Om Prakash vs The State

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 08.07.2026
Pronounced on: 15.07. 2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 4/2015
OM PRAKASH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Simodh Bansal, Mr. Piyush
Singhal, Mr. Ishpreet Singh, Mr.Ajit
Kumar, Ms. Mansi Sharma, Advs.
versus
THE STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP.
SI Rahul Rathi, PS Sangam Vihar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
J U D G M E N T
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated
21.10.2014 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Saket Courts,
New Delhi, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the
judgment of conviction dated 04.05.2013 and the order on sentence dated
07.05.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South, in FIR No.
424/1999, P.S. Sangam Vihar, under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC, was
dismissed. Vide the judgment dated 04.05.2013, the petitioner was convicted
under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ ).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 1 of 14

FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Briefly stated, on 25.09.1999, upon receipt of DD No. 20, the
Investigating Officer reached the hospital where Shiv Raj was declared
‘brought dead’ and Kamal was found under treatment. Kamal stated that while
he was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter driven by Shiv Raj, a DTC bus
bearing registration No. DL-1PA-XXX, allegedly driven by the petitioner in
a rash and negligent manner from the wrong side, hit the scooter near Lal
Kuan Red Light, M.B. Road, resulting in the death of Shiv Raj and injuries to
Kamal. On the basis of Kamal's statement, an FIR under Sections 279, 337
and 304-A IPC was registered. Upon completion of the investigation, a
charge-sheet was filed, notice under the aforesaid provisions was served upon
the petitioner, and the petitioner denied the allegations in his statement under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘CrPC’).
4. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 04.05.2013, convicted the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC.
The relevant extracts of the impugned judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:
“11. Whether there were injuries upon the person
in question?
PW2 categorically deposed that he sustained
injuries on his left hand in the accident in question.
MLC Ex. PW8/B also proved the factum of simple
injuries upon the person of complainant PW2.
12. Whether there was death of the person in
question?
In view of the unassailed testimony of PW2, it stands
established that the deceased Shiv Raj was crushed
under the front wheel of the bus being driven by the
accused. This fact is not disputed by the accused as
no suggestion in this regard was put to PW2.
Further, as per the Post-mortem Report Ex. PW1/A,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 2 of 14

the death was caused due to haemorrhagic shock as
a result of multiple injuries caused by blunt force
impact consistent with a road traffic accident (RTA).
Accordingly, this ingredient also stands proved.
13. The contention raised by the learned defence
counsel that various contradictions are noticed in
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses also
holds no water, as the learned defence counsel
failed to point out any major contradiction. The
irregularities such as non-collection of blood-
stained earth, non-availability of photographs of the
spot and other procedural irregularities do not
demolish the prosecution case in its entirety,
especially when the eye-witness has consistently
supported the prosecution version.
It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Zindar Ali Sk v. State of West Bengal & Anr.,
2009 III AD (SC) 7 that:
"It is trite law that the defence cannot take
advantage of such bad investigation where there is
clinching evidence available to the prosecution as
in this case."
The contention regarding damage to the headlight
of the scooter also does not merit acceptance. It has
come on record that the scooter fell down due to the
impact of the collision, which could have resulted in
damage to the headlight. Likewise, the contention
regarding the three-hour gap between the accident
and the arrest of the accused is immaterial, as the
proceedings naturally took time and there is no
evidence to show that the accused was arrested at
10:30 p.m.
Minor contradictions, if any, are bound to occur due
to lapse of time and individual perception and
narration of events. In Shankar v. State of
Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 2302 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held:
"In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are
bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due
to normal errors of observation, errors of memory
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 3 of 14

due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition
such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence.
Minor contradictions, inconsistencies,
embellishments or improvements on trivial matters
which do not affect the core of the prosecution case
should not be made a ground to reject the evidence
in its entirety. Exaggerations per se do not render
the evidence brittle. Irrelevant details which do not
corrode the credibility of the witness cannot be
labelled as omissions or contradictions. Only
omissions amounting to material contradictions
affecting the core of the prosecution case render the
testimony liable to be discredited."
14. This Court is also mindful of the observations
of Hon'ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973)
2 SCC 793, wherein it was held that:
The rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt should
not be stretched to embrace every fanciful or
remote doubt. Only reasonable doubts are to enure
to the benefit of the accused. Excessive acquittals
undermine public confidence in the criminal
justice system as much as wrongful convictions do.
A balance has to be struck between protecting the
innocent and ensuring that the guilty do not escape
on mere conjectures or unrealistic standards of
proof.
15. In the light of the above discussion, it is held
that all the ingredients of the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC stand
proved. Accordingly, accused Om Prakash is
convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. Ordered
accordingly.”
5. Consequent upon the conviction, the learned Trial Court, vide order on
sentence dated 07.05.2013, imposed sentence upon the petitioner. The
relevant extracts of the order on sentence are reproduced hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 4 of 14

“Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, the
convict is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a
period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
(in default of payment of fine, further
imprisonment of 10 days) for the offence
punishable U/s 279 IPC. He is also sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6
months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (in default of
payment of fine, further imprisonment of 5 days)
for the offence punishable U/s 337 IPC. He is also
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
(in default of payment of fine, further
imprisonment of 1 month) for the offence
punishable U/s 304-A IPC. All the sentences shall
run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.,
if any, be given to the convict.
At this stage, an application for suspension of
sentence U/s 389 Cr.P.C. is filed on behalf of the
convict.
Heard on the application. The operation of the
order on sentence stands suspended for a period of
30 days subject to furnishing of PB & SB in the
sum of Rs.20,000/- each. Bail bonds are furnished
and accepted.”
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached the
Learned Session Court by way of an appeal. The learned Session Court, vide
the impugned judgment date 21.10.2014, dismissed the appeal and held as
under:
“33. In compliance with the directions in the
aforementioned case of Satya Prakash v. State
(supra) , a Victim Impact Report (VIR) was called
for before hearing the appeal on merits. The VIR
submitted by the investigating agency indicates that
the deceased was a 25-year-old person working as
a supervisor in a private company with an income
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 5 of 14

of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The deceased is survived
by his wife, Smt. Hemlata Devi, a daughter, Preeti,
aged about 14 years and studying in the 9th
standard, besides his mother, Smt. Moti Kanwar. It
appears from the report that, in the corresponding
motor accident claim case, compensation of Rs.
4,20,000/- had been awarded, which has been
apportioned amongst the legal heirs.
34. On the other hand, the appellant has been found
by the investigating agency to have been engaged as
a driver in private employment with a meagre
income of Rs. 5,500/- per month. His wife and three
children are dependent upon him.
35. In the facts and circumstances noted above, the
appellant is not financially sound so as to be called
upon to pay any further compensation. Moreover,
sufficient compensation has already been awarded
and paid to the legal heirs of the deceased
scooterist. Therefore, no further direction in this
regard is required to be passed by this Court in
appeal.
36. Undoubtedly, the public roads in the capital city
of Delhi have been witnessing a great deal of
mayhem at the hands of reckless drivers,
particularly those driving commercial vehicles.
Better discipline on the roads and strict compliance
with traffic rules are the need of the hour. This can
be achieved only if criminal courts incorporate the
necessary element of deterrence through
appropriate sentencing. Having regard to the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in various judgments, including Dalbir Singh
(supra) , I find that the sentence awarded by the
Trial Court is commensurate with the crime
committed by the appellant. Therefore, I do not find
any reason to take a lenient view.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 6 of 14

37. The appeal is, thus, found devoid of merit and is
accordingly dismissed. The appellant is taken into
custody and sent to jail under the appropriate
warrant to undergo the sentence awarded by the
Trial Court.”
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgement, the petitioner has
approached this Court by way of the present petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not challenging
conviction of the petitioner but pressing the present petition only to the extent
of the order on sentence.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner has
already undergone the ordeal of a protracted criminal trial for nearly fifteen
years, i.e., from 1999 to 2014. It is submitted that ever since the accident, the
petitioner has maintained an unblemished record and no criminal case or
complaint has been registered against him. It is further contended that no other
criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner and that he has since
led the life of a law-abiding citizen. It is further submitted that the petitioner
was in jail for more than 7 months.
10. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has responsibly discharged his
family obligations and has brought up his children in a proper manner.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner at the time of the incident had a
wife and two children, aged about 12 years and 16 years, who were wholly
dependent upon him. It is contended that, at this stage, if the petitioner is sent
to prison, his family, particularly his children, would suffer immense
hardship.
11. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 7 of 14

deserves to be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
In the alternative, it is prayed that the petitioner be granted the benefit
available under the provisions of the said Act, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforesaid
submissions, also placed reliance upon the following decisions:
Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 SCC 185
Krishnadeo Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 2810
Sanjay Colaro v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1147
Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa, (2022) 1 SCC 161
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
13. Per Contra , learned APP for the State opposes the prayer of the
petitioner and contends that no benefit of probation be given to the petitioner.
It is stated that impugned order on sentence passed by learned Appellate Court
deserves no interference.
14. It is further submitted that the petitioner was driving a public transport
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the death of one person
and causing injuries to another. The gravity of the offence cannot be diluted
merely on account of the passage of time.
15. It is submitted that the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court, as
affirmed by the learned Session Court, is proportionate to the nature and
gravity of the offence and calls for no interference. It is, therefore, prayed that
the present revision petition be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 8 of 14

counsel for the respondent and have gone through the material on record.
17. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his
submissions to the question of sentence and grant of benefit under the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, this Court does not propose to examine the
findings of conviction recorded against the petitioner under Sections 279, 337
and 304-A IPC.
18. The issue for consideration before this court is that whether the
petitioner is entitled to get benefit of probation as provided under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
19. The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 04.05.2013 and
sentenced vide order on sentence dated 07.05.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Court. Vide order
dated 03.06.2013, the learned Session Court suspended the sentence awarded
to the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal, subject to his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 /- with one surety in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The relevant extract of the order
suspending the sentence is reproduced below:
“03.06.2013
Present:
Sh. M. Zafar Khan, Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. counsel for the appellant.
This criminal appeal U/s 374 Cr.P.C. has been filed
against the judgment dated 04.05.2013 and the
order on sentence dated 07.05.2013 passed by Ld.
MM Sh. Ajay Garg.
Ld. APP for the State, on behalf of the State, has
accepted the notice.
Heard.
Till the disposal of the appeal, sentence is
suspended subject to the appellant furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 9 of 14

surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court/Duty MM.
The appeal be notified for further allocation order
before the Ld. District & Sessions Judge (South) for
02.07.2013 .”
20. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner has preferred
the present revision petition before this Court. Vide order dated 22.05.2015,
this Court suspended the sentence awarded to the petitioner during the
pendency of the revision petition, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the learned Trial Court.
21. The nominal roll of the petitioner has also been perused by this Court.
It reveals that the petitioner remained in judicial custody as a convict from
21.10.2014 to 18.03.2015, as on 18.03.2015 and has already undergone
incarceration for a period of four months and twenty-eight days. The nominal
roll further records that the petitioner's conduct in jail remained satisfactory,
that he maintained proper behaviour during incarceration, and that no
punishment or adverse report was ever recorded against him. It is also noted
that there are no other pending criminal case and no previous conviction
against the petitioner.
22. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 empowers the Court, in
appropriate cases and subject to the statutory conditions, to release a convict
on probation of good conduct instead of directing him to undergo
imprisonment. While exercising such discretion under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Act, the Court is required to consider the conduct and antecedents of the
offender, the possibility of his reformation and rehabilitation, and whether
there exists any likelihood of his indulging in criminal activity in future. The
aforesaid principles have been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Rajendra
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 10 of 14

Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra , (2019) 12 SCC 460.
23. The object and purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was
further elucidated by the Supreme Court in Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab ,
2021 SCC OnLine SC 25, wherein the Court observed as under:
“...to give the benefit of release of offenders on
probation of good conduct instead of sentencing
them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis
on the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders
as useful and self-reliant members of society without
subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life
is what is sought to be subserved....”
24. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in Paul George v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2008) 4 SCC 185 . In the said case, while maintaining the conviction of the
appellant under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, the Supreme Court extended the
benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Court took
into consideration the fact that the criminal proceedings had remained
pending for nearly twenty years, that the appellant had an otherwise
unblemished service record except for the solitary incident in question, and
that he had already suffered dismissal from service on account of his
conviction. Holding that the ends of justice would be better served by
adopting a reformative approach, the Supreme Court directed that the
appellant be released on probation. The relevant extract of the judgement is
reproduced below:
“This appeal by way of special leave is directed
against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi
dated 30-5-2006 confirming the judgment of the
trial court and the first appellate court convicting
the appellant for offences punishable under Sections
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 11 of 14

279 and 304-A IPC but reducing the sentence
imposed by the first two courts to 6 months'
imprisonment but retaining the fine as it is.
XXX
This litigation has been going on for the last 20
years and has been fought tenaciously through
various courts, we are also told that the appellant
who has had a good career throughout but for this
one aberration has since been dismissed from
service on account of his conviction. We, therefore,
while dismissing the appeal, feel that the ends of
justice would be met if we direct that the appellant
be released on probation under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on conditions to
be imposed by the trial court. The appeal is disposed
of in the above terms.”
25. While this Court is conscious that the offence under Sections 279, 337
and 304-A IPC resulted in the loss of a human life and injuries to another
person, the object of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is to encourage
the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders in appropriate cases.
26. The learned Sessions Court, in the impugned order dated 21.10.2014,
also noted that the petitioner was not financially sound so as to be called upon
to pay further compensation and that sufficient compensation had already
been been awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased scooterist. Accordingly,
no further direction in that regard needed to be given by the Court in appeal.
27. Considering that the occurrence is of the year 1999, the petitioner has
undergone the ordeal of criminal proceedings for more than twenty-six years,
has already remained in custody for about five months, has maintained
satisfactory conduct both inside and outside prison, has no criminal
antecedents and has not misused the liberty granted to him during the
pendency of the proceedings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 12 of 14

ends of justice would be adequately served by extending to him the benefit of
probation.
28. The provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 empower the
courts to release the convict on good conduct, and the nature of the offence
and the behaviour of the convict need to be taken into consideration while
granting the probation. The grant of relief of probation under the said Act
varies from case to case and thus needs to be scrutinized independently in
each case. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the opinion that the benefit of probation under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to
the present petitioner.
CONCLUSION
29. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under
Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, the substantive sentence of imprisonment
awarded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate
Court is set aside.
30. The petitioner is directed to be released on probation of good conduct
under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 /- with one surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court for a period of two years, within two
weeks from today, with an undertaking to maintain peace and good behavior
during the said period.
31. The petitioner shall remain under the supervision of the concerned
Probation Officer for a period of two years and shall report before the
Probation Officer once every month or as directed.
32. In the event the petitioner commits any breach of the conditions of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 13 of 14

bond or fails to maintain good conduct during the period of probation, he shall
be liable to undergo the substantive sentence imposed upon him in accordance
with law.
33. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court on
30.07.2026.
34. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above said terms. Pending
application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
35. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned learned Trial
Court along with the Trial Court Record, for information and compliance.
(MADHU JAIN)
JUDGE
JULY 15, 2026/ys/ RM
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
18:40:19
CRL.REV.P. 4/2015 Page 14 of 14