LexSTATE TR. P.S. LODHI COLONY, NEW DELHI versus SANJEEV NANDA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2012] 12 S.C.R. 881 STATE TR. P.S. LODHI COLONY, NEW DELHI v. SANJEEV NANDA (Criminal Appeal No. 1168 of 2012) AUGUST 3, 2012 [DEEPAK VERMA AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part II) - Motor accident - Causing death of 6 and injury to one - As per medical evidence accused-driver under influence of liquor at the time C of accident - Injured witness and eye-witness turning hostile - Trial court relying on one other witness convicting the accused u/s. 304 (Part II) /PC and sentenced him to five years imprisonment - High Court altered the conviction to that u/s. 304A and reduced the sentence to two years imprisonment D - In appeal, held: Accused is liable to be convicted u/s. 304 (Part II) as he had sufficient knowledge that his act was likely to cause death - Sentence awarded by High Court is maintained - In addition accused is directed to pay Rs. 50 lakhs to the Union Government to be utilized for providing E compensation to the motor accident victims in hit and run cases and in default to undergo one year SI; and further directed to do community service for two years to be arranged by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and in default to undergo imprisonment for two years. F Witness - Hostile witness - Evidentiary value - Held: If a witness turns hostile to subvert the judicial process, the courts should not stand as mute spectators and every effort should be made to bring home the truth - Criminal judicial system cannot be overturned by the gullible witnesses who G act under pressure, inducement and intimidation. Motor Accident - Hit and run case - Duty of the driver of 881 H 882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R. A offending vehicle, duty of bystander - Discussed - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 134 and 187. The respondent-accused was prosecuted u/ss. 201, 304(1), 308 r/w s. 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that 8 at about 4.00 a.m. on the day of occurrence, the respondent-accused was driving his car rashly and negligently at a high speed, hitting seven persons and thereafter he ran away. In the accident, 6 of the victims were killed while the 7th victim (PW-2) survived. PW-1 was the eye-witness to the incident. In medical C examination of the accused, it was found that he had consumed alcohol the previous night. During trial, eye· witness as well as the injured witness turned hostile. Trial court relying on one other witness convicted the accused uls. 304 (Part II) IPC and imposed upon him a D jail sentence of five years. In appeal, High Court found the accused guilty of the offence u/s. 304A IPC and reduced the sentence to two years. Hence the present appeal. E Partly allowing the appeal, HELD: Per Court: 1. The judgment and order of conviction passed by F the High Court u/s.304A IPC is set aside and the order of conviction of trial court u/s. 304 (Part II) l.P.C. is restored and upheld. However, it is appropriate to maintain the sentence awarded by the High Court, which the accused has already undergone. [Para 3] [946-C] G H 2. In addition, the accused is put to the following terms: (1) Accused has to pay an amount of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees Fifty lakhs) to the Union of India within six months, which will be utilized for providing compensation to the victim of motor accidents, where the vehicle owner, STATE TR. P.S. LODHI COLONY NEW DELHI v. 883 SANJEEV NANDA driver etc. could not be traced, like victims of hit and run A cases. On default, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. This amount would be kept in a different head to be used for the aforesaid purpose only. (2). The accused would do community service for two years which will be arranged by the Ministry of Social B Justice and Empowerment within two months. On default, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. [Para 4] [946-D-G] PER DEEPAK VERMA, J: HELD: 1.1 Accident means an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not c be reasonably anticipated. Thus, if the injury/death is caused by an accident, that itself cannot be attributed to D an intention. If inteRtion is proved and death is caused, then it would amount to culpable homicide. [Para 33) [940- G-H; 941-A] Black's Law Dictionary - referred to. 1.2. In the case at hand, looking to the nature and manner in which accident had taken place, it can safely E b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.