CW-2008-0019DelhiJudgment 14 March 2008

Delhi Police Head Constable vs State of NCT of Delhi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Delhi Police Head Constable against his conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for driving a police mini-truck over the Ring Road divider into oncoming traffic, killing pillion rider a Delhi man The Court held the rash act was clearly not within the colour of duty, so neither Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act nor sanction pleas barred the prosecution. It sustained the conviction (six months' imprisonment plus fine as modified by the High Court) but, noting twenty years of litigation and an otherwise good career, directed release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellant had already been dismissed from service on account of the conviction. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 14 March 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 40 of 2007), the Supreme Court of India (Coram: S. B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.) affirmed the conviction of the Head Constable, Delhi Police, P.S. Kashmere Gate.

Register number
DL 00 CW 0021
Case reference
Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 40 of 2007) / Delhi Man vs State of NCT of Delhi, decided 14 March 2008
Court and date
Supreme Court of India (Coram: S. B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.), 14 March 2008
Officer(s) at the material time
Head Constable, Delhi Police, P.S. Kashmere Gate
Present service status
Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
Provisions invoked
Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“We are, therefore, of the opinion that the case of the appellant would not be covered by Section 140 and that the initiation of proceedings and the prosecution beyond three months from the date of accident was not beyond limitation.” (at para 9)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 0.5 years.
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Supreme Court of India judgment dated 14 March 2008 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“We are, therefore, of the opinion that the case of the appellant would not be covered by Section 140 and that the initiation of proceedings and the prosecution beyond three months from the date of accident was not beyond limitation.” (para 9)

Institutional response

2
Date not established

Conviction

Concluded
Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment) External · Binding

The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.

Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: [name withheld] vs State of NCT of Delhi, decided 14 March 2008
Not yet re-checked.
14 Mar 2008

Order issued

Concluded
Supreme Court of India External · Binding

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.

Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: [name withheld] vs State of NCT of Delhi, decided 14 March 2008
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.