Delhi District Court
State vs Abhimanu on 1 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-02, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT,
NEW DELHI
STATE VS. ABHIMANYU KUMAR
FIR NO: 86/2011
P. S Vasant Kunj North
U/s 279, 304-A & 471 IPC
Crc No./45257/16
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 25.07.2011
Name of the complainant : ASI Suresh Kumar
Date of Commission of offence : 20.03.2011
Name of the accused : Abhimanyu, S/o Late Sh. Ram Vilas
Shah.
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 08.05.2025
Final Order : Convicted for the offence u/s 471
IPC and acquitted for the offence
punishable u/s 279 & 304-A IPC.
Date of orders : 01.07.2025
Name of Ld. APP : Sh. Raghav Khurana
Digitally
signed by
ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01
16:23:56
+0530
0
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1.Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused Abhimanyu S/o Late Sh. Ram Vilas Shah for having committed the offence punishable u/s 279, 304-A and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 (hereinafter referred as "IPC").
2.Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the basis of the tehrir prepared by ASI Suresh Kumar. As per the case of the prosecution, on 20.03.2011 at about 2:30 PM at B-5 and B-6, JJ Bandhu Camp, New Delhi, the accused Abhimanyu was driving the offending vehicle i.e. tanker bearing registration no. HR 38J 0199 at a high speed i.e. in a rash and negligent manner. While driving the offending vehicle in such a manner, the accused hit one one scooter rider namely Sumit Kumar. Due to the accident, the said scooter rider sustained injuries and eventually succumbed to the same. It was also found out during the course of the investigation that the driving license of the accused was forged / fake.
3.After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out by PS Vasant Kunj North and a charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, cognisance was taken and notice was served upon the accused Abhimanyu vide order dated 15.07.2015 for the offence punishable u/s 279, 304-A and 471 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR 1 KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 16:24:07 +0530
4.In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined the following nine witnesses:
• SI Suresh Kumar, deposed as PW-1;
• Sh. Sushil Kumar, deposed as PW-2;
• Sh. Pawan Kumar, deposed as PW-3;
• Ct. Rinku, deposed as PW-4;
• Sh. Satpal, the eye witness, deposed as PW-5;
• HC Kamlesh Kumar, deposed as PW-6;
• Sh. Santosh Kumar Chaudhary, deposed as PW-7;
• ASI Anil Kumar, deposed as PW-8; and • Retd. ASI Rajesh Malik, deposed as PW-9.
5.PW-1 SI Suresh Kumar deposed that on 20.03.2011, he was posted as ASI at PS Vasant Kunj North. At about 3:07 PM, he had received DD No. 34A dated 20.03.2011 Ex. A-2 regarding an accident in front of B-5/6, JJ Camp, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Rinku went to the spot where public persons informed that the injured was shifted to the hospital. At the spot, he had found one tanker bearing no. HR 38J 0199 stationed on the road and one scooter bearing no. DL 5SN 7275 was lying in the road behind the tanker. He further deposed that he went to the Digitally 2 signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 16:24:17 +0530 AIIMS Trauma Centre and collected the MLC Ex. A-4 of the injured.
Thereafter, he came back at the spot, prepared tehrir Ex. PW-1/A and got the present FIR Ex. A-1 registered. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW-1/B. He also seized the tanker bearing no. HR 38J 0199 and the scooter bearing no. DL 5SN 7275 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C and Ex.
PW-1/D respectively. Both the vehicles were deposited in the malkhana.
6.PW-1 further deposed that on 21.03.20211, he also gave notice u/s 133 Motor Vehicle Act Ex. PW-1/E to the owner of the said tanker. Thereafter, the owner came to the police station on 22.03.2011 and gave his written reply on the notice that it was the accused who was driving the said tanker at the time of the accident. Thereafter, the owner produced the accused in the police station on 24.03.2011. At that time, one eye-witness of the incident namely Satpal came to the police station at whose instance, the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/F. PW-1 also prepared the personal search memo of the accused Ex. PW-1/G. He also seized the RC of the offending vehicle, the driving license of the accused, photocopy of the insurance and photocopy of the permit of offending vehicle vide seizure memos Ex. PW-1/H to Ex. PW-1/K respectively. He also got conducted the mechanical inspection of the both the vehicles involved in the accident. The reports are Ex. PW-1/L and Ex. PW-1/M. He further Digitally 3 signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 16:24:24 +0530 deposed that on 03.03.2011, he had received information that the injured had passed away. Thereafter, he got the post mortem of the injured conducted. The dead body was identified by Sunil Kumar and Pawan Kumar vide identification memo Ex. PW-1/N and Ex. PW-1/O. He handed over the dead body to the father of the deceased vide handing over memo Ex. PW-1/P. The vehicles were released on superdari.
7.During the examination in chief, PW-1 further deposed that he also got verified the driving license of the accused from MLO, Bhagalpur, Bihar. Vide letter no. 29 dated 01.04.2011 of MLO, Bhagalpur, the driving license of the accused was found to be forged.
8.PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. During the cross-examination, he stated that he did not know the name of the persons who called at 100 number regarding the accident. He further stated that he reached at the spot at around 3:30 PM and at that time, the tanker was stationed on the left side of the road. He also stated that the accident took place by the offending vehicle from the back side. He further stated that the public person informed that when the accident took place, the tanker was running on the road. He admitted that when he reached at the spot, no eye witness met him there. He also stated that the public person to whom he met at the spot did not introduce themselves as eye Digitally 4 signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 16:24:36 +0530 witnesses. He also stated that at that time, he did not meet any person as as witness of the accident. He denied all the adverse suggestions given by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
9.PW-2 Sunil Kumar had identified the dead body of his son i.e. deceased Sumit on 31.03.2011 at AIIMS Trauma Centre mortuary vide identification memo Ex. PW-1/N. After postmortem, the body was handed over to him vide memo Ex. PW-1/P. PW-3 Pawan Kumar had also identified the dead body of the deceased vide memo Ex. PW-1/O and received his dead body vide memo Ex. PW-1/ P. Both these witnesses were not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite the fact that opportunity was provided to him.
10.PW-4 Ct. Rinku deposed that on 20.03.2011, he was on emergency duty from 8 AM to 8 PM. On that day, at about 3:15 PM, DD No. 34A was assigned to PW-1 ASI Suresh. He had accompanied the IO and went to the spot i.e. near B-5 & 6, JJ Bandhu Camp. They found tanker no. HR 38J 0199 and one scooter bearing no. DL 5SN 7275 in accidental condition. The injured was taken to the hospital. He had also taken the tehrir given by the IO to the police station for the registration of FIR. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 5 16:24:44 +0530
11.PW-5 was the only eye witness examined by the prosecution. In his testimony, he turned completely hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He stated that he did not know anything regarding the present case. He also stated that in the year 2016, he got injuries in a road accident due to which his memory power was affected a lot. He was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State with the permission of the Court wherein he denied all the suggestions given by the Ld. APP and also denied his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He also failed to identify the accused in the Court even when the accused was shown to him.
12.PW-6 was the police official who joined the investigation along with the IO on 31.03.2011 when the post mortem of the deceased was conducted. He stated that after getting the post mortem done, the dead body of the injured Sumit Kumar was handed over to his relatives. The dead body handing over memo is Ex. PW-1/P. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite the fact that opportunity was granted to him.
13.PW-7 Santosh Kumar Chaudhary had also brought the original record of driving license no. 432/01/F(BGP) as per which the said driving license was issued in the name of Vikas Kumar Jha S/o Late SH. Mahender Jha R/o Jamsi, Agarpur, Bhagalpur. He also stated that as per the record, the Digitally signed by 6 ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 16:24:51 +0530 said driving license was issued at Dhanbad after which it was transferred to the state of Bihar on 09.09.2001. He also brought the report furnished by the District Transport Authority Ex. PW-7/A along with entry in the original register Ex. PW-7/B (OSR).
14.PW-7 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the entry Ex. PW-7/B was not made in his presence. He also stated that he was under training in the said office as he had recently joined. He also stated that the report Ex. PW-7/A was prepared in his presence. He further stated that he did not see the documents furnished with the application for the issuance of the driving license. He also stated that he did not bring the documents attached with the application for the issuance of the driving license. He also stated that he did not see any other document except the said register. He denied the suggestion that he did not bring the original record and he was hiding the original document.
15.PW-8 was another police official who was involved in the investigation. He witnessed the arrest of the accused, preparation of the arrest memo Ex. PW-8/A, personals search memo and recording of disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW-8/B. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
7
2025.07.01 16:24:56 +0530
16.PW-9 ASI Rajesh Malik deposed that 18.04.2011, he was posted at MACT Cell, South District. On that day, he had received the case file for further investigation. On 28.04.2011, he had received the PM Report Ex. A-5. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW-8/B. After the investigation, he had filed the charge-sheet in the present case. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
17.The accused had also admitted u/s 294 Cr.P.C. the genuineness of the FIR, DD Ni. 34A dated 20.03.2011, DD No. 25 A dated 30.03.2011, MLC No. 250591 dated 20.03.2011, PM Report dated 31.03.2011 and superdarinama of vehicle bearing no. HR 38J 0199, Ex. A-1 to A-6 u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Thus, formal proof of these documents was dispensed with.
18.After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, the prosecution evidence was closed on 15.05.2024. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") on 07.03.2025 wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to him which he denied and took a defence that he was falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that he was driving the offending vehicle, however, he had parked the vehicle at the service road near the place of the incident and went to have lunch. The indicator of the vehicle was also on. The scooter came from the behind and hit the tanker. After Digitally 8 signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 16:25:09 +0530 hearing noise, he reached at the spot. After some time, he was falsely implicated. On the day of the incident, he was taken to the police station.
He further stated that the accident did not happen due to my rash or negligent act. He did not choose to lead any defence evidence (DE). Thus, DE was closed and final arguments were heard.
19.During the final arguments, the Ld. APP urged that testimonies of the material witnesses have remained unchallenged in the cross-examination who are also the eye-witnesses have completely supported the case of the prosecution.
20.The Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the fact that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. No public witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The sole eye witness Satpal examined by the prosecution turned hostile and did not even identify the accused. Thus, benefit of doubts needs to be extended to the accused.
21.I have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. defence counsel and have perused the case file.
22.Before, discussing the testimonies of PWs, it would be prudent to discuss the legal position involved in the present case.
Digitally
signed by
ANIMESH
ANIMESH
KUMAR 9
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01
16:25:16
+0530
LAW INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE
23.Section 279 of the IPC provides for the offence of rash driving or riding on a public way. It reads as under:
"Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment 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."
24.On bare reading of the above provision, it becomes clear that there are primarily three essential ingredients which constitute offence of rash driving on a public way.
a. Person must be driving or riding on a public way; b. He must be driving in a rash or negligent manner; c. Likely to endanger human life or cause hurt or injury to any person
25.Section 304A IPC provides for the offence of causing death by negligence. Death must have been caused by rash or negligent act which must not amount to culpable homicide. It reads as under:
"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 dine, or with both."Digitally signed by ANIMESH 10
ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 16:25:22 +0530
26.The doing of a rash or negligent act, which causes, death is the essence of section 304A. There is a slight distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. 'Rashness' conveys the idea of recklessness or doing an act without due consideration and 'negligence' connotes want of proper care. A rash act, therefore, implies an act done by a person with recklessness or indifference to its consequences. The doer, being conscious of the mischievous or illegal consequences, does the act knowing that his act may bring some undesirable or illegal results but without hoping or intending them to occur. A negligent act, on the other hand, refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient precautions or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or illegal consequences.
27.A perusal of the above discussed provisions makes it very clear that an act of rashness or negligence endangering the human life or personal safety is a common ingredient in all these offences. Now a question arises as to what would constitute a rash or negligent act. At this stage, reference may be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed in detail as to what constitute a rash or negligent act. It interalia held the following:
Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 16:25:28 +0530 11 "A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sens that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
28.Further, in the case of Braham Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 406, while discussing the legal position with respect to an offence u/s 279/304A IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interalia held the following:
"Obviously the foundation in accusations under Section 279 IPC is not negligence. Similarly in Section 304 A the stress is on causing death by negligence or rashness. Therefore, for bringing in application of either Section 279 or 304 A it must be established that there was an element of rashness or negligence. Even if the prosecution version is accepted in toto, there was no evidence led to show that any negligence was involved."
29.Therefore, indifference to the consequences of one's act or absence of reasonable care and precaution is the most important ingredient constituting rashness or negligence. It should be noted that intention of the person acting rash or negligent act is immaterial. What is important is that he has not taken due care or has done the said act with indifference to the consequences.
Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 12 16:25:34 +0530
30.Further, it should be noted that there should be direct link between the act or rashness or negligence and hurt/grievous hurt/death, as the case may be, suffered by the victim. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abdul Subhan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562 has discussed the ingredients which need to be established by the prosecution for convicting an accused u/s 279/304 A IPC. The Hon'ble Court has interalia held the following:
"As observed in Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. As regards the offence punishable under section 304A IPC, it was observed that the point to be established is that the act of the accused was responsible for the death and that such act of the accused must have been rash and negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under section 279 or section 304A, the commission of a rash or negligent act has to be proved."
31.The above-mentioned judgment sufficiently enlightens us that for establishing accusations u/s 304A IPC, prosecution is not only required to establish that the accused was rash or negligent while doing the said act or omitting to do any act, but it is additionally incumbent on prosecution to establish that the causa causans of death of deceased / or the proximate cause of death of deceased was the act of accused. Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 13 16:25:39 +0530 POINTS OF DETERMINATION
32.As discussed in the preceding part of this judgment, the accused Abhimanyu has been charged for the offences punishable u/s 279, 304-A & 471 IPC. After considering the materials available on record, following issues are involved in the present case which need to be examined in the backdrop of legal provisions.
i. Whether the accident was caused by the offending vehicle i.e. tanker bearing registration no. HR 38J 0199? ii. Whether the accused Abhimanyu was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident involved in the present case? iii. Whether the accused had committed the accident while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner? iv. Whether the driving license produced by the accused Abhimanyu during the course of the investigating was forged or not?
FINDINGS
27.I shall be deciding the above mentioned points of determination by considering the materials available on record in the backdrop of settled Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR ANIMESH Date:
KUMAR 2025.07.01 14
16:25:46
+0530
legal position. For the sake of convenience, I shall be giving my findings to each points of determination separately.
i. Whether the accident was caused by the offending vehicle i.e. tanker bearing registration no. HR 38J 0199?
28.As per the prosecution, the accident in the present case which had taken place on 20.03.2011 at about 2:30 PM at B-5 and B-6, JJ Bandhu Camp, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi was caused by one tanker bearing registration no. HR 38J 0199.
29.This fact could be proved from the testimonies of the police officials PW-1 and PW-4 who reached at the spot immediately after receiving the information about the accident. Both these witnesses had stated that when they reached at the spot, they had found one tanker bearing no. HR 38J 0199 and one scooter bearing no. DL 5SN 7275 in an accidental condition.
30.This fact could also be corroborated from the mechanical inspection report of the tanker Ex. PW-1/M as per which damages were found on the front bumper and rear bumper. Multiple damages were found on the scooter as per its mechanical inspection report Ex. PW-1/L. Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 15 16:25:52 +0530
31.Moreover, when the incriminating materials were put before the accused at the stage of recording of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, he did not deny the fact that the accident was not caused by the offending vehicle.
32.Therefore, in view of the above, I find that the prosecution has successfully proved the fact that the accident involved in the present case was caused by the offending vehicle i.e. tanker bearing registration no. HR 38J 0199.
ii. Whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident involved in the present case?
33.As per the case of the prosecution, it was the accused Abhimanyu who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident when he hit the scooter of the deceased.
34.It should be noted that the accused at the stage of recording of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C had admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, however, the same was not being driven in a rash or negligent manner.
35.In fact, the accused also did not take the defence that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Not even a single Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR 16 KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 16:25:59 +0530 suggestion in this regard was put before any witnesses during their cross-
examination.
36.Therefore, in view of the above, I find that the prosecution successfully proved the fact that at the time of the accident, it was the accused Abhimanyu who was driving the offending vehicle. iii. Whether the accused had committed the accident while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner?
37. Although, in the preceding part of this judgment, I have already found that the prosecution has remained successful in proving the fact beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who had caused the accident, however, it was imperative for the prosecution to further prove that the accused had caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving in order to prove his guilt in the present case.
38.The term "rash and/or negligent driving" has already been discussed at length in the preceding part of this judgment. Indifference to the consequences of one's act or absence of reasonable care and precaution is the most important ingredient constituting rashness or negligence. It should be noted that intention of the person acting rash or negligent act is Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 17
16:26:04 +0530 immaterial. What is important is that he has not taken due care or has done the said act with indifference to the consequences.
39.A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution.
40.In the case of Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the meaning of rash and negligent driving has interalia observed the following:
"12. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both 18 these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to "rash and negligent driving" within the meaning of the language of Section 279 IPC. That is why the legislature in its wisdom has used the words "manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life". The preliminary conditions, thus, are that (a) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven; (b) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and (c) such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated under Section 279 IPC is attracted."
41.The aforesaid judgment enlightens that it may not be possible to prove the factum of rash and negligent act may not be construed in isolation. It may not be possible to prove the same through direct evidence. It has to be seen or examined in light of the attendant circumstances.
42.In the instant case, it should be noted that the only eye witness of the accident i.e. PW-4 Satpal turned completely hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. No other evidence was brought on record by the prosecution or other witness was examined by the prosecution to establish the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. The informant was also not examined by the prosecution.
43.Therefore, in view of the above, I find that the prosecution has successfully proved the fact beyond reasonable doubts that the accused Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
19
2025.07.01 16:27:12 +0530 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident.
iv. Whether the driving license produced by the accused Abhimanyu during the course of the investigating was forged or not?
44.It should be noted that as per the case of the prosecution, the accused had produced his driving license bearing no. 432/01/F/BGP issued on 21.08.2001. The said driving license produced by the accused during the course of the investigation was found to be forged/fake. Accordingly, he was charged for the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC also in the present case.
45.Section 471 IPC provides for the offence of using as genuine a forged document. It reads as under:
"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]."
46.The essential ingredients of section 471 IPC are: (i) fraudulent or dishonest use of document as genuine, and (ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of person using the document that it is forged one. The Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 20 KUMAR 2025.07.01 16:27:22 +0530 act need not be both dishonest and fraudulent. The use of document contemplated by this provision must be a voluntary one.
47.It should be noted that section 471 is intended to apply to persons other than the forger himself, but the forger himself is not excluded from the operation of this provision. In order to attract this provision, it is not necessary that the person held guilty under the provision must have forged the document himself or that the person independently charged for forgery of the document must of necessity be convicted before the person using the forged document, knowing it to be forged one can be convicted, as long as the fact that the document used stood established or proved to be a forged one. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.S. Krishnan and Others vs. State of Kerala (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 576.
48.In order to prove the culpability of the accused Abhimanyu Kumar for the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimonies of PW-7 and the complainant/1st IO PW-1. PW-1 who had conducted the initial investigation of the present case had interalia deposed that during the course of the investigation, he had gotten verified the driving license produced by the accused from MLO, Bhagalpur, Bihar. He had received a reply from MLO, Bhagalpur, Bihar vide letter no. 29 Digitally signed 21 by ANIMESH KUMAR ANIMESH Date:
KUMAR 2025.07.01
16:27:32
+0530
dated 01.04.2011 as per which the said driving license of the accused was forged / fake. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, however, not even a single suggestion was given to him regarding the fact that the driving license produced by the accused was genuine and not a fake one.
49.Further, PW-7 who was an official working in Transport Authority, Bhagalpur, Bihar had brought on record the complete record of driving license no. 432/01/F (BGP) (this number was mentioned on the driving license produced by the accused). As per the record, the said license was originally issued in the name of one person namely Vikas Kumar Jha S/o Late Sh. Mahender Jha. The said driving license was issued in Dhanbad and was transferred to the State of Bihar on 09.09.2001. The detailed report furnished by the Transport Authority in this regard is Ex. PW-7/A. PW-7 had also produced on record the entry in the original register Ex. PW-7/B (OSR). PW-7 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and no material contradiction could be seen in his testimony. In fact, not even a single suggestion was given to him regarding the fact that the driving license produced by the accused was genuine and not a fake one. Thus, I find that the prosecution has remained successful in proving Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 16:27:41 +0530 22 the fact that the driving license which was produced by the accused during the course of the investigation was forged.
50.However, the prosecution has brought nothing on record to prove that it was the accused who had himself prepared the forged / fake driving license. Therefore, he was not charged for the offence of forgery per se and was charged for using a forged document as genuine.
51.As discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the A.S. Krishnan case (supra), it is not imperative that an accused must be convicted first for the offence of forgery in order to convict him for the offence of using forged documents as genuine. In the instant case, the driving license produced by the accused after the accident was forged. Thus, the accused had dishonestly used a forged document as genuine in order to deceive the police officials.
52.When the incriminating materials were put before the accused at the time of recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, he chose the mode of denial and did not make any statement qua the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC. He did not even take any defence qua this allegation.
53.Since, the use of fake / forged driving license by the accused has been conclusively established by the prosecution therefore, I am of the Digitally signed by ANIMESH 23 ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.01 16:27:49 +0530 considered view that there are sufficient materials on record to convict the accused for the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
54.Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence of using forged document as genuine. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts for the remaining offences.
55.Thus, the accused Abhimanyu stands convicted for the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC. However, he stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 279 & 304-A IPC.
56.Copy of this judgment given free of cost to the convict.
Digitally
signed by
ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
Announced in the open court 2025.07.01
16:28:13
+0530
On 01.07.2025
(Animesh Kumar)
JMFC-02, Patiala House Court
New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 24 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Animesh Kumar) JMFC-02, Patiala House Court New Delhi 24