Delhi High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a roadways bus driver convicted and sentenced for rash driving or riding on public roads and causing death by negligence.
A single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held, “Two persons have died in the accident. No one can and much fewer persons driving roadways buses can be permitted to drive in rash and negligent manner so as to put the lives of passengers and other persons in danger.”
Further, the Court held, “It is not inclined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 368 CrPC to the Petitioner and reduce the sentence awarded to the petitioner,” while dismissing the revision petition and canceling his bail bonds and directed him to surrender within four weeks.
The petitioner, Ram Kishan, has challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge (NDPS), South East, Saket wherein he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for an offense under Section 279 IPC and simple imprisonment for two years for an offense under Section 304A IPC and directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the legal representatives of the victim.
The counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the High Court that since the deposition of (Prosecution Witness) PW-1 is vague in the manner as to how the accident had occurred, the order of courts below should be set aside.
The Delhi High Court said, “the fact that no public witness had been examined cannot be a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.”
The petitioner’s counsel further stated that the death had occurred due to bleeding and not due to the injuries. He also stated that it was the motorcycle that was driven at a high speed and hit the bus on the side due to which they fell on the road.
Refuting the contentions made by the petitioner, the prosecution counsel submitted that as the scope of revision under Section 397/401 CrPC read with Section 482 CrPC is narrow, courts do not go into the excruciating details on facts and unless the judgments of the courts below are so perverse High Court does not interfere with concurrent findings.
He further argued that it is well settled that a revisional court is not an appellate court and it cannot substitute its conclusion to the one arrived at by two courts just because another view is possible.
The Delhi High Court perused the deposition of PW-1 and said, “there is no reason to disbelieve him as he has no animosity towards the accused. He has withstood a detailed cross-examination.”
RAM-KISHAN-VS-STATE