Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P.770/2010
HARPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.S.Yadav, Advocate
CRL.REV.P.770/2010
HARPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.S.Yadav, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE ..... Respondent
CORAM:
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA O R D E R (ORAL)
10.12.2010 Present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the
10.12.2010 Present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the
JUDGMENT
dated 30th November, 2010 passed by the learned Session Judge whereby an appeal of the petitioner against conviction under Section 279/304A IPC was dismissed and the conviction was upheld. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that identity of the petitioner has not been established and the petitioner was not the driver of truck which caused accident. He also submitted that even if it is presumed that petitioner was the driver, negligence of the petitioner had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The truck that caused accident was found on the spot while the driver had run away. The owner was given a notice under Section 135 of Motor
Vehicles Act and the owner replied that it was the ‘petitioner’ who was driving truck at the relevant time; owner also appeared as a witness during trial and reaffirmed the stand. No suggestion was given to him that the petitioner was not driver of the truck. Thus the fact that petitioner was driver of the truck stood proved. Negligence of the petitioner in driving the truck was also established by witnesses appearing before the trial Court. Two Courts below have given concurrent finding that it was the ‘petitioner’ who was negligent in driving the truck. In a revision petition, this Court cannot upset the concurrent finding given by two Courts below. I find no force in the revision petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J DECEMBER 10, 2010 vn 2010:DHC:6007
The truck that caused accident was found on the spot while the driver had run away. The owner was given a notice under Section 135 of Motor
Vehicles Act and the owner replied that it was the ‘petitioner’ who was driving truck at the relevant time; owner also appeared as a witness during trial and reaffirmed the stand. No suggestion was given to him that the petitioner was not driver of the truck. Thus the fact that petitioner was driver of the truck stood proved. Negligence of the petitioner in driving the truck was also established by witnesses appearing before the trial Court. Two Courts below have given concurrent finding that it was the ‘petitioner’ who was negligent in driving the truck. In a revision petition, this Court cannot upset the concurrent finding given by two Courts below. I find no force in the revision petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J DECEMBER 10, 2010 vn 2010:DHC:6007