Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil on 19 December, 2007
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 848/04
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 279/338 IPC
IN THE COURT OF DR.SHAHABUDDIN METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE:COURT ROOM NO.105, ROHINI COURTS DELHI
State vs Sunil
FIR No : 848/04
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 279/338 IPC
JUDGMENT
A. SL. No. of the case : 860/2
B. Date of Institution in : 06.11.2006
the court
C. Date of commission of : 27.07.2004
offence
D. Name of the : Sh. Raju S/o Jai Prakash
complainant
E. Name of the accused , : Sunil Kumar S/o Sh.
Dilbagh Singh R/o Village
his parentage and
Barwala, Delhi-110039.
residence
F. Offence complained of : U/s 279/338 IPC
or proved
G. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final Order : Convicted
I. Date on which : 11.12.2007
judgment reserved
J. Date of such judgment : 19.12.2007
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 848/04
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 279/338 IPC
K) BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The main prosecution case against the accused is that on 27.07.04 at about 11.00 AM at Nithari Road, near Dhruv Enclave, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Sultanpuri Delhi, the accused was found driving his Motorcycle No. WB-24-F-3867 on a public way in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving, he hit against a scooter No. DL-8SE-1576 and thereby caused grievous hurt to complainant Raju who was driving this scooter as well as to Sandeep who was a pillion rider with driver Raju. In this way, a chargesheet was filed against the accused after completion of entire investigation for the offences U/s 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short called as IPC hereinafter).
2. Accused appeared in the court and he was supplied the copies of documents relied upon in the chargesheet as per mandate of section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short called as Cr.P.C hereinafter).
3. On 15.12.06, a notice of accusation was framed against the accused for the offences U/ss 279 and 338 of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 848/04
PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi
U/s 279/338 IPC
4. From the side of prosecution, PW1 Shri Raju, PW2 Sh
Sandeep Kumar, PW3 Sh. Pale Ram, PW4 Record Clerk Smt Neeru Madan, PW5 S Ravinder, PW6 Sh Jai Prakash, PW7 ASI Attar Singh, PW8 Sh. J.S. Pawar, PW9 Ct. Sukhbir Singh, PW10 HC Bhagirath, PW11 Record Clerk Ravinder Kumar and PW12 Sh. Hari Om Sharma were examined and then remaining prosecution evidence (in short P/E) was closed.
5. On 25.07.2007, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations against him as false and incorrect but he did not want to lead defence evidence.
6. Final arguments were heard in this matter on 11.12.2007 from Ld. APP for State and from Ld. Defence counsel Shri Umesh Kumar on behalf of the accused.
7. The main submissions of Ld. APP for State were to the effect that on the basis of entire material on record, the case stands well proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for offences U/Ss 279 and 338 IPC and that he Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 848/04 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 279/338 IPC should be punished strictly as per law.
8. On the other hand, the main submissions of Ld. Defence counsel Shri Umesh Kumar on behalf of accused were to the effect that accused was falsely implicated in this case; that no accident was caused by the accused in this matter; that no independent and reliable persons of the alleged place of locality were joined by investigating officer (in short I/O) during investigation of this matter nor produced for evidence during trial of this case; that there are several material contradictions in the depositions of the PW's examined in this case on behalf of the state; that the witnesses examined in this case do not support the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of these main submissions, acquittal of the accused was prayed for.
9. I perused the entire judicial file minutely in view of the above mentioned rival submissions.
10. Before proceeding further on merits of this case, I refer to the provisions of law for which notice of accusation was framed against the accused in this case.
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 848/04 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 279/338 IPC
11. Section 279 IPC provides as under:-
"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 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."
12. Section 338 IPC provides as under:-
"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."
13. Now turning to the evidence on record, PW1 Raju S/o Jai Prakash is the complainant in this case and he was also one of the injured in this matter. In his examination in chief, he deposed mainly to the effect that on 27.07.2004, he was going to his village Karala on a scooter No. DL8SE 1576 with the son of his 'Bua' Mr. Sandeep who was riding on the back seat; that when they reached near Dhruv Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 848/04 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 279/338 IPC Enclave, one motorcycle No. WB24F 3867 came in fast speed from the opposite direction which was driven by accused (who was also identified by this witness in the court on the date of his deposition on 27.01.07) in a rash and negligent manner causing serious injuries to him (PW1) and also to Sandeep; that police recorded his(PW1) statement at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Delhi as per Ex.PW1/A on record. This witness also identified the offending motorcycle through the photographs shown to him. This witness was cross examined at length by Ld. Defence counsel but I do not find any material contradictions in his cross examination as compared to his examination in chief and he has been successful in proving the facts beyond reasonable doubt that the accused herein really caused the serious accident in this matter.
14. PW2 Mr. Sandeep Kumar is the another injured in this matter and he has also supported the prosecution case against accused beyond reasonable doubt almost on the same lines as that of the deposition of PW1. This witness was also cross examined at length by Ld. Defence counsel but I do not find any major contradictions in his testimony also.
Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 848/04 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 279/338 IPC
15. PW3 Shri Pale Ram is the Uncle of injured Raju and he deposed about admission of Raju and Sandeep in the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Delhi for their treatments. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel but he was not shaken at all on main point about the admissions of injured in the hospital.
16. PW4 Smt Neeru Madan is the record clerk from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital Delhi and she satisfactorily deposed about MLC's of both injured prepared in this matter. She was not at all cross examined by and on behalf of the accused and her testimony remains completely unrebutted and unchallenged from the side of the accused.
17. PW5 Shri Ravinder is the photographer who took photographs of accidental vehicles and the place of accident and photographs are on record as Ex.PW5/A to PW5/E respectively. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel but he was not shaken at all in his cross examination on material points regarding his taking photographs at the spot.
18. PW6 Shri Jai Prakash also deposed about admission of Raju and Sandeep in the SGM Hospital Delhi for their medical Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 848/04 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 279/338 IPC treatments.
19. PW7 ASI Attar Singh is the IO of this matter. He deposed in his examination in chief regarding various steps taken by him during investigation and arrest of the accused. He was also not shaken at all on material points in his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel on behalf of accused.
20. PW8 Shri J.S.Pawar is automobile engineer and he conducted mechanical inspection of both the accidental vehicles and gave his reports Ex.PW8/A and PW8/B respectively regardig these vehicles. He was not cross examined at all by and on behalf of accused.
21. PW9 Ct. Sukhbir Singh was in the company of IO ASI Attar Singh on 27.07.2004 and took part in the investigation of this matter. He was also not shaken at all in his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel on material points deposed by him in his examination in chief.
22. PW10 HC Bhagirath was the duty officer on 27.07.2004 at PS Sultanpuri Delhi and recorded FIR in this case of which copy is on record as Ex.PW10/A. Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 848/04 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 279/338 IPC
23. PW11 Shri Ravinder Kumar is the record clerk from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital Delhi and he had brought the summoned record of MLC of injured Sandeep prepared by the CMO concerned which is Ex.PW11/A on record. This witness was also not shaken in his cross examination on material points regarding MLC of injured Sandeep and report of the doctor thereon.
24. PW12 Shri Hariom Sharma is a Record Clerk from Trauma Center, LNJP Hospital Delhi. He had brought the record of injured Sandeep from the Trauma Center concerned and he was not at all cross examined by and on behalf of the accused.
25. The allegations were denied by the accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC but he did not want to lead defence evidence in support of his innocence for the reasons best known to him.
26. On the basis of above mentioned discussion and on the basis of entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution side has been successful in proving the guilt of the accused Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 848/04 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 279/338 IPC beyond reasonable doubt for the offences u/ss 279 and 338 IPC. Hence, accused Sunil Kumar S/o Sh Dilbagh Singh is hereby convicted for the the above mentioned offences. Let one certified copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused today itself.
As jointly prayed for, now to come up for hearing arguments on point of sentence on 07.01.2008. ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 19.12.2007 ( DR. SHAHABUDDIN ) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS DELHI Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 848/04 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 279/338 IPC IN THE COURT OF DR.SHAHABUDDIN, M.M. COURT ROOM NO.105, ROHINI COURTS DELHI State vs Sunil FIR No : 848/04 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 279/338 IPC ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE 07.01.2008 Present: Ld. APP for State.
Accused/Convict Sunil (in short called as Convict hereinafter) present from J/C with Ld. Legal Aid Counsel (in short LAC) Shri Umesh Kumar.
27. Arguments on point of sentence heard from both sides.
28. The main submission of Ld. APP was that convict has committed the serious offences and he should be sentenced strictly as per law.
29. On the other hand, the main submissions of convict and his Ld. LAC were to the effect that it is the first offence of the convict and no previous conviction has been proved against him by the prosecution side; that convict has remained in judicial custody in this case for Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 848/04 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 279/338 IPC a period of about one year; that he is in the mood of remorse and repentance; that he will not commit any offence in future; that he is a responsible earning member for his family. On the basis of these grounds mainly, a lenient view on point of sentence was prayed for.
30. I again perused the entire judicial file minutely in view of the above mentioned rival submissions.
31. It is true that no previous conviction has been proved against the convict by the prosecution side. It appears that he is a responsible earning member for his family. He has also remained in judicial custody in this case for a long time. On these grounds mainly, a lenient view is taken against the convict on point of sentence.
32. Accordingly, the convict is sentenced to Simple Imprisonment (in short S/I) for a period of three months for the offence u/s 279 IPC. I further sentence him to S/I for a period of one and a half year for the offence u/s 338 IPC. Both the substantive sentences Contd....P/Next page
-Page numbers- FIR NO: 848/04 PS : Sultan Puri, Delhi U/s 279/338 IPC shall run concurrently. As per calculations made by Ahlmed of our court the convict has remained in judicial custody for a period of one year and 23 days. This period shall be set off from the period of imprisonment awarded as above as per provisions of Section 428 of CrPC. The jail warrants be prepared accordingly for serving of remaining period of the sentence by convict as awarded today in this matter. Let one certified copy of this order be also given 'dasti' to the convict free of cost against due receipt. File be consigned to record room as per rules after expiry of period of appeal / revision, as the case may be. ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 07.01.2008 ( DR. SHAHABUDDIN ) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS DELHI Contd....P/Next page