JAGDISH CHANDER versus STATE OF DELHI

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 03-05-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: I.D. DUA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

204 
JAGDISH CHANDER 
v. 
STATE OF DELHI 
May 3; 1973 
[K. K. MATHEW AND I. D. DUA, JJ.j 
A 
Indian Penal Code s. 304A-Constitution of India 
Art. 
136-Concurren/ 
B 
finding by Court below that accused was guilty of rash and negligent driri11g-
This Court will not interfere in uppeal by special leave-Protected trial a good 
reason for reduction of sentence-Scientific in\•estigation of offences, desirability 
of-Delay in criminal proceedings .a causie of concern. 
The appellant was driving his auto-scooter rikshaw which on account of a 
sudden turn taken by the appellant 
struck a truck. 
After the impact the ap-
pellant lost control of his scooter-rickshaw and crashed into a tree. 
As a result 
C 
a man and a woman received simple injuries and the child -v.1hom the woman 
was holding in her arms received fatal injuries. The appellant and the truck 
driver were charged under s. 304A of the Indian Penal Code and were convicted 
by the trial court. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal of the 
truck driver but held the appellant guilty. 
On revision a single Judge of the 
High Court confirmed the ronvicti'on of the appellant. 
Jn appeal to this Court 
by special leave. 
HELD : (i) According to the findings of the three courts beluw the appel-
D 
lant suddenly turned to the right without paying proper heed to the truck com-
ing from the opposite direction and in doing so he was both :-ash and negligent. 
Under article 136 of the Constitution this Court would not like to appraise the 
evidence again for determining how far the concurrent conclusion of the three 
court below upholding the appellant's act as rash and negligent 
was 
justified. 
[207H] 
(ii) The criminal proceeding against the appellant had gone on for a little 
more than 8 years. 
The circumstances in which the collision between the truck 
E 
and the appellant's scooter occurred seemed pri1na facie to suggest that both the 
drivers were to blame. 
Harassme·11t of a criminal trial for more than 8 years 
and the expense which the appe1Iant must have incurred could legitimately be 
taken into account when considering the question of sentence to be imposed by 
this Court at this point of time. 
[208FJ 
[Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone. The Court 
also observed that the investigation of the case was not conducted on scientific 
line_s and that the undue delay in the disposal of the case \Vas a. matter of 
F 
concern.] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 
1970. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated Sep-
tember 11, 1969 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Rev. No. 291-D 
of 1966. 
G 
I. M. Lall, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagara1a and M. Qumaruddin, for 
the appellant, 
H. R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DUA, J. 
Jagdish Chander appellant has preferred this appeal 
by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of 
Delhi dated September 11, 1969 dismissing the appellant's revision 
from the judgment and order of the 
learned 
Additional Sessions 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
.JAGDISH CHANDER V. DELHI STATE (Dua, /.) 
205 
Judge, Delhi dated September 7, 1966 dismissing his ap~al against 
the order of a Magistrate 1st Qass, New Delhi dated Apnl 30, 1966 
convicting him for an offence under s. 304-A, I. P. C. and sentencing 
him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/-
The occurrence giving rise to these criminal proceedings against 
the appellant took place on April 20, 1965 at about 8: ~O a.n;i. 
According to the prosecution version, the appellant was dnvrng his 
auto-scooter rickshaw No. DLR 5614 and was proceeding from 
the 
side of Yusaf Sarai when near the D. T. U. Bus Stand Engineering 
College Hanz Khas I. I. T. he suddenly turned. to his right towards 
Mehrauli Road. 
Apparently, h~ wanted to turn back and reverse 
his direction. 
A truck No. DLG 8468 dpven hy one Labh Singh 
was coming from the opposite direction, that is, from Mehrauli Side. 
It is said that the appellant turned to his right 
suddenly 
without 
giving any signal and without. paying any heed to the traffic on the 
right. The result was the accident giving rise to the present crimi-
nal proceedings. 
The front bumper on the left side of the truck 
struck the rear left side of the body of the 
appellant's 
scooter-
rickshaw. 
As a result of this impact the appellant lost control of 
his scooter-rickshaw and swerved t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.