Delhi District Court
State vs . Sukhjinder Singh on 3 June, 2010
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE -II (NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 1103/09
Unique Case ID No. 2404R0152962006
State Vs. Sukhjinder Singh
S/o Sukhdayal Singh
R/o 1191, Sector 6,
Karnal, Haryana
(Convicted)
FIR No. 552/04
Police Station: Adarsh Nagar
Under Section: 279/186/353/333 Indian Penal Code
Date of Committal to Sessions court: 18.5.2007
Date of Reserving the Judgment: 22.4.2010
Judgment announced on: 18.5.2010
JUDGMENT:
As per the allegations of the prosecution on 21.12.2004 at about 5:15 pm at Mukand Pur Chowk, Outer Ring Road the accused was driving a Tata 407 bearing no. HR-45-5052 in such a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of other. It is also alleged that the accused Sukhjinder Singh voluntarily obstructed Ct. Jagdeep in discharge of his duties as such public servant and caused grievous injuries to Ct. Jagdish by hitting Tata 407.
BRIEF FACTS:
Case of the prosecution:
The case of the prosecution is that on 21.12.2004 Ct. Jagdeep along with ASI Puran Singh, Ct. Ashok and Ct. Manoj were on duty of St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 1 of 16 checking the vehicles at Mukand Pur Chowk, Outer Ring Road. At about 5:45 pm a tempo bearing registration no. HR-45-5052 came from the side of Wazirabad at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner. Ct. Jagdeep gave signal to the tempo to stop but the driver of the tempo i.e. the present accused Sukhjinder Singh took a turn towards Ct. Jagdeep and hit by him the tempo as result of which Ct. Jagdeep fell down and received fracture on his left hand. The driver of the tempo was overpowered by Ct. Ashok after chasing the tempo on a motorcycle. The injured was removed to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Memorial hospital where his statement was recorded on the basis of which present FIR was registered and the accused was arrested.
CHARGE:
Vide order dated 22.1.2008 the Ld. Predecessor of this court has after hearing the arguments of both the sides, framed a charge under Section 279/186/353/333 Indian Penal Code against the accused to which he has pleaded guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses:
Eye witnesses/ public witnesses:
PW2 Ct. Jagdeep is the complainant/ injured in the present case who has stated that on 21.12.2004 he was posted in Traffic Circle, Model Town and on that day he alongwith ASI Puran Singh, Ct. Ashok and Ct. Manoj were also on duty at Mukand Pur Chowk, Outer Ring Road and were checking the vehicles. According to him, at about 5:45 pm a tempo bearing no. HR-45-5052 make Icher came from the side of Wazirabad at fast speed in a rash and negligent manner on which he St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 2 of 16 gave a signal to the tempo to stop but the driver of the tempo i.e. the accused whom the witness has correctly identified in the court, took a turn towards him and hit him by the tempo as a result of which he fell down on the road and received fracture on his left hand. The witness has further deposed that ASI Pooran Singh made a call to 100 number pursuant to which PCR came there and the accused was overpowered by Ct. Ashok after chasing the tempo on motorcycle. He has testified that he was removed to BJRM Hospital by PCR van where he was admitted and his statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded.
In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that there is a divider on the road where he was standing and at the time of the incident, there were three lanes on each side of the divider and some construction work was going on for widening the road. According to PW2, the tempo was being driven on the first lane adjacent to the divider and it was being driven at a speed of 70 KM per house. He has deposed that there was traffic on the road and the tempo was stopped after a chase of half kilometer and when he signaled the tempo driver to stop he was standing at about one/ two yards from the edge of the road and the tempo was sighted at a distance of 100/125 feet. He is unable to tell whether tempo hit his left hand first or right hand first and states that no other vehicle was stopped at that time by the checking team. He is not aware if the accused was challaned or not or whether the tempo was brought back to the place where he was hit. According to the witness, he was told that driver of the tempo has been apprehended by Ct. Ashok and Ct. Manoj.
PW3 SI Puran Singh is also an eye witness who was on duty along with Ct. Jagdeep on the date of incident. He has corroborated the testimony of PW2 to the extent that on 21.12.2004 he along with Ct. Jagdeep Kumar, Ct. Ashok Kumar and Ct. Manoj Kumar were on duty at Mukand Pur Chowk and were checking the vehicles.
St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 3 of 16 According to him, at about 5:15 pm one temp make Eicher bearing no. HR-45-5052 came from the side of Burari Chowk at fast speed in rash and negligent manner on which he instructed Ct. Jagdeep to stop the vehicle as it was no entry time. He has deposed that Ct. Jagdeep gave signal to the tempo to stop but the driver of the tempo instead of stopping the tempo raised the speed and hit Ct. Jagdeep and drove towards Bhalswa Chowk. The witness has further deposed that he followed the tempo on his motorcycle and the driver of the tempo i.e. the accused, whom the witness has correctly identified, ran away after leaving the tempo at Bhalswa Chowk. According to PW3, he made a PCR call and Ct. Jagdeep was removed to BJRM hospital and in the meanwhile SI Richpal the Investigating Officer reached the spot and he handed over the tempo (Ex.P-1) to SI Richpal who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW3/A. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that there was a divider between the road and in the year 2004 the road was four lane. According to him, the tempo was not being driven in zigzag manner and the approximate speed of the tempo was about 60 KM per house. He has further admitted that many line vehicles were coming from the side of Burari and he was standing on the footpath and Ct. Jagdeep was ahead 5/7 feet. The witness has stated that he does not remember if Ct. Jagdeep was hit on his right side or left site by the tempo. He has deposed that other constables were taking care of Ct. Jagdeep and he chased the tempo and the place where Ct. Jagdeep received injury is at a distance of half a kilometer from the place where the accused left his tempo and ran away. The witness has further deposed that he had challaned the tempo under Section 184 Cr.P.C. and he came to know about the name of the driver from the papers which were lying in the tempo which documents he had not filed along with the challan under Section 184 Cr.P.C. According to him, the IO did not St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 4 of 16 make any public person a witness to the seizure memo.
PW4 HC Manoj is again an eye witness who was a member of checking team and has corroborated the testimony of PW2 and 3 in toto. He has duly identified the accused and the tempo.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that they were not having a radar and the work of road widening was not going on at that time. According to him, he had seen the tempo when it was at a distance of 200 meter where there was light traffic on the road. He has deposed that Ct. Jagdeep came in the center of the road and gave the signal to tempo to stop but be cannot tell the speed of tempo even by approximation but it was at fast speed. He has deposed that Ct. Jagdeep fell at a distance of 2 ft on the side after the impact and ASI Puran Singh chased the tempo on his government motorcycle whose number he does not remember. He has also deposed that ASI Puran Chand had not come back to the place of accident when PCR came there.
PW6 Sukhdayal is the father of the accused who has deposed that his wife Smt. Pushpa Devi (mother of the accused) is the registered owner of the tempo no. HR-45-5052 and he is taking care of the same tempo. According to him, on 22.12.2004, he received a notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicle Act which is Ex.PW6/A from the police pursuant to which he told the police that his son Surjiunder Singh was driving the tempo at about 12 noon to 5 pm on 21.12.2004. He has proved his reply to the notice which reply is Ex.PW6/B. According to the witness, he took his tempo on superdari vide Superdarinama Ex.PW6/C and has placed on record the photographs of the tempo which are Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/4.
In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that he had signed on Ex.PW6/B in police station on the next day after the incident and that traffic police had challaned his tempo copy of which challan is mark DX and he had deposited the fine of Rs.2,000/- on 24.12.2004 St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 5 of 16 vide receipt Mark DX1.
Medical Witnesses:
PW1 Dr. Shipra Rampal has proved having examined the X-ray plate of patient Jagdeep on 22.12.2004 vide MLC No. 12986. She has proved that after examination of X-ray plates she noted fracture of lower end of Radius and ulna of left forearm and no bony injury was noted in X-ray skull and X-ray knee with leg. She has proved her report in this regard which is Ex.PW1/A. PW5 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary has proved that on 21.12.2004 at about 5:40 pm patient Jagdeep was brought in the casualty with the alleged history of RTA and the patient was examined by Dr. Rajesh. According to him, the patient was referred to Surgery S.R. And was examined by Dr. Sunil Yadav and by S.R. Ortho Rameshwar and the opinion given by Dr. Rajesh on 17.2.2005 that the injuries was grievous in nature. The said witness has identified the hand writing and signatures of Dr. Rajesh, Dr. Sunil Yadav and Dr. Rameshwar on the MLC No. 12986 which is Ex.PW5/A. He has identified the signatures of all the said doctors who according to him, have now left the services of the hospital.
Police Witnesses:
PW7 SI Nathu Ram is the duty officer in the present case and has proved that on 21.12.2004 he was posted as ASI at PS Adarsh Nagar. He has proved having received a rukka at about 7:30 pm brought by Ct. Rampal which was sent by ASI Richpal Singh and on the basis of said Rukka he recorded FIR No. 525/04 copy of which is Ex.PW7/A. He has further deposed that after registration of the FIR he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Rampal for handing over to ASI Richpal.
St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 6 of 16 PW8 SI Richpal is the investigating officer in the present case who has deposed that on 21.12.2004 on receipt of DD No. 36 B which is Ex.PW8/A, he alongwith Ct. Rampal reached at Outer Ring Road, Mukandpur Chowk where he came to know that the injured has been taken to BJRM Hospital by the PCR van and there he met ASI Puran Singh along with staff. According to the witness, he found one tempo no. HR-45-5052 at Red Light Bhalswa Chowk and thereafter he along with Ct. Rampal reached BJRM Hospital where he collected the MLC of Ct. Jagdeep and recorded his statement which is Ex.PW2/A. The witness has proved having prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW8/B and handed over the same to Ct. Rampal for getting the FIR registered. The witness has deposed that Ct. Jagdeep was discharged from the hospital and thereafter he along with him reached at the spot and prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Jagdeep which is Ex.PW8/C and in the meanwhile Ct. Rampal came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. The witness has also proved having seized the tempo vide memo Ex.PW3/A. He has deposed that on 22.12.2004 father of the accused Sukhjinder Singh namely Sukhdayal came in the police station and produced the accused and he was given a notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicle Act which is Ex.PW6/A and the father of the accused duly replied the same stating that the accused was driving the vehicle after which the accused was directed to remain in muffled face and he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/E1 and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW8/E2 and driving license of the accused was seized vide memo Ex.PW8/E3. The witness has proved his application for Test Identification Parade of the accused which is Ex.PW8/D which application was fixed for 15.1.2005 but the accused refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade proceedings which are Ex.PW8/E and received a copy of the said proceedings St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 7 of 16 pursuant to his application vide Ex.PW8/F. According to the witness the accused produced a copy of the insurance and permit and RC of the tempo which was seized vide memo Ex.PW8/F and on 23.12.2004 he moved an application for mechanical inspection of tempo which is Ex.PW8/G and received the report which is Ex.PW8/H. The witness has further deposed that on 1.7.2005 a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. was given by Sh. H.P.S. Virk the then DCP Traffic which is Ex.PW8/J and obtained the DD No. 35 dated 20/21.12.2004 and DD No. 29 dated 21.12.2004 of Model Town Circle regarding the departure and arrival of the traffic police officials copies of which DDs are Ex.PW8/K and Ex.PW8/L. The witness has proved having completing the investigations and filed the challan through the SHO.
In his cross-examination the witness has stated that he reached the spot within 15 minutes after receiving the DD where he met ASI Puran Singh along with other staff at the spot. He has deposed that Ct. Jagdeep reached at the spot in a private vehicle but he had not noted down the number of that private vehicle. According to him, the distance between Bhalswa Chowk and Mukund Pur Chowk is about 250 meters. He has deposed that Ct. Rampal had driven the tempo from spot to the police station and states that public persons were passing from the spot when he seized the tempo but they did not come forward to join the investigations. He has admitted that there is no record on the file to show that Smt. Pushpa Devi (mother of the accused) is not able to move.
Statement of the accused/ defence evidence:
After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating evidence was put to the accused which he has denied. He has admitted having driven the vehicle but according to him, he did not drive the same in a rash and negligent manner. According to the St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 8 of 16 accused, he was challaned by the traffic police and his tempo was impounded on 21.12.2004. He has stated that at the time of challan, the police demanded money and he was not having money at the time and therefore, he left the tempo and the conductor at the spot and went to his house to bring the money and to call his father. The accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The accused Sukhjinder has examined one Rajesh Kumar who was the conductor of his tempo as his defence witness. DW2 Rajesh Kumar has deposed that he is presently earning his livelihood by plying a TSR and previously on the date of incident i.e. 21.12.04 he was a conductor on the tempo of which Sukhjinder Singh was driver and on the the said date they were going to Karnal via Burari when they were stopped by the traffic police personnels at Adarsh Nagar. According to the witness, the police officials tried to cut the challan but they did not have the money due to which reason the accused went to bring the money to Karnal and he was detained near the police station and a false case was registered against them but he was left on the same date. He has deposed that Sukhjinder Singh got late and went to PS Adarsh Nagar and later he came to know that Sukhjinder Singh got involved in the present case.
In his cross-examination the witness has stated that on the date of incident he was resident of Karnal and he knew Sukhjinder Singh for the last 6-7 years. He has stated that there was no documentation pertaining to his salary nor can he produce any document to show that he was working as a conductor with the accused on the date of incident. The witness has denied the various suggestions put by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and has admitted that the time of incident was 5.00/5.15pm.
St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 9 of 16 FINDINGS:
I have considered the submissions made before me. The prosecution in respect of its case has examined 8 witnesses. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the various allegations against him. The case of the accused is that on the date of incident he was challaned by the traffic police and they demanded the money on which he left the tempo and the conductor at the spot and went to the Karnal to bring the money. The Conductor of the accused namely Rajesh Kumar who has been examined as DW1 has supported this version of the accused and has specifically stated that on the date of incident they were going to Karnal via Burari when they were stopped by the traffic police at Adarsh Nagar and tried to challan them but since they were not having the money, the accused went to Karnal for taking the money and when he returned in the police station, this false case was foisted upon the accused.
PW1 Dr. Shirpa Rampal and PW5 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary have proved the MLC of the injured Ct. Jagdeep who had been brought to BJRM hospital on 21.12.2004 at about 5:40 pm with the history of Road Traffic Accident and was examined by Dr. Rajesh who opined the injuries to be grievous. The MLC of the injured which is Ex.PW5/A has been duly proved. Dr. Shirpa Rampal has proved having examined the X-ray plates and her detailed report which is Ex.PW1/A showing that the patient Jagjit aged 38 years had fracture of lower end of Radius and ulna of left forearm. The injured Ct. Jagdeep has been examined as PW2 who in his examination in chief corroborated what has been earlier stated in his statement made to the police which is Ex.PW2/A. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that there was a divider on the road where he was standing, where there were three lanes on each side of the divider and some construction work was going on, when the accused who was driving a tempo on the first lane adjacent to the St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 10 of 16 divider, came at a fast speed i.e. about 70 km per hour and he was signalled to stop, instead of stopping the vehicle, the driver of the tempo took a turn towards him and hit him by the tempo as a result of which he fell down and received injuries. According to the witness, he received fracture on his left hand and the driver of the tempo was overpowered by Ct. Ashok Kumar after chasing the tempo on a motor cycle. Similarly PW3 SI Pooran Singh who was also present at the spot of the accident as he was on duty alongwith the injured Ct. Jagdeep Kumar, Ct. Ashok Kumar and Ct. Manoj Kumar on checking of vehicles and has corroborated the testimony of PW2 except that in his examination in chief he has deposed that it was he who chased the tempo and not Ct. Ashok as claimed by Ct. Jagdeep and in his cross-examination he has contradicted the statement of Ct. Jagdeep to the extent that at the time of incident there were 4 lanes and that the accused was not driving the vehicle in zigzag manner as claimed by Ct. Jagdeep but was coming at a high speed of 60 KM per hour approximately. He has also stated he was standing on the divider whereas Ct. Jagdeep was standing on the side of the divider about 5-6 steps ahead of him. PW4 HC Manoj has corroborated the testimony of PW2 and PW3 in material particulars and has supported the version given by SI Puran Singh that he chased the tempo and does not say that Ct. Ashok (not examined) chased the same. PW6 Sukhdayal is the father of the accused who has proved that the mother of the accused i.e. his wife Smt. Pushpa Devi is the registered owner of tempo bearing no. HR-45-5052 and he is taking care of the same. He has admitted the notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicle Act and his reply that his son Sukhjinder Singh was driving the tempo on the date of incident. He has proved his signatures on the notice which is Ex.PW6/A and the reply gave by him which is Ex.PW6/B. He has in his cross-examination proved that the vehicle in question had been duly challaned which copy of the challan is Ex.DX. He has also admitted St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 11 of 16 having deposited a fine of Rs.2,000/-. PW8 SI Richpal Singh is the investigating officer who had reached the spot after the registration of the case to carry out the investigations. He has proved having recorded the statements of the various witnesses and the seizure of the tempo which seizure has not been disputed by the accused. He has also proved that the accused had been kept in muffled face after his arrest and that an application has been filed by him for conducting the Test Identification Parade proceedings but the accused refused to participate in the said proceedings before Ms. Archna Sinha, the then Ld. MM which application for Test Identification Parade is Ex.PW8/D and the proceedings are Ex.PW8/E (accused does not dispute the proceedings). PW8 has also proved the complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. given by Sh. H.P.S. Virk the then DCP Traffic which is Ex.PW8/J (not disputed by the accused). In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that during the seizure of the tempo no public witnesses were joined in the proceedings.
All the material witnesses of the prosecution are police officials. The injured is also a police official and was on duty a fact which has not been disputed by the accused and it is an admitted case that the injured was a member of the traffic team who was checking the vehicles alongwith PW3 and PW4. Ld. counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that a false case has been put upon the accused and no such incident had taken place. According to him, the vehicle of the accused had been challaned by the traffic police team comprising of the injured and other police officers and since the accused did not have any money and thereafter he had gone to Karnal to bring the money and also to call his father but on his return to the spot, this false case has been foisted upon him. He has also submitted that initially the FIR had been registered only under Sections 279/186/353/323 IPC but later on after getting the result on MLC Section 325 IPC were added and at the time St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 12 of 16 of filing the charge sheet Section 323 IPC were removed and Section 333 IPC were added only for deliberately enhancing the graver charges against the accused for which there was no material.
I have gone through the MLC of the injured Ct. Jagdeep which shows that the injured had received injuries on the left arm. The case of the prosecution is that Ct. Jagdeep was standing near the divider and was checking the vehicles and the accused was driving his vehicle in the first lane. This has been duly proved by the eye witness SI Puran Singh and also the injured Ct. Jagdeep. It is also the case of the injured that the accused was driving the tempo in a fast speed. Therefore, under these circumstances, injuries on the left side of the person is possible only if the injured would have rushed to the middle of the road in an attempt to stop the vehicle with his hand. Since PW2 was facing the vehicle to whom he had signalled to stop, therefore, under these circumstances, the injuries should be present only on the right side which is not the case. The injuries on the left side of the body of injured are possible only when the injured would have rushed to the middle of the road in an attempt to stop the vehicle which was coming on the first lane adjacent to the divider which is something which even the accused and his conductor DW1 claim. It may also be noted that there were no other injuries except those on the left side of the body and the fracture was of the lower end of radius and ulna of left forearm.
I have given my careful consideration to the facts as borne out from the evidence on record. Firstly there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the injured Ct. Jadgeep was on official duty discharging public functions at the time of accident and was on checking the vehicles alongwith PW3 and PW4.
Secondly all the three eye witnesses have very consistently deposed that accused was coming from Adarsh Nagar side at a very high speed on the first lane adjacent to the divider and injured Ct. Jagdeep St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 13 of 16 had made a signal to him to stop which fact also finds a corroboration from the medical evidence on record which shows that the only injury received are on the left hand radius bone of the injured.
Thirdly it is evident from the circumstantial evidence i.e. the testimony of PW2 to PW4, that at the time of accident Ct. Jagdeep gave signal to the tempo to stop but the driver did not stop as the tempo was at very high speed and had hit Ct. Jagdeep who fell at the distance of 2 feet and the tempo was got stopped by ASI Puran Chand (PW3) after chasing the tempo of about 200 meters.
Fourthly it is also evident from the record that the vehicle of the accused had been challaned under Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act vide Ex.DX placed on record by the accused. It is not possible to conclude a false case had been foisted upon the accused as there was no occasion for the police officials for doing so and the vehicle in question had been seized at the spot itself as proved by the investigating officer SI Richpal Singh. This fact has also been admitted by both the accused and his conductor Rajesh Kumar who has been examined as DW1 who do not deny that the vehicle had been challaned and DW1 had stayed at the spot as the accused had gone home to get money.
Lastly the complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been disputed by the accused and has been duly proved by the prosecution.
The evidence on record proves that PW2 was discharging his public functions and was on checking of vehicle and at the time of incident he had signaled the accused who was driving a tempo to stop the same but the accused did not comply and after hitting Ct. Jagdeep, tried to run away but was apprehended by ASI Puran Singh. The accused had refused to submit for judicial Test identification Parade. The father of the accused namely Sukhdayal has proved that in his reply to the investigating officer on the notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicle Act, he has stated that the it was the accused who was driving St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 14 of 16 the vehicle in question on the date of incident and therefore his identity as the driver of the offending vehicle otherwise stands established. The accused has been duly identified in the court not only by the injured but also by the other eye witnesses i.e. ASI Puran Chand and Ct. Manoj and his identity has been established on this count as well. It has also been proved that at the time of incident the accused was driving the tempo at a very high speed which aspect has also been established from the fact the injured Ct. Jagdeep had been hit on the hand resulting into fracture while he was discharging his public functions, which could only have been caused by a vehicle which was moving at a fast speed. The rashness and negligence so attributed to the accused are writ large from the circumstances of the case which show that the accused after hitting the injured had to be chased for about 200 yards only after which he could be apprehended. In view of the aforesaid, I hold the accused guilty of the offence under Section 279 read with Section 186 and 353 Indian Penal Code and convict him accordingly.
However, in so far as the provisions of Section 333 Indian Penal Code are concerned it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the injuries so caused to the injured were voluntarily caused by the accused to a public servant on duty as such public servant or it was to prevent or deter public servant from discharging his official duties or was in consequence of anything done by the person in lawful discharge of his duties as such public servant. In the present case Ct. Jagdeep was on checking duty and had indicated to the accused to stop his vehicle. The material on record suggest that while so indicating the accused to stop the vehicle, Ct. Jagdeep had himself voluntarily come on the middle of the road while the entire traffic was moving and in the said process received injuries. PW3 ASI Puran Chand who is the eye witness has not supported the version given by injured Ct. Jagdeep when he says that the accused was driving the vehicle in a zigzag manner and on his signaling St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 15 of 16 to stop, he turned his vehicle towards him. Rather, ASI Puran Chand has stated that the accused was driving the tempo at a high speed of about 60 KM per hour. Therefore, the aspect that the injuries were caused voluntarily does not stand established. Though it has been proved that the accused had used force on PW2 who was on official duty yet it does not stand established that this use of force was voluntarily as a result of which grievous injuries were caused to Ct. Jagdeep. Therefore, under these circumstances, the provisions of Section 333 IPC do not stand attracted. Rather, the provisions Section 338 Indian Penal Code are made out against the accused and I hold the accused guilty of the offence under Section 338 Indian Penal Code along with provisions of Section 279/ 186 and 353 Indian Penal Code and convict him accordingly.
Be listed for arguments on sentence on 25.5.2010.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 18.5.2010 ASJ-II (NW): Rohini
St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 16 of 16
18.5.2010
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Accused on bail.
Vide my separate detailed order dictated and
announced in the open court, the accused Sukhjinder Singh is held guilty of the offence under Section 279 read with Section 186, 353 and 338 Indian Penal Code and convict him accordingly.
Be listed for arguments on sentence on 25.5.2010.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ-II(NW): Rohini 18.5.2010 St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 17 of 16 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE -II (NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 1103/09 Unique Case ID No. 2404R0152962006 State Vs. Sukhjinder Singh S/o Sukhdayal Singh R/o 1191, Sector 6, Karnal, Haryana FIR No. 552/04 Police Station: Adarsh Nagar Under Section: 279/186/353/333 Indian Penal Code Date of Conviction: 18.5.2010 Arguments heard on: 25.5.2010 Date of Sentence: 3.6.2010 ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 18.5.2010, the accused Sukhjinder Singh has been held guilty of the offence under Section 279 read with 186, 353 and 338 Indian Pencal Code.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. I have also considered the written synopsis filed on behalf of the convict. The convict Sukhjinder Singh is aged about 36 years and is a driver by profession. He has a family comprising of aged parents, wife and one daughter. He is a first time offender and has no previous involvements.
Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has vehemently argued that the convict is the only earning member of his family and his mother is paralyzed and is confined to bed. It is argued that the convict is the sole bread earner of his family and there is nobody in his family except him, to look-after his aged parents and wife. The Ld. counsel prays for a lenient view against the accused. The Ld. Addl.
St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 18 of 16 PP for the State on the other hand has argued that a strict punishment be awarded against the convict.
As per the allegations on 21.12.2004 at about 5:15 pm the accused was driving his vehicle i.e. Tata 407 tempo bearing registration no. HR-45-5052 and while he was coming from Waziradabd side, he was signalled to stop the tempo by Ct. Jagdeep but he instead of stopping the tempo, took a turn towards Ct. Jagdeep and hit him as a result of which Ct. Jagdeep received injuries.
I have considered the submissions made before me. The convict has been held guilty of the offence under Section 279, 186, 353 and 338 Indian Penal Code and not under Section 333 Indian Penal Code. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and also in view of the fact that the accused is a first time offender and is the sole bread earner of his family, a lenient view is taken against him. The following sentences are awarded to the convict:
1. He is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and fine to the tune of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week.
2. The convict is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and fine to the tune of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two days.
3. He is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) for the offence under Section 353 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
4. The convict Sukhjinder Singh is sentenced to imprisonment till St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 19 of 16 rising of the court and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.
Fifty Thousand) for the offence under Section 338 Indian Penal Code to be awarded to the injured Ct. Jagdeep under Section 357 Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the legal Aid cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34-37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to the convict free of costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 3.6.2010 ASJ (NW)-II: Rohini
St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 20 of 16
State Vs. Sukhjinder Singh
FIR No. 552/04
PS: Adarsh Nagar
3.6.2010
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Convict in person with Sh. Ved Pal advocate.
Vide my separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court, the following sentences are awarded to the convict:
1. He is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and fine to the tune of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week.
2. The convict is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and fine to the tune of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two days.
3. He is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) for the offence under Section 353 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
4. The convict Sukhjinder Singh is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.
Fifty Thousand) for the offence under Section 338 Indian Penal Code to be awarded to the injured Ct. Jagdeep under Section 357 Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 21 of 16 afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the legal Aid cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34-37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to the convict free of costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ-II(NW)/ Rohini 3.6.2010 At this stage, an application has been filed on behalf of the convict seeking time to deposit the compensation amount. I have considered the request made. I have considered the request made. The convict has deposited the fine amount of Rs.6,500/- and therefore, in the interest of justice, time is granted to the convict to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- till 9.6.2010. Meanwhile, the IO is directed to ensure the presence of the injured Ct. Jagdeep for the purposes of accepting the compensation amount on 9.6.2010.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ-II(NW)/ Rohini 3.6.2010 St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 22 of 16 St. Vs. Sukhjinder Singh, FIR no. 552/04, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 23 of 16