Delhi District Court
State vs Pappu Ram on 22 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI
State V/s PAPPU RAM
FIR No.328/01
PS:SARASWATI VIHAR
U/s 279/338/427 IPC.
JUDGMENT
A) Sr. No. of the Case : 222/2
B) The date of commission : 06/05/2001
of offence.
C) Name of the complainant : Ashok Gupta
S/o Sh. Kirori Lal Gupta
R/o E-20/77-78, Sec.-3,
Rohini, Delhi.
D) Name & address of accused : Pappu Ram
S/o Sh. Pala Ram
R/o Village Pandla,
District Kaithal PO Pandla,
Haryana.
E) Offence complained of : U/s 279/338/427 IPC
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
G) Final order : Convicted U/s. 279/337/338 IPC
Acquitted U/s. 427 IPC
H) The date of such order : 22/02/2012
Date of Institution : 10/08/2001
Judgment reserved on : Not reserved
Judgment announced on : 22/02/2012
State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 1/14
THE BRIEF REASON FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 06/05/2001 at about 2:00 am at Madhuban Chowk, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Saraswati Vihar, accused was found driving a Tata 709 Tempo bearing No. HR 08-GA-0177 in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others & while so driving struck against Santro Car bearing No. DL 8CF- 1795 and caused simple injury to Naresh Kumar and grievous injuries to the complainant Ashok Gupta. It is further alleged that the accused while driving the vehicle struck against traffic booth and committed mischief by causing wrongful damage to the Government property valuing more than Rs. 50/-.
2. After completion of investigation challan was filed by the police U/s 279/338/427 IPC of which cognizance was taken by my Ld. Predecessor of this court.
Compliance of Sec.207 was carried out and complete set of documents was supplied to the accused.
3. Vide order dated 04/01/2002 notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused for trial of offences U/s 279/337/338/427 IPC by the Ld. Predecessor to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 2/144. Prosecution has examined 9 witnesses to prove the guilt of accused. A brief scrutiny of the examined witnesses is as below.
PW-1 is Ashok Gupta deposed that on 06/05/2001 he was coming on his Santro Car bearing No. DL 8CF 1795 from Keshav Puram after attending the marriage of his niece and when he received at Madhuban Chowk at about 20:00 am he was crossing the Green Signal, a tempo came from Peera Garhi side in a fast speed and the said Tempo jumped the red light and hit his car from the back side. Further he deposed that after hitting his car, the said tempo hit the police booth and as a result of the said accident, he received injuries, his color bone was broken, his ribs were also broken. Further he was taken to BJRM Hospital. Further he deposed that police had come at the hospital, where his statement Ex. PW-1/A was recorded. Further he deposed that he did not see the truck driver, who was driving the tempo.
This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for state wherein he admitted that his statement Ex. PW-1/A bears his signatures at point A. Further he admitted that the driver of the tempo told him his name as Pappu. Further he admitted that he had told the number of the tempo to the police in his statement Ex. PW-1/A but he did not remember the same on that day because of lapse of time. Further he admitted that he had told the number of tempo as HR-08-GA-0177. Further he deposed that it is correct that it was Tata 709. further he deposed that it is correct that he had told the police that this accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the accused Pappu. Further he deposed that the accused was driving the Tata Tempo at a very high speed and hit his car from left side when it was crossing the chowk. Further he deposed that it is correct that the driver of State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 3/14 the said Tempo asked him for forgiving. Further he denied the suggestion that he has compromised the matter. Further he correctly identified the accused in the court on that day. Further he deposed that the accused was arrested in his presence by the police vide arrest memo Ex.PW-1/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-1/C. Further he deposed that both the vehicles were seized in his presence vide memo Ex.PW-1/D and the DL of the accused was seized in his presence vide memo Ex.PW-1/E. PW-2 SI Umed Singh proved the mechanical inspection report of Santro Car bearing No. DL 8CF- 1795 and Tata 709 Tempo bearing No. HR 08-GA-0177 as Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B. PW-3 Mahender Kumar is the superdar of the offending vehicle. He deposed that on 06.05.2001 he received a notice U/s. 133 M.V. Act from PS Saraswati Vihar and in its reply he stated that on the day of incident, accused present in the court on that day was driver of offending tempo. He proved the superdaginama of Tempo as Ex.PW-3/A. PW-4 is Ct. Vinod Kumar joined the investigation with the IO ASI Chandgi Ram and proved the seizure memo of Tempo and Santro Car as Ex.PW-1/D and Ex.PW-4/A. He also proved the arrest memo of accused as Ex.PW-1/B, personal search of accused as Ex.PW-1/C and seizure memo of DL of accused as Ex.PW-1/E. PW-5 is ASI Chandgi Ram IO of the present case and has detailed about the steps taken by him during the course of investigation. He proved the endorsement on the complaint as Ex.PW-5/A, site plan as Ex.PW-5/B, State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 4/14 seizure memo of Tempo and Santro Car as Ex.PW-1/D and Ex.PW-4/A. He further proved the reply of notice U/s 133 MV act as Ex.PW-5/C and arrest memo as Ex.PW-1/B, personal search memo as Ex.PW-1/C. Seizure memo of DL of accused as Ex.PW-1/E and the MLC of injured as Mark-A. PW-6 is ASI Gyan Singh has proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW-6/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW-6/B. PW-7 is Naresh Kumar deposed that he do not remember the date and month, however, it was in the year 2001 he was working on a tempo as a labourer. Further he deposed that he do not remember the number of the Tempo. He further deposed that they came to Delhi and he was sitting near the driver seat and the same of the driver was Pappu when they reached near Madhuban Chowk one car whose number he do not remember, came from other side and an accident took place with the Maruti Car. He further deposed that thereafter their tempo also hit against traffic booth. He further deposed that he and the car driver sustained injuries. Further he deposed that he is illiterate person. He further deposed that police took him to the hospital, where he was medically examined. He further deposed that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver Pappu. Further he correctly identified the accused in the court on that day.
PW-8 is HC Yashpal Singh has proved the two photographs as Ex.PW-8/A-1 and A-2 and negatives as Ex.PW-8/B-1 to B-2.
PW-9 is Rama Shankar proved the MLC No.723/1 of patient Ashok Gupta prepared by Dr. Sanjay as Ex.PW-9/A and MLC No.10517/01 of patient Naresh prepared by Dr. Sanjay as Ex.PW-9/B. State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 5/14
5. P.E. was closed on 21.10.2011 and Statement of Accused U/s. 281 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein accused denied all the allegations & pleaded innocence, and submitted that he does not want to lead D.E.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through the evidence and the material available on record.
7. The following facts needed to be proved by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused:-
a) That the alleged vehicle Tata 709 Tempo bearing No. HR 08- GA-0177 was being driven by the accused at the time of alleged accident.
b) That the alleged accident happened due to the said vehicle being driven by the accused in rash and /or negligent manner.
c) That due to the alleged accident, the injured Naresh Kumar and Ashok Gupta received grievous hurt.
8. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the case of the prosecution suffers from severe infirmities.
9. Per contra Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution has been successfully able to prove their case.
State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 6/14Identity of the accused
10. There is not an iota of doubt regarding the identity of the accused. He has been duly identified by both the injured persons and other PWs in the court. Further, when the accused was served notice U/s. 251 Cr.P.C on 04/01/2002 by Ld. Predecessor of the court he pleaded not guilty but had admitted that he was the driver of the offending vehicle and that the accident was not caused by his negligence but due to the injured crossing the red signal. Further the owner of the offending vehicle also proved in his reply to notice U/s. 133 M.V. Act that at the relevant time accused was driving it and he was not cross examined by the accused on this aspect. Also no defence has been led on this point and it was never the point of argument.
11. Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Niranjan Sutradhar v. State of Tripura, (Gauhati) 2006 CriLJ 3262 has held " From what have been pointed out above, it is abundantly clear that the vehicle No. TRL-1489 came at a high speed and the same knocked down P.W. 4 causing injuries on his person as indicated herein above. The question, now, is as to who the driver of the said vehicle, at the relevant point of time was ? In this regard, it is noteworthy that P.W. 6, who is, admittedly, the owner of the said vehicle, has given evidence to the effect that it was the accused, who had been engaged by him as a driver of the said truck and that on the day of the occurrence, it was the accused, who had taken out the vehicle from the house of P.W. 6. Thus, in the absence of anything State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 7/14 showing to the contrary, it is abundantly clear that the vehicle, in question, was, at the relevant point of time, driven by the accused- petitioner, for, had someone, other than the accused-petitioner, driven the said vehicle, it was within the special knowledge of the accused- petitioner and he had the onus to show that not he, but someone else had driven the vehicle at the relevant point of time. Thus onus has not been discharged by the accused-petitioner".
In view of the above , the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle on the fateful day stands established beyond any doubt.
Rash and Negligent Act
12. Meaning of expression negligent act and rashness came up for discussion in the case titled as Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala, (SC) 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 605 and the Hon'ble Apex Court Held :-
(1) A negligent act is an act done without doing something which are a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it - A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately.
(2) Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not.
Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law.
State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 8/14(3) Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
13. The rash and negligent act of the accused stands proved from the testimony of the complainant Ashok Gupta who was examined as PW-1 by the prosecution read with mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle Ex. PW-2/B and that of the santro car Ex. PW-1/B in the light of the site plan Ex. PW-5/B. In his testimony the complainant has deposed that the offending vehicle i.e. the Tempo came from the side of Peeragahi in a fast speed and after jumping the traffic signal hit his car from back side and thereafter hit the police booth. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State he clarified that his car was hit from left side when it was crossing the chowk.
14. As per the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW-2/A of the santro car bearing registration No. DL 8 CF 1795, it is reported that the left side portion of the car bumper to bumper was completely damaged along with both door and left side front wheel damaged. The steering, clutch were found to be in working order but the break paddle was found inoperative and the car was found unfit for road test. Further as per the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW-2/B of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR 08 GA 0177 it is reported that the front bumper was damaged and pushed inside, front show and all front light damaged, bonnet damage and push upward, front wind screen glass broken and cabin stoppled. Further that the engine, clutch, brake were found to be O.K. but the vehicle was found unfit for road test.
State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 9/1415. If examined the position of the vehicles in light of the damage suffered by them and the directions in which they were proceeding it is clear that the accused oblivious of the fact that it was red signal for him (as has come in the testimony of PW-1 and has gone unrebutted) was in such a high speed that even after collision which occurred as per site plan at point A, hit the police booth and damaged it which is at a considerable distance.
16. Though it has not stated by any witness that as to where both the vehicles were proceeding but the point of impact and the address of the complainant which is Sector - III, Rohini suggest that the complainant was traveling from east to west side as per site plan and the accused was coming from South to North. The damage in the left portion of the car including damage in the left side front wheel suggest that the offending vehicle hit it from its front on the left side of the santro and thereafter lost control and severed towards its left and hit the police booth thereby damaging it.
17. Even if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that it was the complainant who was at fault by not following the traffic signal which has come only in the arguments of the Ld. LAC and no where in the record (not even in the statement U/s. 281/313 Cr.P.C) but the impact which the collision had on the santro car and on the police booth itself suggests the speed in which the offending vehicle must be. Every driver is expected to slow down at intersections, even if the signal on its side is green. The accused in the instant case remained indifferent towards the speed of his vehicle and could not control it after the impact.
State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 10/1418. Ld. LAC in his arguments has submitted that the offending vehicle was stationary at the traffic signal and only when it turned green, it started moving. This argument cannot be digested since if any vehicle starts accelerating only on signal being green it cannot attain such a speed that after the impact it will travel more than 50/100 mts. and hit the police booth with such a force that it will sustain the damage as is visible in the photographs.
19. Lastly PW-7 who was working with the accused as a labour on the tempo also deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused.
20. The faster the speed of a vehicle, the greater the risk of an accident. The forces experienced by the human body in a collision increase exponentially as the speed increases. Traffic engineers and local governments have determined the maximum speeds allowable for safe travel on the nation's roadways. Speeding is a deliberate and calculated behavior where the driver knows the risk but ignores the danger. Had the driver been cautious , he could have avoided the accident.
21. The official website of Delhi Traffic Police http://www.delhitrafficpolice.nic.in/speed-limitation.htm provides the speed limit of vehicles on various roads of Delhi. The maximum prescribed limit is 80 Kmph, that too on NH-8 and Noida Toll roads. The road coming from State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 11/14 Madhuban Chowk to Wazirpur Depot does not finds specific mention in the list provided but at S.No 18 it is provided that in All areas between Ring Road and Outer Ring Road, beyond Outer Ring Road, between Ring Road and entire Trans Yamuna areas, for cars the max. permissible speed limit is 50 Kmph. Had the driver/accused adhered to it, the accident would not have happened.
22. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that if any vehicle at such a high speed would apply brakes the tyre/skid marks are bound to be there on the road but it has not been pleaded by the prosecution. He submits that it clearly indicates that the speed of the vehicle was not at the higher side. Though I find force in his arguments but I do not deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of faulty investigations to the defence. Just because the I.O did not conducted in a scientific manner and did not mention the tyre/skid marks in the site plan/charge sheet , it do not wash off the case of the prosecution.
23. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Ram Bihari Yadav v.State of Bihar 1998 AIR (SC) 1850 in para 13 has held "........... the interest of justice demands that such acts or omissions of the officers of the prosecution should not be taken in favour of the accused, for that would amount to giving premium for the wrongs of the prosecution designedly committed to favour the appellant. In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined de hors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 12/14 officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."
In view of the above discussions and judgments relied upon it can be deduced safely that the accused acted rashly and negligently while driving the offending vehicle.
Cause of injuries of the victims
24. As regard the injured Ashok Gupta receiving grievous injuries and simple injuries on the person of injured Naresh Kumar is concerned the same has been proved by PW-9 Rama Shankar, Record Clerk of BHRM hospital. As per MLC Ex. PW-9/A it is opined by the concerned doctor that the injuries received by injured Ashok Gupta as grievous. It mentions "according to the Radiologist Dr. Shipra Rampal X ray plate No. 488 dated 06.05.2001, shows fracture clavicle, so the injury no. 4 is grievous". Though the doctor who prepared the MLC did not himself come to the witness box to prove the same but in the testimony of injured Ashok Gupta PW-1 it has come that his collar bone was broken and his ribs were also broken. The accused has not cross examined the said witness on this point. The MLC of the injured Ashok Gupta squarely covers the injury within the definition of grievous hurt as defined u/s 320 I.P.C whereas as per the M.L.C and the statement of injured Naresh Kumar the injuries received by him are held to be simple.
State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 13/1425. As regards the offence U/s. 427 IPC the ingredients of the offence has not been satisfied.
Section 425 IPC define mischief for which the punishment, if a damage is of the amount more than Rs. 50/- is specified in section 427 IPC. For the offence of section 425 IPC it has to be shown that a damage was caused with intention to cause it. From the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the accused ever intented to cause damage to the police booth. Accordingly the prosecution has failed to prove its case qua U/s. 427 IPC.
26. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the corroborative testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined and the documents on record, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. Accordingly the accused is held guilty for offences u/s 279/337/338 I.P.C and convicted and he is acquitted U/s. 427 IPC.
A copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost and the matter be now listed for arguments on the point of sentence.
(Bhupinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts : Delhi Announced in the open court on February 22, 2012.
State V/s Pappu Ram FIR No. 328/01 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 14/14