Delhi District Court
State vs Mohan Singh on 11 March, 2020
State v. Mohan Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV MEHTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NORTH) 05,
ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Mohan Singh
FIR No. 95/11
PS Bawana
U/s. 279/337/338/304A/471
IPC
JUDGMENT
1 Serial No. of the case : 5283715/2016
2 Date of commission : 16.03.2011
3 Date of institution of the case : 09.05.2012
4 Name of complainant : HC Joginder
5 Name of accused : Mohan Singh S/o Sh. Munni
Lal, R/o F1242, JJ Colony,
Bawana, Delhi.
6 Offence complained of : U/s. 279/337/338/304A/471
IPC
7 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8 Arguments heard on : 11.03.2020 Digitally
9 Final order : Convicted signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV MEHTA
10 Date of judgment : 11.03.2020 MEHTA Date:
2020.03.11
16:33:20
+0530
FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 1 of 15
State v. Mohan Singh
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 16.03.2011, at 11.00 am, at Sector 34 dividing road near NDPL Office, DSIDC Bawana, Delhi, accused was found driving a vehicle Mahindra Champion bearing no. DL1LL8207 in rash and negligent manner and while driving in such manner and taking a turn near Sec. 3, the abovesaid vehicle turned upside down as a result of which the passengers Sinto, Pintoo and Gulab sustained simple injuries and Raj Nath suffered grievous injuries and the passenger Jhuru died as a result of injuries suffered by him. Also it is alleged that the accused was driving the vehicle with fake DL. Thereafter, the present FIR got registered against accused for offence U/s. 279/337/338/304A/471 IPC.
NOTICE
2. Prima facie case of commission of offences under Section 279/337/338/304A/471 IPC was made out against accused and charge was framed upon the accused on 24.09.2013 wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 2 of 15
State v. Mohan Singh
ADMISSION U/S 294 Cr.PC
3. During the course of evidence, statement of accused was recorded under section 294 Cr.PC wherein he did not dispute the identity of certain documents and admitted the same in terms of section 294 Cr.P.C. Accused had admitted the following document:
(i) MLCs 1003/11, 1004/11, 1005/11, 1006/11 and 1007/11 as Ex. A1 to Ex. A5.
(ii) Xray report of Rajnath as Ex. A6;
(iii) Death report no. 98452 as Ex. A7;
(iv) PM report no. 43/11 as Ex. A8; &
(v) FIR No. 95/11 and DD No. 16A as Ex. A9 & A10.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION
4. The prosecution has examined 12 witness.
PROSECUTION WITNESS
PW1 Sinto Injured
PW2 Gulab Injured
PW3 Pintoo Injured
PW4 Shiv Kumar Identified the dead body
PW4 (wrongly Rahul Kakkar injured
mentioned)
FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 3 of 15
State v. Mohan Singh
PW5 Rajnath Eye witness
PW6 Vikram Assisted the IO
PW7 SI Deepak Purohit Ist IO of the case
PW8 Retd. SI Rajender 2nd IO of the case
PW9 Retd. ASI / Tech. Proved mechanical
Devender Kumar inspection report
PW10 ASI Jogender Complainant
PW11 Ct. Surender Verified the DL
5. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents: Exhibited by Contents Exhibits PW2 Arrest memo PW2/A Seizure memo of DL PW2/B PW4 Identification statement PW4/A Handing over memo PW4/B PW4 (wrongly Reply to notice u/s 133 PW4/A mentioned) M. V. Act Photocopy of RC, PW4/B to PW4/D Insurance and fitness Superdarinama PW4/E PW6 Seizure memo of PW6/A vehicle PW7 Statement of relatives PW7/A deceased Inquest papers PW7/B Application PW7/C Handing over memo PW7/D FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 4 of 15 State v. Mohan Singh PW8 Verification PW8/A Disclosure statement PW8/B Arrest memo and PW8/C and PW8/D personal search memo PW9 Report PW9/A PW10 DD NO. 16A PW10/A Rukka PW10/B Notice u/s 133 M. V. PW10/C Act Site plan PW10/D Personal search memo PW10/E Request for mechanical PW10/F inspection application
6. PW1 Mr. Sinto deposed that on the day of accident at about 10.00 am he was present in the factory with his brother and one threewheeler came in the factory after which two compressors were loaded in the tempo and he alongwith his brother sat in the tempo. PW1 deposed that the vehicle was driven by accused very speedily and in a negligent manner and as a result of that, it met with an accident and his brother died in the incident. PW1 identified accused and offending vehicle in the court.
7. PW2 Gulab and PW3 Pintoo narrated whole incident to the FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 5 of 15 State v. Mohan Singh police as deposed by PW1 and PW2 Gulab and further proved the arrest memo of accused PW2/A and PW2 identified the seizure memo of DL of the accused as Ex. PW2/B.
8. PW4 Rahul Kakkar deposed that he was the owner of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL1LL8207 and he replied to the notice u/s 133 MV act as Ex.PW4/A and he produced the offending vehicle in the court was proved as Ex.P1.
9. PW4 Shiv Kumar (wrongly mentioned) deposed that he went to BSA Hospital and identified the dead body of his younger brother Jhuru Lal vide identification memo and handing over memo which are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B.
10. PW5 Raj Nath deposed on the same lines as PW1 Sintu and identified the accused in the court.
11. PW6 Ct. Vikram deposed that on 16.03.2011 he was posted at PS Bawana and he alongwith HC Joginder Singh went to the spot i.e. 34 crossing near NDPL office and at the spot, they found offending vehicle bearing noodle1LL8207 in turtled condition after which HC Joginder went to the hospital and he remained at the spot and HC Joginder prepared the rukka and handed over to him FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 6 of 15 State v. Mohan Singh for registration of FIR and HC Joginder clicked the photographs of the spot after which the IO seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW6/A. PW6 identified the photographs of the offending vehicle on the spot as Ex.P1 to P3 and P3 (Colly).
12. PW7 SI Deepak Purohit deposed that on 23.03.2011 he received the DD No. 28B after which he went to the hospital and got preserved the dead body of deceased and on 24.03.2011, he prepared the inquest report and recorded the statement of relatives of deceased which are Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW4/A and the inquest papers were proved as Ex.PW7/B and handing over memo of dead body was proved as Ex.PW7/D.
13. PW8 Retd. SI Rajender deposed that on 08.04.2011 he received the present case file and obtained the opinion of MLC of Raj Nath Singh and sent the DL of accused for verification and the verification form was proved as Ex.PW8/A. PW8 further stated that he recorded disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW8/B and he also arrested accused and conducted personal search vied memos Ex.PW8/C and PW8/D respectively.
14. PW9 Retd. ASI/technician Devender kumar deposed that FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 7 of 15 State v. Mohan Singh on 19.03.2011 he conducted the mechanical inspection of offending vehicle bearing no.Dl1LL8207 and proved his detailed report as Ex.PW9/A.
15. PW10 ASI Joginder deposed that 16.03.2011 he was posted at PS Bawana and he received the DD no.16A after which he went to the spot i.e. 34 crossing near NDPL office and at the spot, they found offending vehicle bearing no. DL1LL8207 in over turned condition and he clicked the photographs of the vehicle and he went to the hospital and collected the MLC of injured persons and also prepared the rukka at the spot Ex. PW10/B and seized the offending vehicle vide memo already Ex.PW6/A. PW10 stated that he sent the notice u/s 133 MV Act on 17.03.2011 and prepared the site plan Ex. PW10/D and arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A and conducted the personal search Ex. PW10/E and also seized the documents of the offending vehicles vide memos already Ex. PW4/B to PW4/D respectively.
16. PW11 Ct. Surender deposed that on 26.05.2011 he went to the transport authority kolkatta and got verified the driving license of accused which was found to be fake and not issued from the office.
17. Thereafter, PE was closed on 19.02.2020.
FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 8 of 15 State v. Mohan Singh
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
18. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 27.02.2020 separately and he opted not to lead defence evidence and matter was listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
19. The Ld. APP for the State has argued that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are consistent and corroborate each other and the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.
The Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has argued that there are serious inconsistencies in the deposition of prosecution witnesses and therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and he should be acquitted in the present case.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
20. Section 279 IPC states as under:
Rash driving or riding on a public way 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 FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 9 of 15 State v. Mohan Singh with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 337 IPC stated as Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others: Whoever cause 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 extent to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 338 IPC states as 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 safely 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.
Section 304A IPC states as under: 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, FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 10 of 15 State v. Mohan Singh or with fine, or with both"
In order to convict the accused u/s 304A IPC, the prosecution must be able to establish:
a) There must be death of the person in question.
b) The accused must have caused such death.
c) That such act of the accused was rash and negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide.
Section 468 IPC states as 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 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to sever years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 471 IPC states as 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].
FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 11 of 15
State v. Mohan Singh
COURT OBSERVATIONS:
21. After going through the material on record including the testimony of prosecution witnesses, this court makes the following observations:
(a) PW1 Sintu is the injured and is the eyewitness who stated that on the day of incident, he was present in the factory with his brother and his brother alongwith two other colleagues loaded the two compressors in the three wheeler which was being driven by the accused Mohan Singh.
PW1 further stated that he also sat with his brother in the offending vehicle and stated that the said vehicle was being driven by the accused at a very fast speed in a rash and negligent manner and while turning at Sector3, DSIDC, Bawna, the driver could not control the vehicle and the vehicle turned upside down as a result of which they sustained injuries and his brother Jhuru died due to the injuries.
(b) PW2 Sh. Gulab, PW3 Pinto and PW5 Rajnath identified the accused in the court as the person who was driving the offending vehicle i.e. Mahendra Champion on the day of incident.
(c) PW5 Rajnath corroborated the testimony of PW1 Sintu FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 12 of 15 State v. Mohan Singh and stated that accused Mohan Singh was driving the vehicle at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and due to such driving the vehicle overturned.
(d) The prosecution witnesses have given consistent testimonies and the defence counsel has not been able to point out any infirmity in their depositions.
(e) The MLC and the postmortem report placed on record by the prosecution further corroborates the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, PW1 Sintu and PW5 Rajnath.
(f) The mechanical inspection report of the Mahendra Champion placed on record shows damages on the left side of the Mahendra Champion and the body of the vehicle was stated as dented/bent from the left side. This fact further corroborates the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the offending vehicle overturned.
(g) The photographs placed on record by the prosecution Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 show the offending vehicle in a turtled condition and the photographs also corroborates the version of PW1 Sintu and PW5 Rajnath.
FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 13 of 15 State v. Mohan Singh
(h) As far as offence u/s 279/337/338/304A IPC is concerned, this court is of the view that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are consistent and they alongwith material placed on record by the prosecution including the MLCs, photographs and mechanical inspection reports is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.
(i) As far as offence u/s 471 IPC is concerned this court is of the view that the testimony of PW8 Rtd. SI Rajender is clear and unequivocal.
(j) PW8 Rtd. SI Rajender has stated that he sent the DL of the accused Mohan for verification through Ct. Surender at RTO, West Bengal and after verification, the report was received from the Licensing Authority, Kolkata stating that the license of the accused was found to be fake. The said document is Ex. PW8/A.
(k) In view of the deposition of PW8 Rtd. SI Rajender and PW11 Ct. Surender and after going through the document Ex. PW 8/A, this court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove that the DL of the accused Mohan Singh was fake as on the report Ex. PW8/A, it is clearly stated that the DL No. WBM13918 FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 14 of 15 State v. Mohan Singh was not issued by the Kolkata Licensing Authority and therefore, this court convicts the accused for offence u/s 471 IPC.
22. For the reasons mentioned above, this court convicts the accused Mohan Singh for offences u/s 279/337/338/304A/471 IPC.
23. Let he be heard on quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open (VAIBHAV MEHTA)
court on 11.03.2020 MM5 (North), Rohini Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 95/11 PS Bawana 15 of 15