Delhi District Court
State vs . : Kamal Kumar Datta on 9 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS ANU AGGARWAL,
MM04, SE, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. : Kamal Kumar Datta
FIR No. : 15/09
U/s : 279/304A IPC
PS : C. R. Park.
J U D G M E N T
A. Sl. No. of the case: 318/2
B. Offence complained of
or proved: U/s 279/304A IPC
C. Date of Offence: 18.01.2009
D. Name of the complainant: HC Nahar Singh, No.
28821369, PS C R Park
E. Name of the accused: Kamal Kumar Datta S/o Late
Shri S P Datta R/o 40/83, C R
Park, New Delhi.
F. Plea of the accused: Pleaded Not guilty.
G. Final order: Acquitted
H. Date of Order: 09.04.2015
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. It is the case of the Prosecution that on 18.01.2009 at about 09.25 PM at Deshbandhu Gupta College, C R Park, New Delhi, accused Kamal Kumar Datta was driving Esteem car bearing registration No. DL3CM9449 in FIR No. 15/09, PS C R Park page 1 of 7 a rash and negligent manner and while driving abovesaid car in aforesaid manner hit against one scooter bearing registration No. DL3SZ0750 and caused death of Manmohan Dhingra. On the said background, present FIR No. 15/09 got registered at PS C R Park.
2. Accused was arrested being driver of the offending vehicle and investigation was carried out. After, completion of investigation charge sheet was put to the court. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused and notice under Section 279/304A IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The Prosecution in order to prove the case has examined following witnesses:
PW1 T U Siddiqui: He is the Mechanical Inspector who had conducted the Mechanical Inspection of scooter bearing registration No. DL3SZ0750 as well as Esteem car bearing registration No. DL3CM9449 and has proved his reports as Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. PW2 Ankur Dhingra: He is the son of deceased Manmohan Dhingra who had received his dead body.
PW3 Rajat Chauhan: He is the eye witness to the incident. He has given detailed version of incident.
PW4 Satish: He is the eye witness to the incident. He has given detailed version of incident.
PW5 Umang Dhingra: He is the son of deceased Manmohan Dhingra who had received his dead body.
PW6 Ct. Suresh Kumar: He is part of investigating team and had FIR No. 15/09, PS C R Park page 2 of 7 reached at the spot alongwith IO.
PW7 Ct. Pushpender: He is part of investigating team. PW8 ASI Nahar Singh: He is the Investigating Officer in the present case and has deposed regarding investigation done in the present case.
PW9 Inspector Raj Kumar: He is the Investigating Officer who had filed charge sheet before court.
PW10 Dr. T Millo: Who has deposed on behalf of Dr. Bharat Verma and has proved the postmortem report of deceased as Ex. PW10/A. After examining Prosecution witnesses, PE was closed.
4. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has admitted that he was driving offending car bearing registration No. DL3CM9449 on the date of incident. However, he has taken a defence that he has not caused any accident and he saw deceased in injured condition on road and he took him to hospital. Accused has examined DW1 Smt Nandini Sarkar in his defence.
5. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and learned defence counsel. Ld. APP for State has submitted that witnesses have deposed against the accused and have clearly deposed that accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, they have fully supported the case of Prosecution and accused deserves conviction in the present case. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel has argued that accused has not caused any accident and there are material contradictions in the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses and accused should be acquitted.
6. In order to establish the charges under section 279/304A IPC, the FIR No. 15/09, PS C R Park page 3 of 7 record is to be appreciated to see whether the answer to the following questions comes in affirmative: (a) whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle? (b) Whether the accused has caused an accident while driving the offending vehicle? (c) Whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner? (d) Whether his said driving resulted in an accident wherein deceased died? (e) Whether there is a close proximity between the alleged rash and negligent driving and the resultant death of deceased ?
7. Let's examine the testimony of two eye witnesses i.e. PW3 Rajat Chauhan and PW4 Satish. PW3 Rajat Chauhan has deposed that on 19.01.2009, he alongwith his friend Satish was coming from Nexus shop and was going towards their house on a motorcycle. One Esteem car (golden silver colour) was also moving besides them which was on their right side. The said car hit the scooter from the back side. The scooter lost balance and fell on the road. The rider of the scooter also fell down and became unconscious. The Esteem car which caused the accident also stopped at the spot. He alongwith the help of 03/04 other persons lifted the rider of the scooter and put him on the back seat of the esteem car. The driver of the esteem car took injured to the hospital and they noted down the registration number of esteem car. He has also identified the accused as driver of esteem car. He has also identified scooter and offending car. PW4 Satish has deposed that on 18.01.2009, he alongwith his friend Rajat Chauhan was coming on a motorcycle from Nexus Shop. At about 8.00 PM, when they had reached on the road near MTNL Office at the backside of Deshbandhu College, he saw that one Esteem car hit a scooter from its backside. The rider of the scooter fell down on the road. They lifted the injured and put him into the backseat of offending vehicle. He has also identified FIR No. 15/09, PS C R Park page 4 of 7 accused as the person who was driving offending vehicle. He has also identified photographs of offending vehicle and scooter from court record. Therefore, PW3 Rajat Chauhan and PW4 Satish have given detailed version of accident. They both have also identified accused as well as vehicle involved in accident.
8. Accused in his defence has stated that he had not caused any accident. He has stated that he was passing by from the spot when he saw injured on the road. He took injured to the hospital. In his defence, he has examined DW1 Nandini Sarkar. DW1 Nandini Sarkar has stated that on 18.01.2009, she was sitting on the back side of car of Kamal Kumar Dutta. Wife of accused was also present in car. She noticed a man lying on the right hand side of scooter, which had fallen. She saw that person lying on the main road near Desh Bandhu College in the evening. Accused stopped his car and some passerby requested them to take the injured to the hospital. She got down from the car as that man had to be put on the back side of the car. Thereafter, accused took the injured to the hospital. In her crossexamination, DW1 Nandini Sarkar has stated that she cannot tell register number of the scooter. She has further stated that she had never visited police station to tell the truth to the police that accused has been falsely implicated. She has further stated that she had not called police to inform that man was lying on road. She has further stated that she does not remember the car of accused and that she had not visited the hospital. She has further stated that she cannot tell the nature of the injuries suffered by injured. She has admitted that she is having good family relationship with accused for the last 46 years. Learned defence counsel has stated that PW3 Rajat Chauhan, in his examinationinchief, has stated that one lady was also in the offending car alongwith driver and that lady is DW1 FIR No. 15/09, PS C R Park page 5 of 7 Nandini Sarkar. However, I am failed to appreciate the testimony of DW1 Nandini Sarkar. She has herself stated that she is having good family relationship with the accused and she knows accused for the last 46 years. She has stated that she knew about the pendency of present case. If she knew that accused has been falsely implicated then why she did not informed said fact to police or to any other authority. She has herself admitted that she had not called the police at the spot. PW3 Rajat Chauhan and PW4 Satish are the eye witnesses of the incident and they have identified accused being driver of esteem car. Testimony of PW3 Rajat Chauhan and PW4 Satish is corroborating each other and there is no reason to doubt their testimony. They both have been examined separately and both have given detailed version of the accident. In view of the same, testimony of DW1 Nandini Sarkar cannot be relied upon. Therefore, Prosecution has proved that the accident was caused by the accused. The other essential ingredient which is required to be proved is that offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner. PW3 Rajat Chauhan and PW4 Satish have not stated as to how accused was driving the offending vehicle. Though, PW3 Rajat Chauhan has stated that accused had caused the accident as he was talking to other lady present in car but same cannot be considered to be rash and negligent driving. Though, both eye witnesses have given detailed version of incident but none of them have deposed regarding rash and negligent driving of accused.
9. It is well settled proposition of law that in criminal case Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Record must demonstrate that in all probabilities the accused is the culprit. However, Prosecution has not been able to prove that accident was caused due to fault of accused as he was driving FIR No. 15/09, PS C R Park page 6 of 7 offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Accordingly, accused namely Kamal Kumar Datta stands acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 279/304A IPC.
Announced in open Court (Anu Aggarwal)
On this day of 09.04.2015 Metropolitan Magistrate04
South East,Saket Courts, New Delhi
FIR No. 15/09, PS C R Park page 7 of 7