Delhi District Court
State vs Chandri Parshad on 16 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-05,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 65808/2016
CNR No. -: DLWT020006612011
FIR No. -: 51/2010
Police Station -: Anand Parbat
Section(s) -: 279/337/338/427/304A/468/471
IPC and 134(a) MV Act
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
CHANDARI PRASAD
S/o Sh. Mollan Prasad
R/o Village Kharari, H/o Madhepura, PS Wazir Ganj, Distt
Ghonda (UP).
.... Accused Person
1. Name of Complainant :- ASI Ramphool
2. Name of Accused :- Chandari Prasad
Person
3. Offences complained :- 279/337/338/427/304
A/468/471 IPC and
of or proved
134(a) MV Act
4. Plea of accused person :- Not Guilty
5. Date of Commission :- 15.07.2010
of offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 08.06.2011
7. Date of Reserving :- 16.02.2026
Order
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:38:39
+0530
Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 1 of 75
8. Date of :- 16.03.2026
Pronouncement
9. Final Order :- Acquitted:
279/337/338/304A/427 IPC
& 187 r/w 134(a) MV Act
Convicted:
468/471 IPC
Argued by -: Ms. Arunima Goel, Ld. APP for the State.
Ms. Pushpa Pal, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 15.07.2010 at about 22.30 PM at Main Road, Subzi Market, Nehru Nagar, Near Gumbad, Anand Parbat, Delhi, accused was driving a container bearing no. HR 47-7996 on a public road in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life and safety of others and while driving the abovesaid vehicle in aforesaid manner, the accused had caused death of victims namely Murti Devi and Subhash Gupta, grievous injury to the victims namely Ram Phool Singh and Dolly @ Kajal and simple injury to the victims namely Shyamo Devi, Panna Devi and Prafull Kumar. It is further alleged that on the abovementioned date, time and place, after driving the aforesaid vehicle in aforesaid manner and causing hurt/grievous hurt/death of the victims, accused fled away from the spot. It is further alleged that the accused produced one DL No. 8771/MTR/06 in his possession, which he had fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine, which he knew or had reason to believe the same to be a Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:38:45 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 2 of 75 forged document and the accused along with co-accused Gaurav (since not traceable) in furtherance of their common intention, committed forgery, intending that the said driving license no. 8771/MTR/06 (which has been found to be fake) shall be used for the purpose of cheating. It is further alleged that while driving the abovesaid vehicle, the accused committed mischief by damaging the houses of victims namely Reshma Devi and Saroj Devi and also damaged the motorcycle no. DL 69 AA 5398 of the victim Sujit Mishra and thereby caused loss or damage of an amount of more than Rs. 50/-. As such, it is alleged that the accused person has committed the offences punishable under sections 279/337/338/427/304A/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") and 134(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter, "MV Act") for which the present FIR was lodged in PS Anand Parbat.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC). The accused person was released on court bail. Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed accused person and chalan was presented in the court on 08.06.2011. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused person was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, charge under section 279/304A/338/337/471/427 IPC, 468/34 IPC and 139(9) MV Act Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:38:51 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 3 of 75 was framed against the accused person on 13.02.2012. The accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Ms. Doli @ Kajal (Victim/Injured) PW2 :- Smt. Shyam Dulari (Victim/Injured) PW3 :- Sh. Sujeet Mitra (Victim/Eye witness) PW4 :- Ms. Resham Devi (Victim/Eye Witness) PW5 :- HC Wazir Singh (Duty Officer) PW6 :- HC Raj Kumar (MHCM with register no.
19) PW7 :- Sh. Chander Pal (Son of deceased Murti Devi, who has identified her dead body) PW8 :- Smt. Saroj (Victim/Eye Witness) PW9 :- Sh. Dharmender Sharma (To prove the record with regard to DL No. 8771/MTR/06 of the accused) PW10 :- Sh. Suraj Kumar (Son of deceased Subhash Chandra Gupta, who has identified his dead body) PW11 :- Retd. ASI/Tech. Devender Kumar (Conducted mechanical inspection of offending vehicle bearing registration no.
HR47-7996 and motorcycle bearing registration no. DL6SAA-5398) PW12 :- HC Rohtash Singh (Accompanied IO/ASI Ram Phool at the spot) PW13 :- HC Giri Chand (Joined investigation with IO/SI Shiv Charan) PW14 :- ASI Ajit Singh (Got conducted PM of deceased Subhash Chandra Gupta) PW15 :- Retd. Inspector Dhan Singh (In-charge Mobile Crime Team) PW16 :- Retd. SI Indraj Singh (IO) Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:38:57 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 4 of 75 PW17 :- Sh. Neeraj Jain (Director of company which owned the offending vehicle HR47-
7996)
PW18 :- Retd. SI Ramphool Singh (IO)
PW19 :- Sh. Praful Kumar @ Kamal Kumar
(Victim/Injured)
PW20 :- Sh. G.D. Baldua (G.M. Logistics of
company which owned the offending
vehicle HR47-7996)
PW21 :- Sh. Nawal Singh (Superdar of the
offending vehicle HR47-7996)
PW22 :- Inspector Shiv Charan Meena (IO)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. P1 :- Photographs of offending vehicle in
question
Ex. P2 :- Photographs of Motorcycle in question
Ex. P3 :- 23 photographs of offending vehicle and
(Colly.) motorcycle in question
Ex. PW 4/A :- Complaint made by PW 4 Ms. Resham
Devi
Ex. PW 5/A :- Photocopy of original register containing
(OSR) DD entry at serial no. 37.
Ex. PW 5/B :- Computerized print of FIR
Ex. PW 5/C :- Endorsement on tehrir
Ex. PW6/A :- Copy of register no. 19 containing entry
(OSR) no. 1972 dated 16.07.2010 vide which IO
ASI Ramphool deposited the case
property of this case i.e. one vehicle
bearing no. HR 47 7996.
Ex. PW 7/A :- Dead body handing over memo of
deceased Murti Devi
Ex. PW 7/B :- Dead body identification memo of
deceased Murti Devi
Ex. PW 9/A :- Copy of Driving License No.
8771/MTR/06
Ex. PW 9/B :- Copy of record register with regard to
Driving License No. 8771/MTR/06
Ex. PW 9/C :- Letter of authorization in favour of PW
9/Sh. Dharmender Sharma
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16
16:39:04 +0530
Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 5 of 75
Ex. PW 10/A :- Statement of Sh. Suraj Kumar recorded
by police officials regarding
identification of dead body of his
father/deceased Subhash Chandra Gupta Ex. PW 11/A :- Detailed mechanical inspection report of and Ex. PW two vehicles i.e., Truck bearing 11/B registration no. HR47-7996 and motorcycle make Hunk bearing no.
DL6SAA-5398 Ex. PW 9/A :- Seizure memo of vehicle bearing no.
(in testimony) HR47-7996 Ex. PW 12/A (on document) Ex. PW 9/B :- Arrest and personal search memos of and Ex. PW accused 9/C (in testimony) Ex. PW 12/B and Ex. PW 12/C (on document) Ex. PW 9/D :- Seizure memo of motorcycle no. (in testimony) DL6SAA-5398 Ex. PW 12/D (on document) Ex. PW 9/E :- Seizure memo of DL No. 8771 of (in testimony accused as well on document) Ex. PW 12/E (on document) Ex. PW 10/A :- Arrest memo dated 26.03.2011 Ex. PW 11/A- :- Identification statement of relatives of and already deceased Subhash Chand Gupta Ex. PW 10/A Ex. P-1 to Ex. :- Photographs of spot P-10 Ex. PW :- Seizure memo of DL of accused dated 16/DA 07.01.2011 Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:39:10 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 6 of 75 Ex. PW 17/A :- Statement of PW 17/Neeraj Jain given to police officials Ex. PW 17/B :- Authorization letter given by Sh. Neeraj
Jain in favour of Giriraj Dass Baldua for getting vehicle bearing no. HR47-7996 released on superdari from the Court Ex. PW 18/A :- Site Plan Ex. PW :- Notice U/s 133 MV Act served to the 18/A1 owner of offending vehicle Ex. PW 18/B :- Reply to the notice U/s 133 MV act, given by Giriraj Dass Baldua Ex. PW 18/C :- Seizure memo of documents of offending vehicle Ex. PW 21/A :- Superdarinama pertaining to release of vehicle no. HR 47-7996 Ex. PW 21/B :- Special Power of Attorney vide which owner of offending vehicle namely Naresh Kumar Jain had authorized Sh.
Nawal Singh Ex. PW 22/A :- Personal search memo of accused Ex. PW 22/B :- Disclosure statement of accused Mark A :- Report which was received regarding fake driving license Ex. PW 22/C :- Fake driving license No. 8771/MTR/06 ADMITTED DOCUMENTS (under S. 294 CrPC) Ex. AD-1 :- Preparation of MLC of Subhash Gupta, Kamal Kumar and Mrs. Panna Devi which was prepared by Dr. Washil Ex. AD-2 :- Postmortem report of Subhash Gupta and Smt. Murti Devi prepared by Dr. Rajiv Sharma and Dr. Bajrang Kumar Ex. AD-3 :- PM report of Mrs. Murti Devi Ex. AD-4 :- MLCs of Shyam Dulari, Ramul Singh and Mrs. Murti Devi Ex. AD-5 :- MLC of Ms. Dolly prepared by Dr. Dharmender Singh and Dr. Ravikant Mankar Ex. AD-6 :- MLC of Kamal Kumar and Panna Devi prepared by Dr. Vipul Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:39:16 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 7 of 75 Ex. AD-7 :- Treatment record of injured Ms. Shyam Dulari and Sh. Ramul Singh WITNESSES DROPPED/DELETED Name/ S.No. of Date of Reason for Drop/Deletion Witness Drop/Deleti on Witnesses from 30.09.2019 As the accused has S.No. 11 to 21 of admitted the genuineness the chargesheet of the documents prepared by the said witness U/s 294 CrPC Sh. Ramphool 18.07.2013 As the witness has expired Ms. Panna Devi 02.11.2018 As the witness remained unserved through DCP concerned Witness at Sr. No. 23.08.2022 On no objection of Ld. 37 of the APP for the State chargesheet i.e., Ahalmad, MACT/Central 4.1. The prosecution has examined 22 witnesses in total and has not examined two witnesses namely Ct. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Deepak Dabas, MM Tis Hazari, mentioned at Sr. no. 28 and 29 respectively of the chargesheet. Ct. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Deepak Dabas, MM Tis Hazari were not examined as witness by the prosecution despite sufficient opportunities being given to the prosecution. During final arguments, on 29.02.2024 Ld. APP for the State has sought some time to move appropriate application, after submitting that TIP of accused has not been placed on record. Thereafter, Ld. APP for the State submitted on 14.08.2024 that he does not want to file any application. However, perusal of record reveals that TIP of accused ANKUR has been Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:39:42 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 8 of 75 filed along with the chargesheet and the same is also mentioned in the list of documents. Furthermore, prosecution evidence commenced on 17.01.2013 and was closed on 23.08.2022, i.e., matter was at the stage of prosecution evidence for almost ten years. During final arguments also sufficient opportunity was granted to the then Ld. APP for the State by the Ld. Predecessor to move application for summoning of witnesses, if any.
5. PW 1/Ms. Doli @ Kajal is the victim/injured in present matter and she is a minor child. Therefore, certain questions were put to her regarding her age, education and purpose of visit to the Court by the Ld. Predecessor for the purpose of ascertaining the understanding of the witness, to which, she replied that she studied in 5th class in Delhi Nagar Nigam Prathmik Vidayalya. She further replied that she has come to Court after taking leave from the school because an accident had occurred on 15th. She further replied that a person should speak truth. As her replied were found to be satisfactory, the Ld. Predecessor proceeded further to record her evidence.
5.1. PW 1 deposed that on 15th day of year 2010 the accident of her father occurred. PW 1 further deposed that she does not remember the month. PW 1 further deposed that her father used to sell vegetables at Gumbad Masjid and her father was sitting in the shop and she went there to give him water. PW 1 further deposed that in the meantime, one truck came from gali no. 10 side at a high speed and struck against the temple situated nearby. PW 1 further deposed that before hitting the temple, the said truck also hit against one old uncle and aunt who were also running a vegetables shop and the abovesaid truck also hit her Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:39:48 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 9 of 75 father and he sustained injuries and due to which he died at the spot. PW 1 further deposed that she also sustained injuries.
5.2. In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW 1 deposed that she was never questioned by the police officials. PW 1 further deposed that she saw the truck when it was near the park situated near the shop of her father. PW 1 denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
6. PW 2/Smt. Shyam Dulari is the victim/injured and she has deposed that she does not remember the exact date, when the incident took place, but it was Thursday. PW 2 further deposed that on that day, she was going to purchase vegetables from rehriwala and when she reached near toilet, in the meantime one truck came at very high speed and hit against her as well as some other persons. PW 2 further deposed that she sustained injuries on the different parts of the body. PW 2 further deposed that the truck struck against one home and stopped. PW 2 further deposed that she was taken to RML Hospital by her husband.
6.1. In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW 2 deposed that she could not identify the accused as she had not seen driving him.
7. PW 3/Sh. Sujeet Mitra is the victim/eye witness in present case. PW 3 deposed that on 15.07.2010 at about 10:15 PM, he had parked his vehicle i.e., Hero Honda Hunk motorcycle bearing no. DL 6S AA5398 near vegetable market, Nehru Nagar and had gone to buy vegetables. PW 3 further deposed that he was buying vegetables from a vegetable vendor on footpath. PW 3 further deposed that at that time, he noticed that one trailer Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:39:54 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 10 of 75 whose complete number he does not remember but it was Haryana number was being driven in a zig zag manner over footpath. PW 3 further deposed that the said trailer had hit several persons and thereafter it had crushed his motorcycle and thereafter it had rammed in a shop. PW 3 further deposed that house was also there in the rear portion of the said shop. PW 3 further deposed that he could not see the person who was driving the trailer at that time. PW 3 further deposed that after about 3-4 months of the accident in question, he had come to court for getting his motorcycle released on superdari and in the court, he came to know that the accused had caused the accident. The witness has correctly identified the accused in court. PW 3 further deposed that the name of the accused was revealed as Chandri Prasad. PW 3 has correctly identified the photographs of the trailer Ex. P1 as well as motorcycle in question Ex. P2 from 23 photographs Ex. P3 (Colly).
7.1. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the state, PW 3 admitted the suggestion that the number of the offending trailer was HR 47-7996 which is also reflecting from the photographs. PW 3 admitted the suggestion that accused Chandri Prasad present in the court was standing with I.O. PW 3 deposed that he had seen the accused for the first time in the police station after 2-3 days of the incident. PW 3 denied the suggestion that he had seen the driver of the trailer in question at the time of accident. PW 3 further deposed that his statement was recorded by police. Upon confrontation of his statement recorded by IO, PW 3 denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that he could identify the driver of the offending trailer if shown to him. PW 3 admitted that on 19.07.2010, he had come in Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:40:01 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 11 of 75 the court of Sh. Ashu Garg, room no. 366 to get his motorcycle released on superdari. PW 3 admitted that he had told the I.O on 19.07.2010 after seeing the accused in court that he was driving the offending trailer at the time of accident. PW 3 denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused, therefore, he is not identifying him intentionally in the court. PW 3 denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
7.2. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW 3 deposed that he has studied up to 8th standard. PW 3 further deposed that policeman had recorded his statement twice. PW 3 further deposed that his first statement was recorded on 16.07.2010 and his 2nd statement was recorded on 19.07.2010. PW 3 further deposed that he is not able to recollect whether he had put his signatures on his statement or not. PW 3 further deposed that he had not seen the accident occurring. PW 3 deposed that he could identify the driver of the vehicle on asking by some persons at P.S. PW 3 further deposed that he could not tell the name of those persons. PW 3 further deposed that he identified the driver at P.S on 19.07.2010 in the evening hours. PW 3 denied the suggestion that he had told the number of the offending truck after seeing the photograph. PW 3 voluntarily stated that he had seen the offending truck at the spot itself and, therefore, he is aware of its number.
7.3. In re-examination by Ld. APP for the state, PW 3 deposed that he was purchasing vegetables at the time of accident. PW 3 further deposed that he heard a noise from backside and he saw that his vehicle was lying under the truck. PW 3 further deposed that he had not seen the truck in moving Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:40:08 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 12 of 75 condition. PW 3 further deposed that he had seen the incident from some distance.
7.4. The witness was not cross examined, thereafter, by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity for the same being given.
8. PW 4/Ms. Resham Devi is the victim/eye witness. PW 4 deposed that on 15.07.2010 at about 10:00 PM, she was present at her house and was taking food and suddenly, a truck struck against the wall of her house and damaged her house. PW 4 further deposed that 3-4 persons died in the said accident. PW 4 further deposed that she had given a complaint in writing to I.O and same is Ex.PW4/A. PW 4 has identified the offending truck in the photographs Ex. P1 from judicial file.
8.1. In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW 4 deposed that she is illiterate and she is unable to read and write Hindi. PW 4 deposed on the date of her cross examination that she is not able to recollect the name of the person who wrote down her complaint Ex. PW4/A. PW 4 further deposed that she put her thumb impression as her signature. PW 4 further deposed that she could not make any signature and she could not tell as to what was written in Ex.PW4/A. PW 4 further deposed that she could not identify the truck in question in photographs. PW 4 voluntarily stated that she could the identify the truck, if it is physically shown to her. PW 4 further deposed that she could not tell the number or colour of the offending truck. PW 4 further deposed that her statement was recorded by police in Rajender Nagar. PW 4 further deposed that her statement was not recorded in P.S Anand Parbat but police Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL ANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.03.16 16:40:13 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 13 of 75 officers of P.S Anand Parbat had come to her residence and had recorded on their own. PW 4 further deposed that she does not know the contents of said statement.
9. PW5/HC Wazir Singh is the Duty Officer. PW 5 deposed that on 15.07.2010, he was posted at P.S Anand Parbat as Duty Officer and his duty hours were from 4:00 PM to 12 (night). PW 5 further deposed that at about 10:10 PM, he received a PCR call regarding an accident at Main Road, Nehru Nagar in front of H.No.502. PW 5 further deposed that he recorded this fact in DD register at serial no.37 and marked the same to ASI Ramphool for necessary action. PW 5 further deposed that he has brought the original DD register containing the aforesaid DD and photocopy of the same Ex.PW5/A(OSR).
PW 5 further deposed that on 16.07.2010, he received a rukka sent by ASI Ramphool through Ct. Rohtash, on the basis of which, he registered present FIR by using the computerised system installed at P.S. PW 5 further deposed that the said computerised system does not allow any alteration and change in the data feed once in the same. PW 5 further deposed that the said system was free from all kinds of technical and mechanical error. PW 5 further deposed that the computerised print of FIR is Ex.PW5/B and he had made endorsement on the tehrir Ex.PW5/C. PW 5 further deposed that after registration of FIR, he had given the computerised FIR and original tehrir to Ct. Rohtash to hand over the same to ASI Ramphool for investigation.
9.1. The witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity for the same being given.
Digitally signed by ANKURANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.03.16 16:40:19 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 14 of 75
10. PW 6/HC Raj Kumar is MHCM and he has deposed that he has brought register no.19 containing entry no.1972 dated 16.07.2010 vide which IO ASI Ramphool had deposited the case property of this case i.e., one vehicle Trailer bearing no. HR 47 7996 and the photocopy of the same is Ex.PW6/A(OSR).
10.1. The witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity for the same being given.
11. PW 7/Sh. Chander Pal is the son of deceased Murti Devi. PW 7 deposed that in the year 2010, it was Thursday, he was having his dinner and one person came at his house and told him that his parents had met with an accident near Gumbad Temple, Anand Parbat, Delhi. PW 7 further deposed that thereafter, he went to the spot and saw that his father and mother were lying on the road in injured condition. PW 7 further deposed that the offending vehicle was also found parked there. PW 7 further deposed that the number of the offending vehicle was HR47-7996. PW 7 further deposed that thereafter, he took his mother and father to hospital in private van. PW 7 further deposed that his mother was declared as brought dead and his father was also serious. PW 7 further deposed that after the postmortem of his mother namely Murti Devi, the dead body was handed over to them vide handing over memo Ex. PW7/A. PW 7 further deposed that he identified the dead body vide identification memo Ex. PW7/B. PW 7 further deposed that he came to know that the offending vehicle mentioned above had hit his parents and in this regard, police officials recorded his statement. PW 7 has correctly identified 07 photographs of the offending vehicles already Ex. P1. Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL ANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.03.16 16:40:25 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 15 of 75 11.1. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity for the same being given.
12. PW 8/Smt. Saroj is the victim/eye witness. PW 8 deposed that she is living at the address i.e., House No. 456, Gali No. 11, Nehru Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi along with her family and she used to run a shop of bangles and make up articles outside her shop on the pavement. PW 8 further deposed that on 16.07.2010, she was sitting on the pavement at the shop and suddenly one truck bearing registration number of Haryana came in a very high speed and hit against her shop and thereafter entered into the house of Resham Devi after hitting one motorcycle and some other persons. The witness had written the number of the offending vehicle on her palm and the same was pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel. PW 8 further deposed that many persons injured in the accident and some of them died due to the accident. PW 8 further deposed that her shop also damaged in the accident and the accident happened due to the fault of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., truck. PW 8 further deposed that she did not see the driver who was driving the offending vehicle. PW 8 has correctly identified 07 photographs of the offending vehicle Ex. P-1.
12.1. In her cross examination by Ld. APP for State, PW 8 admitted that the registration number of the offending vehicle is HR47-7996.
12.2. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity for the same being given.
13. PW 9/Sh. Dharmender Sharma, Senior Assistant, Regional Transport Office, Mathura, U.P. has deposed that he is Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:40:31 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 16 of 75 working as abovesaid. PW 9 further deposed that he has brought the record with regard to Driving License No. 8771/MTR/06. PW 9 further deposed that as per their record, the driving license No. 8771/MTR/06 was issued in the name of Sh. Sanjay S/o Sh. Mohan, R/o Eanch, Chhata, Mathura, U.P and copy of driving license is Ex.PW9/A, copy of record register with regard to abovesaid driving license is Ex.PW9/B. PW 9 further deposed that he is authorized to depose by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Mathura, U.P. and the letter of authorization is Ex.PW9/C bearing signature of Mr. Babita Verma (ARTO) at point A. 13.1. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity for the same being given.
14. PW 10/Sh. Suraj Kumar is son of deceased Subhash Chandra Gupta. PW 10 deposed that in the year 2010, his father namely Late Sh. Subhash Chandra Gupta died in an accident. PW 10 further deposed that he went to Lady Hardinge Hospital to identify his dead body. PW 10 further deposed that police officials recorded his statement with regard to identification which is Ex.PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. PW 10 further deposed that after postmortem examination, dead body was handed over to them.
14.1. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity for the same being given.
15. PW 11/Retd. ASI/Tech. Devender Kumar conducted mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle and motorcycle bearing registration number DL6SAA-5398. PW 11 was examined in chief on 21.10.2019 and he has deposed that he is Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:40:37 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 17 of 75 qualified Grade-I Mechanic and he has done specialized courses in automobile and vehicle mechanic from ITI and various vehicles manufacturing companies. PW 11 further deposed that till the date of his examination, he has mechanically inspected more than 15,000 vehicles. PW 11 further deposed that on 19.07.2010, he had mechanically inspected two vehicles i.e., Truck bearing registration No. HR47-7996 and Motorcycle make Hunk bearing No. DL6SAA-5398 at the request of ASI Ramphool from PS Anand Parbat at the premises of PS Anand Parbat. PW 11 further deposed that his detailed mechanical inspection reports in this regard are Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B and as per his report, both the vehicles were not fit for road test.
15.1. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity for the same being given.
16. PW 12/ HC Rohtash Singh has deposed that on 15.07.2010, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as Constable and on that day, DD No. 37A regarding accident was marked to ASI Ramphool. PW 12 further deposed that thereafter, he along with ASI Ramphool reached at the spot i.e., Main Road Subji Market, Nehru Nagar, near Gumbad, Anand Parbat, Delhi, found one truck bearing registration No. HR47-7996 which was hit against a wall of a shop. PW 12 further deposed that they came to know that many public persons had sustained injuries. PW 12 further deposed that thereafter, ASI Ramphool left the spot and went to hospital. PW 12 further deposed that he remained at the spot and after sometime, ASI Ramphool returned back at the spot along with MLC of injured persons. PW 12 further deposed that they Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:40:41 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 18 of 75 did not find any eye witness at the spot. PW 12 further deposed that in the meantime, one person namely Sarabjeet came at the spot, who claimed himself to be eye witness and one of the injured in the accident. PW 12 further deposed that thereafter, Ю recorded statement of Sarabjeet. PW 12 further deposed that IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. PW 12 further deposed that thereafter, he went to PS Anand Parbat for registration of FIR and after getting FIR registered, he returned back to spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. PW 12 further deposed that IO also prepared site plan at the instance of Sarabjeet. PW 12 further deposed that thereafter, he along with ASI Ramphool went to Maulana Azad Medical College. PW 12 further deposed that one of the injured namely Murti Devi had succumbed due to the injuries suffered by her. PW 12 further deposed that thereafter, dead body was preserved for postmortem. PW 12 further deposed that after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. PW 12 further deposed that thereafter, they returned back to the spot. PW 12 further deposed that IO seized the vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. PW 12 further deposed that he could not identify the accused due to lapse of time. PW 12 has correctly identified the accused by pointing out towards him. PW 12 has correctly identified the photographs Ex. P-3 (Colly) showing the offending vehicle i.e., truck bearing registration No. HR47-7996 and the spot.
16.1. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for State, PW 12 admitted that accused Chandri Prashad was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW9/C. PW 12 admitted that accused was arrested on 17.07.2010. PW 12 Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:40:48 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 19 of 75 admitted that one motorcycle No. DL6SAA-5398 was also found at the spot in accidental condition and the same was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/D. PW 12 admitted that accused had produced his driving license on 17.07.2010 and same was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/E. PW 12 admitted that tehreer was made on the basis of DD entry.
16.2. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW 12 deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO at the spot on the same day when the accident happened. PW 12 further deposed that IO also recorded his statement on 17.07.2010. PW 12 further deposed that he had signed on the statement. PW 12 further deposed that his statement was recorded in the morning initially. PW 12 further deposed that he does not remember when his statement was recorded on 17.07.2010. PW 12 further deposed that he does not remember whether IO had recorded statement of any other person on 17.07.2010 or not. PW 12 further deposed that he does not remember till what time and duration of time, he remained at the spot. PW 12 further deposed that he does not remember whether he had mentioned in his statement that the tehreer was prepared on the statement of Sarabjeet. PW 12 further deposed that they received DD No. 37A at about 10:27 P.M. PW 12 admitted that document Ex. PW9/E does not bear signature of the person who produced the driving license. PW 12 further deposed that he does not remember who else was present in the police station at the time of production of driving license apart from him, accused and the IO of the case. PW 12 further deposed that he does not remember who had clicked the photographs of the spot. PW 12 further deposed that he does not remember whether the Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL 16:40:54 Date: 2026.03.16 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 20 of 75 photographer was private or from the department. PW 12 further deposed that he does not remember at what time the photographs were taken whether prior to registration of FIR or after registration of FIR or on the same day or on the next day. PW 12 denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot and due to this reason, he does not know when, where and by whom the photographs were taken. PW 12 admitted that his statement u/s 161 CrPC does not bear his signature. PW 12 further deposed that he does not remember whether he and Sarabjeet had signed the site plan as a witness or not. PW 12 denied the suggestion that he does not remember this fact as to whether he was not present at the time of preparation of site plan. PW 12 further deposed that he does not remember at what time he had gone to police station along with tehreer for registration of FIR. PW 12 further deposed that he also does not remember at what time he returned back to the spot after getting FIR registered. PW 12 further deposed that he does not remember when and where IO had recorded the statement of the injured persons and relatives of deceased. PW 12 further deposed that IO had recorded the statement of owner of motorcycle on 16.07.2010 at the spot but he does not remember the time. PW 12 further deposed that he does not remember whether IO had recorded of any other witness on 16.07.2010 or not. PW 12 further deposed that he could not tell when the statements of other witnesses were recorded. PW 12 further deposed that when the accused was arrested, he along with the IO were present. PW 12 denied the suggestion that he was not part of investigation at any point of time. PW 12 denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the IO. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:40:59 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 21 of 75
17. PW 13/HC Giri Chand joined the investigation with IO/SI Shiv Charan. PW 13 deposed that on 26.03.2011, he was posted at MACT Cell, Central, PS Rajender Nagar and on that day, he joined the investigation of the present case along with SI Shiv Charan. PW 13 further deposed that accused Chandri Prashad was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. PW 13 further deposed that thereafter, they along with accused Chandri Prashad went at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar in search of agent namely Gaurav but they could not find him and thereafter, accused was medically examined and from there, he was produced before the Ld. Magistrate and he was sent to judicial custody. PW 13 has correctly identified the accused Chandri Prashad in the Court.
17.1. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW 13 deposed that the accused was not apprehended in his presence. PW 13 further deposed that he had only signed the arrest memo as it was prepared in his presence. PW 13 further deposed that he could not tell where the accused was arrested. PW 13 further deposed that he could not tell where the arrest memo was prepared. PW 13 further deposed that they went to Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar in private car of SI Shiv Charan. PW 13 further deposed that thereafter, they went to Lady Hardinge Hospital for medical examination of accused. PW 13 denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation and he is deposing falsely.
18. PW 14/ASI Ajit Singh has deposed that on 16.07.2010, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as ASI and on that day, he got conducted postmortem examination on the dead body Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.03.16 16:41:04 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 22 of 75 of deceased Subhash Chand Gupta at Lady Hardinge Hospital. PW 14 further deposed that dead body was identified by the relatives of the deceased. PW 14 further deposed that he had recorded the identification statements of those relatives which are Ex. PW11/A and already Ex. PW10/A. 18.1. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity for the same being given.
19. PW 15/Retd. Inspector Dhan Singh has deposed that on 16.07.2010, he was posted as In-charge Mobile Crime Team, Central District, Paharganj and on that day, after receiving the information from the District Control Room, he along with the other members of the crime team reached the spot i.e., near House No. 502, Main Road, Nehru Nagar where ASI Ramphool along with the local police staff was present. PW 15 further deposed that a container bearing registration No. HR47-7996 was standing facing the wall of the house in accidental condition. PW 15 further deposed that ASI Ramphool told him about the accident. PW 15 further deposed that Const. Ramesh Kumar (photographer of the crime team) clicked the photographs of the scene of crime. PW 15 further deposed that he inspected the scene of crime and prepared the report and same was handed over to IO. PW 15 further deposed that he inspected the scene of crime from 1:20 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. on 16.07.2010. PW 15 further deposed that he could not tell the exact number of photographs which the photographer clicked at the spot but he could identify those photographs. PW 15 has correctly identified ten photographs as the photographs of spot Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-10.
Further examination in chief of the witness was deferred as the Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL ANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.03.16 16:41:10 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 23 of 75 report of the witness with regard to the inspection of the spot was not on record. Prosecution sought some time to trace the same, however the said report was never place on record and the witness was never further examined-in-chief and cross-examined, despite sufficient opportunity being given to the Prosecution in that regard.
20. PW16/Retd. SI Indraj Singh is the IO. PW 16 deposed that on 25.11.2010, he was posted at MACT Cell, Central District as SI and on that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. PW 16 further deposed that during his investigation, he collected the report from the Transport Authority Mathura where the license of the accused was sent for verification. PW 16 further deposed that as per the report, the license was found fake and thereafter, he added Section 468 and 471 IPC. PW 16 further deposed that on 06.01.2011, accused moved an anticipatory bail before the Court and the same was dismissed by the Court. PW 16 further deposed that thereafter, he handed over the file for further investigation to SI Shiv Charan.
20.1. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity for the same being given.
20.2. PW 16 Retd. SI Indraj Singh was recalled for cross examination on application U/s 311 Cr. PC filed on behalf of accused which was allowed vide order dated 03.03.2025. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel on 01.11.2025, PW 16 deposed that he was In-charge of investigation of the present case from 25.12.2010 till 28.02.2011. PW 16 further deposed that the seizure memo of the driving license was prepared by the IO, Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:41:16 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 24 of 75 who was In-charge before him in the present case. PW 16 further deposed that he was not attached with the investigation of the present case when the seizure memo of the driving license was prepared. PW 16 was confronted with the seizure memo dated 07.01.2011 present on record to which, witness stated that it bears his signatures at point A. PW 16 further deposed that the said seizure memo is Ex. PW 16/DA. PW 16 voluntarily stated that the DL seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 9/E was the one which was seized by the IO In-charge before him. PW 16 further deposed that later on, the DL seized vide Ex. PW 16/DA was produced by the accused at the time of his anticipatory bail in Ld. Court which was later on verified by him.
21. PW 17/Sh. Neeraj Jain is the director of company which owned the offending vehicle. PW 17 deposed that he runs a transport business in the name of Shriniwasa Roadways Private Limited and he is the Director of the said company. PW 17 further deposed that the vehicle No. HR47-7996 is registered in the name of his company and all the affairs of his company regarding the vehicles were being managed by Giriraj Dass Baldua. PW 17 further deposed that he was General Manager in the company. PW 17 further deposed that accused was a regular driver of their company and he was hired on 01.05.2010. PW 17 further deposed that he gave statement to police officials which is Ex.PW17/A. PW 17 further deposed that he does not remember the year, but he received the call from Giriraj Dass Baldua who told him that an accident had occurred with vehicle No. HR47-
7996 and the same was being driven by accused Chandri Prasad at the time of accident. PW 17 further deposed that the abovesaid vehicle was got released by Giriraj Dass Baldua on his behalf. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL 16:41:29 Date: 2026.03.16 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 25 of 75 PW 17 further deposed that he had given authorization letter in favour of Giriraj Dass Baldua for getting the release of vehicle on superdari from the Court which is Ex.PW17/B. PW 17 has correctly identified the accused in the Court.
21.1. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW 17 deposed that the police officials did not record his statement. PW 17 admitted that the letter Ex.PW17/A was given to police official by him. PW 17 further deposed that he had handed over the same on 24.05.2011 and the contents of Ex.PW17/A was not written by him but the same were written under his instructions. PW 17 further deposed that the same was written by Giriraj Dass Baldua. PW 17 further deposed that he had not issued any appointment letter to accused Chandri Prasad when he was appointed as a driver in the company. PW 17 further deposed that they usually give salary to drivers in cash. PW 17 further deposed that no I.D. proof was issued to the driver i.e., accused. PW 17 further deposed that they maintained a register with regard to which vehicle was given to which driver. PW 17 further deposed that police officials did not ask him about that register, therefore, he had not handed over the same to police officials. PW 17 denied the suggestion that he did not maintain any register with regard to the entry of vehicles as well as drivers. PW 17 denied the suggestion that on the day of accident, the abovesaid vehicle was not being driven by the accused. PW 17 denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in this case.
22. PW 18/Retd. SI Ramphool Singh is the IO in present case and he deposed that on 15.07.2010, he was posted at PS Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:41:34 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 26 of 75 Anand Parbat as an ASI and on that day, DD No. 7A regarding accident was marked to him for investigation. PW 18 further deposed that thereafter, he along with Const. Rohtash reached at the spot i.e., Main Road, Subji Market, Nehru Nagar, near Gumbad, Anand Parbat, Delhi. PW 18 further deposed that they found that one truck/container bearing registration No. HR47- 7996 alongwith one motorcycle were standing in accidental condition. PW 18 further deposed that he also came to know that the said truck hit the motorcycle first and thereafter the wall of the house. PW 18 further deposed that they came to know that there are many injured and same were taken to hospital by the PCR. PW 18 further deposed that he left Const. Rohtash at the spot and went to RML Hospital. PW 18 further deposed that he found admitted Murti Devi, Ramphool and Shamo Devi in the hospital. PW 18 further deposed that Murti Devi was declared as brought dead. PW 18 further deposed that thereafter, he went to Lady Hardinge Hospital where he found that one unknown person (later on came to know the name as Subhash Gupta) was brought dead in the hospital and there were some other persons admitted in injured condition. PW 18 further deposed that no one was found fit for the statement. PW 18 further deposed that thereafter, he went to Hindu Rao Hospital where they found one Dolly admitted in the hospital. PW 18 further deposed that no other eye witness except the injured persons were found in the hospital. PW 18 further deposed that the injured persons were not fit for statement. PW 18 further deposed that he again reached at the spot and thereafter, he again made search of eye witness but no eye witness was found. PW 18 further deposed that thereafter, he made endorsement on the DD entry and prepared one tehreer Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:41:40 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 27 of 75 and same was handed over to Const. Rohtash for registration of FIR. PW 18 further deposed that Const. Rohtash went to PS Anand Parbat for registration of FIR and after getting FIR registered, Const. Rohtash came at the spot along with copy of FIR as well as original tehreer and handed over same to him. PW 18 further deposed that thereafter, he prepared site plan Ex.PW18/A and thereafter, he seized both the vehicles vide seizure memo already Ex. PW9/D and Ex. PW9/A. PW 18 further deposed that Crime Team was called at the spot, which inspected the spot and had taken the photographs. PW 18 further deposed that thereafter, he went to the RML Hospital and took the dead body of deceased Murti Devi and preserved the same in mortuary of Maulana Azad Medical College. PW 18 further deposed that after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to relatives. PW 18 further deposed that the postmortem on the dead body of Subhash was got conducted by ASI Ajit Singh. PW 18 further deposed that during investigation, both the vehicles were got mechanically examined by the mechanical inspector. PW 18 further deposed that thereafter, he served the notice u/s 133 M.V. Act to the owner of the offending vehicle Ex. PW18/A1. PW 18 further deposed that one Giriraj Dass Baldua came in the police station and gave the reply of the notice Ex. PW18/B. PW 18 further deposed that during his investigation, he also seized the driving license of accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/E. PW 18 further deposed that he also seized documents of offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/C. PW 18 further deposed that the same were given to him by Giriraj Dass Baldua. PW 18 further deposed that accused was arrested and personally searched by him on 17.07.2010 vide Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:41:47 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 28 of 75 memos Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW9/C. PW 18 further deposed that thereafter, the case file was handed over to MACT Cell for investigation. PW 18 has correctly identified the accused in the Court. PW 18 has correctly identified the photographs of the truck/container Ex. P1 and the motorcycle Ex. P2 from the photographs Ex. P3 (Colly) from judicial file.
22.1. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW 18 deposed that the driving license of accused was given to him by the accused. PW 18 further deposed that he does not remember whether he got signature of the accused on the said seizure memo or not. PW 18 admitted that signature of accused is not on seizure memo Ex.PW9/E. PW 18 denied the suggestion that accused did not hand over his driving license to him and due to which the signatures were not taken on the said seizure memo. PW 18 denied the suggestion that the said driving license is planted upon accused in order to falsely implicate him in this false case. PW 18 further deposed that he had verified from the authority and came to know that the offending vehicle was in the name of Giriraj Dass Baldua. PW 18 denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle was in the name of M/s Shriniwasa Roadways and not in the name of Giriraj Dass Baldua. PW 18 further deposed that the document with regard to the ownership were collected by the MACT Cell. PW 18 further deposed that he had not collected any document from the authority with regard to the ownership of offending vehicle. PW 18 further deposed that he remained at the spot for about two hours. PW 18 further deposed that he had prepared the site plan on his own. PW 18 admitted that it is not mentioned in the site plan the place where they found the offending vehicle and the motorcycle lying. PW ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:42:40 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 29 of 75 18 denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. PW 18 denied the suggestion that he had not carried out the investigation properly.
23. PW 19/Praful Kumar @ Kamal Kumar is victim/injured. PW 19 deposed that on 15.07.2010, he was sitting near Gumbad, Nehru Nagar Subji Market alongwith his friend Subhash Kumar. PW 19 further deposed that suddenly, one truck/container came from the Taliwali Basti side in a very high speed and hit the cart of his friend and thereafter, he became unconscious. PW 19 further deposed that his friend Subhash Kumar also sustained injuries. PW 19 further deposed that he also sustained injuries in the incident and he regained his consciousness in the hospital. PW 19 further deposed that on the next day, he was discharged from the hospital and thereafter, he came back to his house and remained there for about 15-20 days. PW 19 further deposed that it was the night time.
23.1. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for State, PW 19 admitted that the person who was driving the offending vehicle rammed into the nearby house after hitting his friend Subhash Kumar Gupta and himself. PW 19 admitted that the driver of the said vehicle was coming driving the offending vehicle in zigzag manner. PW 19 admitted that the incident happened at around 10:15 P.M. PW 19 has correctly identified 07 photographs Ex. P1 of the offending vehicle.
23.2. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW 19 deposed that his statement was recorded by police officials on the next day in the hospital. PW 19 further deposed that he does not remember whether he had signed the Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:42:46 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 30 of 75 said statement or not. PW 19 further deposed that he had seen the offending vehicle from the distance of around 15-20 meters. PW 19 further deposed that there was no traffic on the road at that time. PW 19 denied the suggestion that he had not seen any truck/container. PW 19 denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
24. PW 20/Sh. G.D. Baldua is the G.M. Logistics of the company which owned the offending vehicle. PW 20 deposed that he was working at 4743/23, Second Floor, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi from 2006 to 2015. PW 20 further deposed that now he is living at Vadodra, Gujarat. PW 20 further deposed that in the year of 2006 to March, 2015, he was working as an employee of Shriniwasa Roadways Private Limited as G.M. Logistics, Delhi. PW 20 further deposed that all the affairs and allocation of the work regarding vehicles were managed by the owner. PW 20 further deposed that he was at the post of General Manager (Logistics) at Shriniwasa Roadways Private Limited. PW 20 further deposed that on the day of incident, in the year 2010, he received a call from the owner regarding an accident took place of vehicle bearing No. HR47/7996 so he instructed him to go to the police station Anand Parbat. PW 20 further deposed that the owner told him that at that time the driver namely Chandari Prasad was driving the vehicle on the said day of incident. PW 20 further deposed that when he reached to the police station, he told to the police that the accident was done by Chandari Prasad. PW 20 further deposed that he does not remember on the day of incident with whom he went to the police station.
Digitally signed by ANKURANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.03.16 16:42:51 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 31 of 75 24.1. In his cross examination by Ld. Substitute APP for State, on being shown the statement U/s 161 Cr. PC of witness recorded by the police, he deposed that he had given a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, which is shown to him in the Court. PW 20 admitted the fact that he managed the affairs of the vehicle (main hi gaadi ko sambhalta tha ), the owner told him the vehicle bearing No. HR47-7996 was driving by accused on the day of incident. PW 20 admitted that he received the notice under Section 133 MV Act in which he replied that accused Chandari Prasad was driving the vehicle on the relevant day already exhibited as Ex.PW18/B. PW 20 has correctly identified the accused in the Court by pointing out towards him. PW 20 admitted that he went to the place of incident. PW 20 denied the suggestion that he seen some injured persons present at the spot due to the accident (contradictory from point B to B1 of the statement marked X). PW 20 admitted that the incident had occurred on 15.07.2010. PW 20 admitted that he was working as General Manager (Logistics) in Shriniwasa Roadways Private Limited. PW 20 further deposed that he does not exactly remember whether he had taken accused Chandari Prasad to PS and handed over to IO. On arrest memo being shown to him, PW 20 has correctly identified his signatures and mobile number at point B on the arrest memo Ex.PW10/A which shows his name along with his signature and mobile number in column No.7.
24.2. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW 20 deposed that as a GM (Logistics), the work allocated to him is to get business from parties and arrange for tender business. PW 20 further deposed that the drivers working in the company were not under his supervision but they were Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:42:57 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 32 of 75 under the supervision of the owner of the company. PW 20 further deposed that he has no personal knowledge that which driver was driving which vehicle under the Sriniwasa Roadways Private Limited. PW 20 further deposed that he had mentioned on the reply of notice under Section 133 MV Act that Chandari Prasad was driving the vehicle at the instance of owner of the company. PW 20 further deposed that he does not know whether accused was driving the offending vehicle on the date of incident.
25. PW 21/Sh. Nawal Singh is superdar of offending vehicle. PW 21 deposed that he used to work as a Fleet Incharge in M/s Sriniwasa Roadways Pvt. Ltd and in the year 2010, he got released vehicle No. HR47- 7996 (Trala) from the Hon'ble Court on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW21/A. PW 21 further deposed that the owner namely Naresh Kumar Jain had authorized him through Special Power of Attorney Ex.PW21/B and case property is already Ex.P-1.
25.1. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity for the same being given.
26. PW 22/Inspector Shiv Charan Meena is the IO in present case and he deposed that on 20.07.2010, he was posted at PS MACT Cell, Central District as Sub Inspector and on that day, he received the present case file for investigation. PW 22 further deposed that he sent the documents for verification and sent the AIR to MACT, Tis Hazari. PW 22 further deposed that he deposited MLCs of injured persons in the concerned hospitals. PW 22 further deposed that he also received the postmortem report of the deceased persons. PW 22 further deposed that during the verification of the documents, he came to know the Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:43:03 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 33 of 75 fact that the Driving License of accused was fake. PW 22 further deposed that thereafter, he added Section 468 and 471 IPC in the chargesheet during investigation and he re-arrested the accused Chandri Prashad vide arrest memo already Ex. PW10/A. PW 22 further deposed that he interrogated accused and the personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW22/A. PW 22 further deposed that he had also recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW22/B. PW 22 further deposed that the report which was received regarding the fake driving license was placed on file which is marked as Mark A and the fake license attached with file is Ex. PW22/C. The identity of accused was not disputed by the ld. Defence Counsel. PW 22 has correctly identified 12 photographs clicked by Crime team of the spot and the vehicle already exhibited as Ex. P-1 (Colly). PW 22 further correctly identified 11 photographs of the offending vehicle and other vehicles which were taken at the time of release of the vehicle already Ex. P- 3 (Colly). PW 22 further deposed that thereafter, he filed the DAR and then chargesheet.
26.1. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity for the same being given.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSON
27. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of accused was recorded without oath on 19.10.2022 under section 313 Cr. PC. The accused stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by the owner of the vehicle. The accused further stated that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of the Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:43:08 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 34 of 75 incident. He further stated that he does not want to lead any defence evidence and matter was listed for final arguments.
27.1. On 29.02.2024, an application U/s 315 Cr. PC was moved on behalf of accused and vide Order dated 03.03.2025, the Ld. Predecessor, while treating the said application U/s 311 CrPC, has summoned PW16/Retd. SI Indraj Singh. On 01.11.2025, PW 16/Retd. SI Indraj Singh was cross examined and discharged and PE was closed.
27.2. The statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded, with respect to the documents exhibited by PW16, wherein he stated that he had given the DL on 07.01.2011, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/DA and he has not given any other DL. The accused opted not to lead DE and matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
28. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
29. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. She has argued that the prosecution witnesses namely PW7, PW12, PW15 and PW18 have categorically deposed about the identity of offending vehicle, as the same was seized from place of incident. It is further argued that the fact of rash and negligent driving has been proved, beyond all reasonable doubts, by PW2, PW8 and PW19 who have deposed that the same was being driven at a very high speed. It is further argued that PW3 has Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:43:14 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 35 of 75 deposed that the offending vehicle was being driven in a zig zag manner. It is further argued that the fact of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle is proved from the condition in which offending vehicle was found as evident from the photographs and mechanical inspection report Ex. PW11/B. It is further argued that fact of death of deceased persons is proved beyond all reasonable doubts from the PM reports Ex. AD2 and Ex. AD3. Furthermore, the injuries caused to victims, grievous/simple, are also proved beyond reasonable doubt from the MLCs of victims Ex. AD4, Ex. AD5. Ex. AD6 and Ex. AD7. On the identity of accused person, it has been argued that PW20 has deposed that in his reply to notice U/s 133 MV Act Ex. PW18/B he has stated that the accused was driving the offending vehicle, at the time of incident. It is further argued that the ingredients of section 427 IPC are also proved beyond all reasonable doubts as PW4 and PW12 have deposed that the offending vehicle had hit against the walls of their shops. Furthermore, with respect to section 468 & 471 IPC, it has been argued that the forged license Ex. PW22/C has been attached along with the chargesheet and from perusal of report Ex. PW9/C, it is revealed that the said DL was issued in name of Sanjay. It is further argued that the above-mentioned DL was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/E and same was produced by the accused. It is further argued that PW16 has also deposed that the driving license of accused was found to be fake. Further, the other evidence on record as corroborated by the version of the eyewitness and the offences are proved beyond any doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.03.16 16:43:19 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 36 of 75
30. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. counsel has argued that three types of witnesses have been examined by the prosecution namely eye witnesses, formal witnesses and witnesses to prove reports regarding forged documents. It is argued that PW1 is a child witness and she has failed to depose regarding the month of incident as well as regarding driving of offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner by the accused person. It is further argued that PW1 has deposed that the offending vehicle struck a temple, whereas PW2 has deposed that the offending vehicle struck a home. It is further argued that PW1 and PW2 have mentioned the offending vehicle as "truck", whereas PW3 has mentioned the offending vehicle as "trailer". It is further argued that PW3 has failed to depose about the registration number of offending vehicle and has stated that the offending vehicle has rammed in a shop. It is further argued that PW3 has deposed that he could not see the person, who was driving the offending vehicle and he has not seen the accident occurring as well as the truck in moving condition. It is further argued that no witness, apart from PW3, has identified the accused person and PW3 has deposed that he saw the accused for the first time after 2-3 days of incident. It is further argued that PW17 has deposed that he has received call from PW20 regarding the fact that offending vehicle was being driven by the accused, whereas PW20 has deposed that he was informed by PW17 that accused was driving the offending vehicle. It is further argued that no documentary proof was handed over to the police to show that accused was driving the offending vehicle. It is further argued that PW20 has replied to the notice U/s 133 MV Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:43:24 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 37 of 75 Act that the accused was driving the offending vehicle, but he has deposed that he has no personal knowledge as to which driver was driving which vehicle. It is further argued that the DL seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/E was not given by the accused, rather it was given by PW20 and the same does not bear signatures of accused. It is further argued that PW20 has not deposed anything regarding handing over the DL, seized vide Ex. PW9/E, to the IO. It is argued that prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that accused be acquitted for the said offences.
INGRIDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
31. The accused has been charged for the offences of rash driving on public way (S. 279 IPC), causing death by a rash or negligent act (S. 304A IPC), causing grievous hurt as well as hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others (S. 338 & 337 IPC), mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees (S. 427 IPC), forgery for purposes of cheating (S. 468/34 IPC), using as genuine a forged document or electronic record (S. 471 IPC) and not securing medical attention for the injured persons, being driver of the offending vehicle (S. 134(a) r/w S. 187 MV Act) in the present case. However, charge has been framed against the accused U/s 139(9) MV Act, but the section which is attracted from present factual matrix is section 134(a) MV Act. Perusal of section 464 CrPC reveals that omission to frame charge is not a material irregularity, if failure of justice has not been occasioned. Whereas under section 279 IPC, the effect of rash or negligent driving likely to endanger human life or cause hurt etc. is in itself the offence, under section Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:43:30 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 38 of 75 304A/338/337 IPC, death/grievous hurt/hurt of/to victim, respectively, should be caused in pursuance of such rash or negligent act of the accused. Furthermore, for the offence punishable under section 427 IPC, it has to be proved that mischief (defined U/s 425 IPC) has been committed by the accused, which has caused loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards. For the offence punishable U/s 468 IPC, it has to be proved that the accused has committed forgery, intending the said document to used for the purpose of cheating and section 471 IPC punishes using a forged document as genuine. Furthermore, for the offence punishable U/s 187 r/w S. 134(a) MV Act, it has to be proved that the accused, being driver of offending vehicle, has not secured medical attention for the injured persons. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner, and due to such driving of the accused, death/grievous hurt/hurt of victims/deceased as well as damage/destruction of properties of victims, amounting to loss of amount of rupees fifty or upwards, was caused. Further, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has failed to secure medical attention for the injured persons. Furthermore, it has to be proved that the accused has committed forgery for the purpose of cheating and has used the forged document as genuine, with the knowledge that the same is forged.
32. It would be appropriate to reproduce sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A of IPC, which are as follows:
"279. Rash driving or riding on a public way: --Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:43:38 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 39 of 75 negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with im- prisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others: --Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others: --Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
304A. Causing death by negligence: --Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
33. In order to prove the offences punishable under section 279/337/338/304A IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. That accident actually took place;
ii. that a vehicle was driven or ridden by the accused at the time of accident;
iii. that the accused was driving it on a public way; iv. the said vehicle was driven in a rash or negligent manner; v. as a result of such driving hurt, grievous hurt and death has been caused of the victim; and vi. the act should not amount to culpable homicide.
33.1. While the first, second, third and sixth ingredients need to be established beyond reasonable doubt with the aid of Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:43:44 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 40 of 75 eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence, the fifth ingredient needs to be proved with the help of medical documents and expert witnesses. As far as the fourth ingredient is concerned the same is required to be proved with judicial measurements and with the judicial interpretation as already established.
34. Thus, the gravamen of the offences under sections 279/337/338/304A IPC is the act of accused, done with "rashness" or "negligence". The IPC does not define either of these terms. However, the ambit of these terms has now been settled by judicial pronouncements of superior courts. In Empress of India vs. Idu Beg ILR (1881) 3 All 776 the term "rashness" was interpreted to mean commission of an act with indifference or recklessness towards then consequence of such act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rathnashavlvan vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 474 has observed, inter alia, as under:
"7. .... Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
8. As noted above, "rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:43:50 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 41 of 75 the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
34.1. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Ansal vs. CBI (2014) 6 SCC 173. The standard of negligence was discussed in the said case, by observing, inter alia, as under: -
"58. In the case of "negligence" the courts have favoured a meaning which implies a gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge arises, it may be the imperative duty of the accused to have adopted. Negligence has been understood to be an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. Unlike rashness, where the immutability arises from acting despite the consciousness, negligence implies acting without such consciousness, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him. The immutability in the case of negligence arises from the neglect of the civil duty of circumspection."
34.2. Thus, rashness implies doing an act despite consciousness that it might result in injuries, negligence, on the other hand, means lack of reasonable care that a person placed in the effect situation ought to take, in order to avoid injuries.
35. It would be appropriate to reproduce sections 425 & 427 of IPC, which are as follows:
"425. Mischief: --Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".
Explanation 1 --It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:43:56 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 42 of 75 of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not.
Explanation 2 --Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly.
427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees: -- Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
36. In order to prove the offences punishable under section 427 IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. Mens rea: That the person had intentionally committed it or with the proper knowledge of the act, that by his act he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person; and ii. Actus reus: That by such act the said person has caused the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof, so as to destroy or diminish its value or utility, irrespective of the fact, whether he is known to victim or not.
37. It would also be appropriate to reproduce sections 463, 468, 471 & 34 of IPC, which are as follows:
"463. Forgery: --Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating: --Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:44:02 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 43 of 75 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record:
-- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention: --When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
38. For the offence under Section 468, the prosecution has to first prove that the document is forged. It is also to be proved that the accused committed forgery in terms of Section 463 IPC, with the intent of cheating the victim. Thus, merely preparing a forged document without proving the requisite mens rea to cheat would not satisfy the requirements of the provision. Even for proving the offence of forgery simpliciter, the necessary mens rea is required to be proved by the prosecution. Further, as per Section 471 IPC, the basic conditions required for commission of offence under the provision are as follows-:
i. The document or electronic record must be forged; ii. The accused should have used the said document/record as genuine, having knowledge or reason to believe that such document/record is forged; and iii. The said use of the document/record must be dishonestly or fraudulently.
Thus, all these conditions should be met before a person can be convicted of the said offence. The punishment of the offence is similar to that of the offence of forgery.Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL 16:44:08 Date: 2026.03.16 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 44 of 75
39. Section 34 IPC provides exception to the general rule that no man can be held responsible for an independent act and wrong committed by another. It lays down the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention, emanating from the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. It deals with doing of separate acts, similar or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the result thereof as if he had done the act himself. The soul of Section 34 IPC is the joint liability of doing a criminal act. This section only provides a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. Two elements are necessary to fulfil the requirement of Section 34 IPC. One is that the person must be present on the scene of occurrence and the second is that there must be a prior concert or a pre- arranged plan. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, a person cannot be held guilty of an offence by operation of Section 34 IPC.
40. It is also important here to reproduce sections 134(a) & 187 MV Act, which are as follows:
"187. Punishment for offences relating to accident: --Whoever fails to comply with the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 132 or section 133 or section 134 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both or, if having been previously convicted of an offence under this section, he is again convicted of an offence under this section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
134. Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person: -- When any person is injured or any property of a third party is damaged, as a result of an accident in which a motor vehicle is Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:44:14 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 45 of 75 involved, the driver of the vehicle or other person in charge of the vehicle shall--
(a) unless it is not practicable to do so on account of mob fury or any other reason beyond his control, take all reasonable steps to secure medical attention for the injured person, by conveying him to the nearest medical practitioner or hospital, and it shall be the duty of every registered medical practitioner or the doctor on the duty in the hospital immediately to attend to the injured person and render medical aid or treatment without waiting for any procedural formalities, unless the injured person or his guardian, in case he is a minor, desires otherwise;
(b) give on demand by a police officer any information required by him, or, if no police officer is present, report the circumstances of the occurrence, including the circumstances, if any, for not taking reasonable steps to secure medical attention as required under clause (a), at the nearest police station as soon as possible, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence.
(c) give the following information in writing to the insurer, who has issued the certificates of insurance, about the occurrence of the accident, namely: --
(i) insurance policy number and period of its validity;
(ii) date, time and place of accident;
(iii) particulars of the persons injured or killed in the accident;
(iv) name of the driver and the particulars of his driving licence.
Explanation --For the purposes of this section the expression "driver" includes the owner of the vehicle."
Thus, failure of compliance of provisions of section 134 MV Act has been made an offence punishable U/s 187 MV Act. Therefore, it has to be proved by the prosecution that the accused, being driver of offending vehicle, has failed to take responsible steps to secure medical attention for the injured persons, who were injured as a result of the accident.
41. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of the notions of the accused has to be rebutted by Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.03.16 16:44:19 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 46 of 75 the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that point was the guilt of accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
42. I have carefully gone through all the records at hand and testimony of the witnesses. After perusal, this court is of the opinion that the points for determination in the present case are:
I. Whether on 15.07.2010 at about 22.30 PM at Main Road, Subzi Market, Nehru Nagar, Near Gumbad, Anand Parbat, Delhi the accused was found driving a container bearing no. HR 47-7996 on a public road in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life and safety of others and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 279 IPC.
II. Whether on the above-mentioned date, time and place, while driving the abovesaid vehicle in aforesaid manner, the accused person has caused the death of victims Murti Devi and Subhash Gupta and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304A IPC.
III. Whether on the above-mentioned date, time and place, while driving the abovesaid vehicle in aforesaid manner, the accused person has caused grievous injury to the victim Ram Phool Singh and dangerous injury to the victim Dolly Kajal and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 338 IPC.
IV. Whether on the above-mentioned date, time and place, while driving the abovesaid vehicle in Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:44:26 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 47 of 75 aforesaid manner, the accused person has caused simple injury to the victims Shyamo Devi, Panna Devi and Prafull Kumar and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 337 IPC.
V. Whether on the above-mentioned date, time and place, after driving the abovesaid vehicle in aforesaid manner and causing hurt/grievous hurt/death of the victims, the accused person has fled away from the spot and thus committed an offence u/s 139 (9) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
VI. Whether the accused produced one DL no. 8771/MTR/06 in his possession, which he had fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine which he knew or had reason to believe the same to be a forged document and thus committed an offence u/s 471 IPC. VII. Whether the accused along with co-accused Gaurav (since not traceable) in furtherance of their common intention, committed forgery intending that the said driving license no. 8771/MTR/06 (which has been found to be fake) shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed an offence u/s 468/34 IPC.
VIII. Whether while driving the above-said vehicle, the accused committed mischief by damaging the houses of victims Reshma Devi and Saroj Devi and also damaged the motorcycle no. DL 69 AA 5398 of the victim Sujit Mishra and thereby caused loss or damage of an amount of more than Rs. 50/- and thereby committed an offence 427 IPC. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.03.16 16:44:32 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 48 of 75 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE Points for Determination No. I-V & VIII
43. Since some essential ingredients as well as evidence of points for determination are common, hence the points no. I - V and VIII shall be dealt together.
44. Accident: - For the above-mentioned points, the first ingredient that needs to be proved is that an accident took place by the offending vehicle. To prove the same the prosecution has cited the witnesses mentioned in the table below, which also includes a child witness i.e., PW1/Doli @ Kajal, who was 11 years of age on the date of her examination. Thus, it is also pertinent to discuss the evidentiary value of a child witness. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh1, while discussing the principles pertaining to the appreciation of evidence of a child witness, has held as under: -
"58. We summarize our conclusion as under: -
(I) The Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum age for a witness, and as such a child witness is a competent witness and his or her evidence and cannot be rejected outrightly. (II) As per Section 118 of the Evidence Act, before the evidence of the child witness is recorded, a preliminary examination must be conducted by the Trial Court to ascertain if the child-witness is capable of understanding sanctity of giving evidence and the import of the questions that are being put to him.
(III) Before the evidence of the child witness is recorded, the Trial Court must record its opinion and satisfaction that the child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth and must clearly state why he is of such opinion.
(IV) The questions put to the child in the course of the preliminary examination and the demeanour of the child and their ability to respond to questions coherently and rationally must be recorded by the Trial Court. The correctness of the opinion formed by the Trial Court as to why it is satisfied that the child witness was capable of giving evidence may be gone into by the appellate court by either Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL 1 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 836: 2025 INSC 261 PANGHAL Date:
2026.03.16 16:44:38 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 49 of 75 scrutinizing the preliminary examination conducted by the Trial Court, or from the testimony of the child witness or the demeanour of the child during the deposition and cross-examination as recorded by the Trial Court.
(V) The testimony of a child witness who is found to be competent to depose i.e., capable of understanding the questions put to it and able to give coherent and rational answers would be admissible in evidence. (VI) The Trial Court must also record the demeanour of the child witness during the course of its deposition and cross-examination and whether the evidence of such child witness is his voluntary expression and not borne out of the influence of others. (VII) There is no requirement or condition that the evidence of a child witness must be corroborated before it can be considered. A child witness who exhibits the demeanour of any other competent witness and whose evidence inspires confidence can be relied upon without any need for corroboration and can form the sole basis for conviction.
If the evidence of the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or embellishments, the same does not require any corroboration whatsoever.
(VIII) Corroboration of the evidence of the child witness may be insisted upon by the courts as measure of caution and prudence where the evidence of the child is found to be either tutored or riddled with material discrepancies or contradictions. There is no hard and fast rule when such corroboration would be desirous or required, and would depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. (IX) Child witnesses are considered as dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded and as such the courts must rule out the possibility of tutoring. If the courts after a careful scrutiny, find that there is neither any tutoring nor any attempt to use the child witness for ulterior purposes by the prosecution, then the courts must rely on the confidence-inspiring testimony of such a witness in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the absence of any allegations by the accused in this regard, an inference as to whether the child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition. (X) The evidence of a child witness is considered tutored if their testimony is shaped or influenced at the instance of someone else or is otherwise fabricated. Where there has been any tutoring of a witness, the same may possibly produce two broad effects in their testimony;
(i) improvisation or (ii) fabrication.
(i) Improvisation in testimony whereby facts have been altered or new details are added inconsistent with the version of events not previously stated must be eradicated by first confronting the witness with that part of its previous statement that omits or contradicts the improvisation by bringing it to its notice and giving the witness an opportunity to either admit or deny the omission or contradiction. If such omission or contradiction is ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:44:44 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 50 of 75 admitted there is no further need to prove the contradiction. If the witness denies the omission or contradiction the same has to be proved in the deposition of the investigating officer by proving that part of police statement of the witness in question. Only thereafter, may the improvisation be discarded from evidence or such omission or contradiction be relied upon as evidence in terms of Section 11 of Evidence Act.
(ii) Whereas the evidence of a child witness which is alleged to be doctored or tutored in toto, then such evidence may be discarded as unreliable only if the presence of the following two factors have to be established being as under: -
• Opportunity of Tutoring of the Child Witness in question whereby certain foundational facts suggesting or demonstrating the probability that a part of the testimony of the witness might have been tutored have to be established. This may be done either by showing that there was a delay in recording the statement of such witness or that the presence of such witness was doubtful, or by imputing any motive on the part of such witness to depose falsely, or the susceptibility of such witness in falling prey to tutoring. However, a mere bald assertion that there is a possibility of the witness in question being tutored is not sufficient. • Reasonable likelihood of tutoring wherein the foundational facts suggesting a possibility of tutoring as established have to be further proven or cogently substantiated. This may be done by leading evidence to prove a strong and palpable motive to depose falsely, or by establishing that the delay in recording the statement is not only unexplained but indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice or by proving that the witness fell prey to tutoring and was influenced by someone else either by cross-examining such witness at length that leads to either material discrepancies or contradictions, or exposes a doubtful demeanour of such witness rife with sterile repetition and confidence lacking testimony, or through such degree of incompatibility of the version of the witness with the other material on record and attending circumstances that negates their presence as unnatural. (XI) Merely because a child witness is found to be repeating certain parts of what somebody asked her to say is no reason to discard her testimony as tutored, if it is found that what is in substance being deposed by the child witness is something that he or she had actually witnessed. A child witness who has withstood his or her cross-
examination at length and able to describe the scenario implicating the accused in detail as the author of crime, then minor discrepancies or parts of coached deposition that have crept in will not by itself affect the credibility of such child witness.
(XII) Part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, can be relied upon, if the tutored part can be separated from the untutored Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:44:50 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 51 of 75 part, in case such remaining untutored or untainted part inspires confidence. The untutored part of the evidence of the child witness can be believed and taken into consideration or the purpose of corroboration as in the case of a hostile witness."
45. To prove the fact of accident caused by offending vehicle, the prosecution has cited the witnesses mentioned in the table below and the witnesses have deposed as follows:
S. Name of Role of Testimony of witness Effect of No Witness witness testimony of . witness
1. PW1/Doli @ Victim/ The witness was not The witness was Kajal Injured able to depose asked certain regarding month of questions before accident and has not recording her mentioned the testimony and registration number of she was able to offending vehicle but understand the has deposed about the questions and fact of occurrence of an give their accident.2 rational answers. The testimony can be relied upon, but the witness has not been successful in deposing about the date of accident.
2. PW2/Shyam Victim/ The witness has The witness Dulari Injured deposed about has not proved happening of accident3, the occurrence 2 PW 1 deposed that on 15th day of year 2010 the accident of her father occurred.Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16
16:44:56 +0530
Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 52 of 75
but she has failed to tell of accident by the date of incident as the offending well as the number of vehicle.
offending vehicle.
3. PW3/Sujeet Victim/ The witness has The witness has Mitra Eye deposed the date of proved the fact Witness incident but was not of occurrence of able to disclose the accident by the number of offending offending vehicle, however, he vehicle.
has identified the
offending vehicle from
photographs Ex. P1.
The witness also
admitted the suggestion
regarding registration
number of offending
vehicle being HR 47 -
7996. PW 3 voluntarily
stated that he had seen
the offending truck at
the spot itself and,
therefore, he is aware of
its number.
4. PW4/Resham Victim/ The witness has The witness has
Devi Eye deposed on 15.07.2010 proved the fact
Witness at about 10:00 PM, she of occurrence of was present at her accident but has house and was taking failed to food and suddenly, a identify the truck struck against the offending 3 PW 2 deposed that on that day, she was going to purchase vegetables from rehriwala and when she reached near toilet, in the meantime one truck came at very high speed and hit against her as well as some other persons. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:45:04 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 53 of 75 wall of her house and vehicle.
damaged her house. PW
4 has identified the
offending truck in the
photographs Ex. P1
from judicial file. The
witness, during her
cross examination
stated that she cannot
identify the offending
vehicle from
photographs.
5. PW7/Chander Son of The witness has stated The witness was
Pal decease that he found the not able to tell
d Murti offending vehicle at the the date of
Devi spot and has correctly incident and has
identified the same not proved the
from photographs Ex. occurrence of
P1. accident by the
offending
vehicle.
6. PW8/Saroj Victim/ The witness has The victim has
Eye mentioned the date of deposed about
Witness incident as 16.07.2010 date of incident and has admitted the as 16.07.2010, suggestion that in place of registration number of 15.07.2010 as offending vehicle is well as about HR47-7996. However, the fact of the witness was found accident, being to have written the caused by the registration number of offending offending vehicle on vehicle. This is Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:45:09 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 54 of 75 her palm. a minor contradiction and can occur, as the witness was examined after 09 years of incident.
However, her
testimony is not
reliable as she
has written the
registration
number of
offending
vehicle on her
palm.
7. PW17/Neeraj Directo The witness has Witness was not
Jain r of deposed that he does able to tell date
compan not remember the year, of incident and y which but he received the call hence causing owned from Giriraj Dass of accident by offendi Baldua who told him offending ng that an accident had vehicle remains vehicle occurred with vehicle unproved.
No. HR47-7996
8. PW19/Praful Victim/ The witness has The witness has Kumar @ Injured deposed about date of proved the fact Kamal Kumar incident and further of occurrence of deposed about the accident by the accident but failed to offending disclose about vehicle.
registration number of
offending vehicle.
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16
16:45:15 +0530
Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 55 of 75
However, the witness
has correctly identified
the offending vehicle
from the photographs
Ex. P1.
9. PW20/G.D. G.M. The witness has Witness was not
Baldua Logisti deposed that on the day able to tell date
cs of of incident, in the year of incident and
the 2010, he received a call hence causing
compan from the owner of accident by
y which regarding the fact that offending owned an accident took place vehicle remains offendi of vehicle bearing No. unproved.
ng HR47 - 7996
vehicle
10. PW11/ Mechan The witness deposed The fact of
Retd.ASI/ ical that on 19.07.2010, he accident is
Tech. Inspect had mechanically corroborated
Devender or inspected two vehicles from testimony
Kumar i.e., Truck bearing of the witness.
registration No. HR47-
7996 and Motorcycle
make Hunk bearing No.
DL6SAA-5398 at the
request of ASI
Ramphool from PS
Anand Parbat at the
premises of PS Anand
Parbat. PW 11 further
deposed that both the
vehicles were not fit for
road test.
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL 16:45:21
Date: 2026.03.16
+0530
Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 56 of 75
46. Thus, from the discussion made above and after evaluating the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the documents cited above, the prosecution has been able to prove that the accident took place by the offending vehicle on the date and place of incident.
47. Death/ Grievous Hurt/ Hurt/ Mischief: - The prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the death of deceased persons namely Murti Devi and Subhash Chandra Gupta as the same stands proved from their MLCs and PM Reports Ex. AD1, Ex. AD2, Ex. AD3 and Ex. AD4, whose genuineness has been admitted by the accused U/s 294 CrPC. Furthermore, PW7 is the son of deceased Murti Devi and he has identified the dead body of deceased Murti Devi vide identification memo Ex. PW7/B. PW10 is the son of deceased Subhash Chandra and he has identified his dead body vide his statement Ex. PW10/A. 47.1. With regard to grievous injuries received by the victims namely Ramphool Singh and Doli @ Kajal, the prosecution has examined the injured Doli @ Kajal and she has deposed about sustaining injuries, which is also corroborated by her MLC Ex. AD5, whose genuineness has been admitted by the accused U/s 294 CrPC. Furthermore, during the trial the injured Ramphool Singh has expired and he was not examined as witness. However, injuries caused to the victim Ramphool Singh stands proved from his MLC Ex. AD4, whose genuineness has been admitted by the accused U/s 294 CrPC.
47.2. With regard to causing hurt to the victims namely PW2/Shyamo Devi, Panna Devi and PW19/Praful Kumar Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL 16:45:27 Date: 2026.03.16 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 57 of 75 @ Kamal Kumar, it is evident that PW2 and PW19 have deposed about sustaining injuries and the same is corroborated from their MLCs Ex. AD1, Ex. AD4, Ex. AD6 and Ex. AD7, whose genuineness has been admitted by the accused U/s 294 CrPC. Furthermore, injured Panna Devi was not examined as a witness because was not served, even after issuing summons through DCP concerned and injuries caused to the victim Panna Devi stands proved from her MLC Ex. AD1 and Ex. AD6, whose genuineness has been admitted by the accused U/s 294 CrPC.
47.3. With regard to mischief, the prosecution has examined three witnesses namely PW4/Resham Devi, PW8/Saroj and PW3/Sujeet Mitra. PW3 has deposed that the offending vehicle has crushed his motorcycle bearing registration number DL 6SAA 5398, which he had parked near vegetable market, Nehru Nagar. PW4/Resham Devi and PW8/Saroj have deposed that the offending vehicle struck against the house and shop of witnesses respectively. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove the damages caused to properties of all three witnesses, however the amount of damage caused was not deposed by any of the said witness.
48. Driving of offending vehicle by the accused: - One of the primary ingredients that has to be proved by the prosecution is that offending vehicle was driven or ridden by the accused at the time of accident. To discharge the burden of proving, the said ingredient, the prosecution has examined witnesses mentioned below, who have deposed as follows: -
Digitally signed by ANKURANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.03.16 16:45:33 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 58 of 75 S. Name of Role of Testimony of witness Effect of No Witness witness testimony of . witness
1. PW1/Doli @ Victim/ The witness has not The witness has Kajal Injured identified the accused not proved that and has also deposed the offending that she had seen the vehicle was truck when it was near being driven by the park situated near the accused.
the shop of her father
2. PW2/Shyam Victim/ The witness has The witness has Dulari Injured deposed she could not not proved that identify the accused as the offending she had not seen driving vehicle was him. being driven by the accused.
3. PW3/Sujeet Victim/ The witness has The witness has Mitra Eye correctly identified the not proved that Witness accused in the court. the offending However, there are vehicle was several contradictions being driven by in the testimony of the accused, as PW3. He has deposed there are many that he could not see the contradictions person who was driving in his testimony the trailer at that time. and he has also PW 3 further deposed stated that he that after about 3-4 could not see months of the accident the person, who in question, he had was driving the come to court for trailer.
getting his motorcycle released on superdari Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:45:39 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 59 of 75 and in the court, he came to know that the accused had caused the accident. PW 3 deposed that he had seen the accused for the first time in the police station after 2-3 days of the incident. PW 3 denied the suggestion that he had seen the driver of the trailer in question at the time of accident. PW 3 further deposed that he had not seen the accident occurring. PW 3 deposed that he could identify the driver of the vehicle on asking by some persons at P.S. PW 3 further deposed that he could not tell the name of those persons.
PW 3 further deposed
that he identified the
driver at P.S on
19.07.2010 in the
evening hours.
4. PW8/Saroj Victim/ The witness has The witness has
Eye deposed that she did not not proved that
Witness see the driver who was the offending
driving the offending vehicle was
vehicle. being driven by
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:45:45
+0530
Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 60 of 75
the accused.
5. PW17/Neeraj Directo The witness has The witness was
Jain r of deposed that offending not an eye
compan vehicle was registered witness and he y which in name of his company has stated owned and accused was a himself to be offendi regular driver of his employer of ng company. The witness accused as well vehicle has further deposed that as owner of all affairs of his offending company, regarding vehicle. The vehicles, were handled witness has not by PW20/G.D. Baldua. placed on The witness further record any deposed that he was documentary informed on call, by evidence, to PW20/G.D. Baldua, prove that that offending vehicle, accused was at time of accident, was driving the driven by the accused.4 offending In his cross- vehicle, on the examination, the date of incident witness failed to give and has stated any documentary proof, that he was told showing the by PW20 that employment of accused accused was in his company, such as driving the appointment letter, offending 4 PW 17 has deposed that the vehicle No. HR47-7996 is registered in the name of his company and all the affairs of his company regarding the vehicles were being managed by Giriraj Dass Baldua. PW 17 further deposed that he was General Manager in the company. PW 17 further deposed that accused was a regular driver of their company and he was hired on 01.05.2010. PW 17 further deposed that he does not remember the year, but he received the call from Giriraj Dass Baldua who told him that an accident had occurred with vehicle No. HR47-7996 and the same was being driven by accused Chandri Prasad at the time of accident. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:45:51 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 61 of 75 salary slip or I.D. Card.5 vehicle.
Furthermore, no However, as
documentary proof was discussed
given by the witness to below, PW20
show that the offending has deposed that vehicle was given to the he was accused, on the date of informed by incident.6 PW17, that accused was driving the offending vehicle, on date of incident.
Thus, the
witness has not
proved that the
offending
vehicle was
being driven by
the accused, as
there are
material
contradictions
between his
testimony and
testimony of
PW20.
6. PW20/G.D. G.M. The witness has The witness has
Baldua Logisti deposed that allocation stated that he
5
In his cross-examination PW17 has deposed that he had not issued any appointment letter to accused Chandri Prasad when he was appointed as a driver in the company. PW 17 further deposed that they usually give salary to drivers in cash. PW 17 further deposed that no I.D. proof was issued to the driver i.e., accused.
6PW 17 has deposed that they maintained a register with regard to which vehicle was given to which driver. PW 17 further deposed that police officials did not ask him about that register, therefore, he had not handed over the same to police officials. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:45:57 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 62 of 75 cs of of work regarding was told by the the vehicles was done by owner/PW17 compan the owner and he was that accused y which informed by the owner was driving the owned that accused was offending offendi driving the offending vehicle on date ng vehicle. The witness of incident and vehicle has given reply Ex. PW17 has PW18/B to the notice deposed that he U/s 133 MV Act that was told about accused was driving the the same by offending vehicle on PW20. Thus, day of incident, but has there are also deposed that he has material no personal knowledge contradictions regarding which driver between the was driving which testimonies of vehicle under the PW17 and Sriniwasa Roadways PW20 and they Private Limited. PW 20 have failed to further deposed that he prove that had mentioned on the accused was reply of notice under driving the Section 133 MV Act offending that Chandari Prasad vehicle, on date was driving the vehicle, of incident.
at the instance of owner of the company. PW 20 further deposed that he does not know whether accused was driving the offending vehicle on the date of incident.
The witness has Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:46:03 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 63 of 75 correctly identified the accused in court.
48.1. From the discussion made above, it can be concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the date of incident. There are many missing links in the case of prosecution regarding the said ingredient. Furthermore, perusal of record reveals that TIP proceedings of accused is also on record, in which the accused has refused to participate in the same. However, the prosecution has failed to examine the witness, who has conducted TIP proceedings and the same was never exhibited/tendered during prosecution evidence. It is also not the case, that the same was missed inadvertently, rather the fact that TIP proceedings were conducted, was within the knowledge of Ld. APP for State but the Ld. APP for the State submitted on 14.08.2024, during final arguments, that he does not want to file any application regarding the same. Thus, the most essential ingredient that the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused, on date of incident, remains unproved.
49. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove the most essential ingredient that the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused, on date of incident, hence remaining ingredients, required to prove the points for determination I - V and VIII are not discussed here, as even if the said remaining ingredients are proved, the same will not establish guilt of accused.
Digitally signedby ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:46:09 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 64 of 75
50. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients required for points for determination I - V and VIII, therefore, all the said points are answered in negative and accused deserved to be acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 279/337/338/304A/427 IPC & 187 r/w 134(a) MV Act.
Points for Determination No. VI and VII
51. Since the essential ingredients as well as evidence of points for determination are common, hence the points no. VI and VII shall be dealt together.
52. Forgery: - It is the case of prosecution that the DL No. 8771/MTR/06 seized vide seizure memo. Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E is forged. To prove the same the prosecution has examined PW9/Dharmender Sharma, Senior Assistant, Regional Transport Office, Mathura, U.P. who has deposed that as per their record driving license No. 8771/MTR/06 was issued in the name of Sh. Sanjay S/o Sh. Mohan, R/o Eanch, Chhata, Mathura, U.P and copy of driving license is Ex.PW9/A, copy of record register with regard to abovesaid driving license is Ex.PW9/B. PW 9 further deposed that he is authorized to depose by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Mathura, U.P. and the letter of authorization is Ex.PW9/C bearing signature of Mr. Babita Verma (ARTO) at point A. Furthermore, the prosecution has also examined PW16/Retd. SI Indraj Singh who is one of IO and he has deposed regarding collecting the report from the Transport Authority Mathura, where the license of the accused was sent for verification. PW 16 further deposed that as per the report, the license was found fake and thereafter, he added Section 468 and 471 IPC. Thus, the prosecution has proved Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:46:14 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 65 of 75 beyond all reasonable doubts that the DL No. 8771/MTR/06 seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E is forged.
53. The primary contention of accused is that the seizure memo Ex. PW9/E does not bear signature of accused, rather it bears signatures of G.D. Baldua. It is further argued by the accused that the DL which was seized vide seizure memo. Ex. PW9/E was not given by the accused, rather it was given by G.D. Baldua. Perusal of file reveals that there are two DLs of accused on record seized vide seizure memos Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E and Ex. PW16/DA respectively. The DL seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/DA was found valid, however the DL seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E has been proved to be forged.
54. Perusal of file reveals that the date of incident is 15.07.2010 and FIR was registered on 16.07.2010. Thereafter, accused was arrested on 17.07.2010 vide arrest memo Ex. PW12/B and the seizure memo Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E was also prepared on 17.07.2010 vide which DL No. 8771/MTR/06 was seized. From the perusal of seizure memo Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E it is revealed that the said DL was produced by the accused. It is the argument of accused that the said DL was given to police by PW20/G.D. Baldua and the said seizure memo bears signatures of PW20/G.D. Baldua. However, perusal of said seizure memo reveals that there is signature of PW18/Retd. SI Ramphool Singh, as maker of document and PW12/HC Rohtash Singh, as a witness to document. Furthermore, PW20/G.D. Baldua has nowhere stated in his statement recorded U/s 161 CrPC by the police officials, Mark X, or in his testimony before Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.03.16 16:46:21 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 66 of 75 the court that he has handed over the DL of accused, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E. It is also argued by the accused that seizure memo Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E does not bear his signatures and thus its credibility is doubtful. The signature of the accused is not strictly mandatory on a seizure memo or recovery, and its absence does not automatically invalidate the evidence. There is no explicit statutory requirement under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Evidence Act that forces an accused to sign a seizure memo. Also, it has not been argued by the accused that at the time of seizure of DL No. 8771/MTR/06, there was any independent witness available. Even though, arrest memo Ex.
PW12/B bears signatures of PW20/G.D. Baldua, the same does not substantiate that the seizure memo Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E is not credible, as the same does not bear signatures of accused or PW20/G.D. Baldua or any other independent witness. PW20/G.D. Baldua has not mentioned anywhere in his statement U/s 161 CrPC or his testimony that when the said seizure memo was prepared, he was present. Furthermore, the witness to seizure memo Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E is PW12/HC Rohtas and the executant of the same is PW18/Retd. SI Ramphool Singh and they both have deposed regarding preparation of the said seizure memo and production of the said DL by the accused. Thus, the absence of the accused's signature on a seizure memo Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E does not fatally wound the prosecution and the seizure. Hence, the same is credible piece of evidence.
55. Forgery for the purpose of Cheating: - The accused has been charged for the offence punishable U/s 468/34 IPC and S. 471 IPC. For section 468 IPC it has to be proved that the Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:46:26 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 67 of 75 accused committed forgery for the purpose of cheating. Thus, it becomes important to discuss the offence of cheating defined under IPC. The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating, as punishable under Section 420 IPC were culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof. R.K Vijayasarathy Vs. Sudha Seetharam (2019) 16 SCC 739, in the following terms-:
"16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him:
16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or 16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and 16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.
18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus: "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
19.1. A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and 19.2. The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:46:33 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 68 of 75
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.
20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420."
56. The words "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" have been defined U/s 24 & 25 IPC respectively and the accused can be said to have acted dishonestly if he had the mens rea of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. In the present matter, it has been proved that the accused has committed forgery, as the DL No. 8771/MTR/06 has been proved to be forged. Thus, the actus reus required for the offence punishable under section 468 has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. The mens rea that needs to be proved is that the accused has intention that the said DL shall be used for the cheating and the same stands proved as the accused has given the said DL to the IO of present case, with intention to cause wrongful gain to himself and to deceive the IO by inducing him to seize the same, believing that the said DL is genuine. Thus, the ingredients of the offence punishable U/s 468 IPC have been established and proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.
57. Regarding Section 34 IPC, it is observed that the provision makes a person jointly acting in concert with others, and in furtherance of their common intent, liable for any act done by any person involved in the offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Abdul Sayeed vs. State of MP (2010) 10 SCC 259 has highlighted the ingredients of the provision, inter alia, as under -
"49. Section 34 IPC carves out an exception from general law that a person is responsible for his own act, as it provides that a Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:46:40 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 69 of 75 person can also be held vicariously responsible for the act of others if he has the "common intention" to commit the offence. The phrase "common intention" implies a prearranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. Thus, the common intention must be there prior to the commission of the offence in point of time. The common intention to bring about a particular result may also well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances existing thereto. The common intention under Section 34 IPC is to be understood in a different sense from the "same intention" or "similar intention" or "common object".
The persons having similar intention which is not the result of the prearranged plan cannot be held guilty of the criminal act with the aid of Section 34 IPC. (See Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 174: (1963) 1 Cri LJ 100]) ..
52. In Gopi Nath v. State of U.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 620] this Court observed as under: (SCC p. 625, para 8) "8. ... Even the doing of separate, similar or diverse acts by several persons, so long as they are done in furtherance of a common intention, render each of such persons liable for the result of them all, as if he had done them himself, for the whole of the criminal action--be it that it was not overt or was only a covert act or merely an omission constituting an illegal omission. The section, therefore, has been held to be attracted even where the acts committed by the different confederates are different when it is established in one way or the other that all of them participated and engaged themselves in furtherance of the common intention which might be of a preconcerted or prearranged plan or one manifested or developed on the spur of the moment in the course of the commission of the offence. The common intention or the intention of the individual concerned in furtherance of the common intention could be proved either from direct evidence or by inference from the acts or attending circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties. The ultimate decision, at any rate, would invariably depend upon the inferences deducible from the circumstances of each case." (emphasis supplied)
58. In view of the above observations, the evidence on record is to be evaluated. As observed, the material on record is not sufficient to conclude that the accused person has acted in concert with co-accused Gaurav, as not even a single witness has deposed anything regarding the same. On the basis of the above, Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:46:45 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 70 of 75 it can be held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt the accused acted in concert with co-accused Gaurav, in commission of present offence punishable U/s 468 IPC.
59. Using as genuine a forged document: - As discussed above the basic conditions required for commission of offence under the provision are as follows-:
i. The document or electronic record must be forged : - As discussed already, the DL No. 8771/MTR/06, produced by accused and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E, has been proved to be forged, beyond all reasonable doubts.
ii. The accused should have used the said document/record as genuine, having knowledge or reason to believe that such document/record is forged: - This ingredient also stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts as PW16/Retd. SI Indraj Singh, who was recalled by accused for his cross- examination has deposed, in his cross examination only, that the accused had produced another DL seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 16/DA, at the time of anticipatory bail and the same was verified by the witness. Perusal of Ex. PW 16/DA reveals that the same made on 07.01.2011 and the date of incident is 15.07.2010, which means that the accused has handed over his genuine DL, after six months of the incident and the accused has not furnished any explanation regarding the fact as to why he has produced the DL seized vide seizure memo. Ex. PW 16/DA, after delay of six months. The accused has admitted the fact that he had given the DL seized vide Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:46:51 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 71 of 75 seizure memo. Ex. PW 16/DA to the IO. Thus, this conduct of accused i.e., producing a forged DL to the IO, immediately after two days of incident, seized vide seizure memo Ex. Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E, instead of producing the DL seized vide seizure memo. Ex. PW 16/DA, clearly proves the mens rea on part of accused to use the said forged DL as genuine, having knowledge or reason to believe that it was forged.
iii. The said use of the document/record must be dishonestly or fraudulently: - As already discussed that the accused has intention that the said forged DL shall be used for the purpose of investigation and the accused had his genuine DL with him. Despite the same, the accused has given the DL seized vide seizure memo Ex. Ex. PW9/E/Ex. PW12/E to the IO of present case, with intention to cause wrongful gain to himself and to deceive the IO by inducing him to seize the same, believing that the said DL is genuine.
Thus, the basic conditions required for the offence punishable U/s 471 IPC have been proved by the proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.
60. Defence of accused: - The accused person in his statements recorded U/s 313 CrPC has stated that he has given the DL on 07.01.2011, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/DA and he has not given any other DL. The accused has also stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by the owner of the vehicle. However, the accused has not produced any witness or evidence to support his averments made in the statements recorded U/s 313 CrPC. The accused has not tendered any evidence to prove the fact the he has not given the Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:46:57 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 72 of 75 DL No. 8771/MTR/06 seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/E & Ex. PW12/E to the police or to prove that PW/20 G.D. Baldua has given the said DL to the police. The accused has not produced any witness to prove the motive, on part of owner of vehicle, to falsely implicate him in the present matter. Therefore, the defence of the accused persons does not appear to be plausible, so as to punch holes in the case of the prosecution with respect to the offences punishable U/s 468/471 IPC. CONCLUSION
61. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution was required to prove the offence charged against the accused person, beyond reasonable doubt. The eye witnesses/victims have not deposed anything to prove that they have seen the accused driving the offending vehicle. Most of the eye witnesses have failed to identify the accused and those who have identified the accused, have given contradictory testimonies, so as to make their testimony unreliable. Some of the surrounding circumstances have been proved with respect to the offences punishable U/s 279/337/338/304A/427 IPC & 187 r/w 134(a) MV Act, however, in view of the settled legal principles, they cannot be used to convict the accused person, in absence of all the ingredients being proved beyond all reasonable doubts by the prosecution. Even though lives of two persons were extinguished, several persons were injured, including a child, damage to properties of victims have been caused, under extremely unfortunate circumstances, the requisite criteria have not been met by the prosecution in the present matter with respect to the offences Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.03.16 16:47:02 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 73 of 75 punishable U/s 279/337/338/304A/427 IPC & 187 r/w 134(a) MV Act.
62. However, with respect to the offences punishable U/s 468/471 IPC, in view of the above discussion, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences beyond any iota of doubt. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the required threshold has been met by the prosecution and it has been able to successfully prove that the accused person has committed the offences under Section 468/471 IPC. The accused person has failed to punch any holes on material aspects in the case set up by the prosecution, despite detailed cross examination of the witnesses for the offences punishable U/s 468/471 IPC. The inconsistencies brought out by the accused person in the case of the prosecution are minor and do not go to the root of the matter. The defence of the accused persons of false implication as well as not giving the DL No. 8771/MTR/06 seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/E & Ex. PW12/E to the police or that PW/20 G.D. Baldua has given the said DL to the police, remains unproved.
63. Resultantly, the accused person namely CHANDARI PRASAD S/o Sh. Mollan Prasad is hereby held not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 279/337/338/304A/427 IPC & 187 r/w 134(a) MV Act. He is hereby ACQUITTED of the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304A/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 & 187 r/w 134(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, the accused is hereby found guilty for the offences punishable U/s 468/471 IPC and is hereby Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL ANKUR PANGHAL Date:
2026.03.16 16:47:17 +0530 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 74 of 75 CONVICTED of the offences punishable under sections 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
64. The convict be heard separately on the point of sentence.
65. Copy of the judgment be provided free of cost to the convict, forthwith.
Announced in open court on 16.03.2026 in the presence of the convict. The judgment contains 75 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed byANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.03.16 16:47:23 +0530 (ANKUR PANGHAL) JMFC-05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 16/03/2026 Cr. Case No. 65808/2016 State vs. Chandri Parshad Page 75 of 75