Delhi District Court
State vs . Ranjeet Singh on 9 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03, NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Ranjeet Singh
FIR No. 351/11
PS. Model Town
U/s. 279/337 IPC
CIS No. 5285488/16
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission : 23.08.2011
of offence
2) The name of the complainant : Sahil Grover
3) The name & parentage of accused : Ranjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Surender
Pandit
4) Offence complained of : u/s.279/337 IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 09.05.2019
Date of Institution : 02.12.2011
Judgment reserved on : 09.05.2019
Judgment announced on : 09.05.2019
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on
FIR No. 351/11, PS. Model Town, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh CIS No. 5285488/16 1/13
23.08.2011 at about 2.50 pm in front of Laxman Dwar, Gujrawala Town, PartII, Delhi, within the Jurisdiction of PS Model Town, accused was driving a vehicle i.e Fortuner Car bearing registration No. DL4CNE5791 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others. It is further the case of prosecution that while driving the said vehicle in the aforementioned manner, accused struck his vehicle against a motorcycle bearing No. DL3S BB 9299 and caused simple injuries to the complainant Sahil Grover and thus, accused thereby committed offence(s) punishable under section 279/337 IPC.
2) After completion of investigation, chargesheet against the accused was filed in the court whereupon cognizance was taken. After complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C, notice was served to the accused for accusation of offences u/s. 279/337 IPC vide order dated 16.08.2012. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In Prosecution evidence, the prosecution got examined six witnesses. PW1 Girish Narang deposed that his company i.e. K.D. Associate is the registered owner of vehicle/car bearing No. DL 4CNE5791; that the said car met with an accident on 23.08.2011; that at the time of accident, the car was driven by accused Ranjeet; that he gave written reply Ex.PW1/A to notice u/s 133 M.V. Act;
FIR No. 351/11, PS. Model Town, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh CIS No. 5285488/16 2/13 that later on he took the said vehicle on Superdari and also handed over RC, insurance of vehicle to the police. He was not cross examined by Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity given.
4) PW2 Ct. Laxman deposed that on 23.08.2011, upon receipt of DD no.15A, he alongwith IO/ASI Joginder Singh reached at Pentamed hospital; that there they met injured Sahil; that IO recorded his statement and thereafter, they reached at the spot i.e. near Laxman Darwaja, Gujranwala Town, Model TownII, Delhi and found one motorcycle bearing no.DL3SBB9299 in accidental condition; that same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A; that IO prepared Rukka and handed over it to him for getting the FIR registered; that he went to the PS and got the FIR registered; that thereafter, he returned back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO; that from the hospital, IO seized the offending car No. DL4CNE5791 vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B; that thereafter, both the vehicles were taken to PS and deposited in Malkhana. In his cross examination by Ld. defence Counsel, he admitted that accused himself took the injured to the hospital. He denied of deposing falsely.
5) PW3 Sahil Grover deposed that on 23.08.2011 at about 2.45 PM, he was returning to his home from police line on his motorcycle bearing No. DL3SBB9299; that when he reached near Laxman FIR No. 351/11, PS. Model Town, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh CIS No. 5285488/16 3/13 Dwar, Gujrawala Town, PartII, Delhi, one Fortuner Car bearing No. DL4CNE5791 being driven by accused in rash and negligent manner, hit against his motorcycle while taking Uturn, due to which, he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He further deposed that people gathered at the spot; that the accused took him to Pentamed hospital, who disclosed his name as Narender Kumar; that police arrived at the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A; that he also correctly identified the accused before the police at Pantamed hospital; that abovesaid motorcycle was seized by the IO; that it was later on got released by him vide Superdaginama Ex. PW3/B.
6) In his crossexamination by Ld. defence Counsel, PW3 stated that the make of his motorcycle was Yamaha R1; that he had bought this bike in the year 2008 for a value of Rs. 14.50 lacs. He admitted that neither his father nor he was the owner of the bike. He further stated that the bike belonged to one of his uncle who resided at Patel Nagar, Delhi; that after the repair of the bike, it was of red colour since the company did not have black colour kit; that the manufacturing date of bike as mentioned on the chasis is December,2007. He admitted that RC of the vehicle mentioned the manufacturing date of the vehicle of the year 2008. He denied that the bike in question and RC of the bike, which is brought by him in the Court are of two different bikes or that he had borrowed the bike FIR No. 351/11, PS. Model Town, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh CIS No. 5285488/16 4/13 in question from his uncle on the date of incident or that he had driven the said bike for the first time in his life.
7) PW3 admitted that at the intersection, where the accident had taken place, there was no red light; that he had not called up the police; that he met the IO in the hospital for the first time after the said incident on the same day. He admitted that he had not accompanied the IO at the site of incident for the preparation of the site plan; that site plan prepared by the IO did not bear his signature. He denied that the offending vehicle/car was in stationary position at the time of incident or that he was driving the bike in a rash and negligent manner. He further stated that he was driving the vehicle at a speed of 5560 kmph. He denied that since he was coming at a speed of 5560 kmph, he was not able to control his bike after seeing the offending vehicle in stationary position.
8) PW3 Sahil Grover admitted that his bike had hit the offending vehicle from the side portion. He further stated that he did not remember whether the bike hit against the left front tyre of the offending vehicle. He also denied that he had skided/fallen from the bike 2530 feets prior to hit with the offending vehicle and the petrol tank of the bike hit the left front tyre of the offending vehicle. He admitted that the IO had not shown the site plan to him. He further stated that IO showed him site plan but did not ask him to sign the FIR No. 351/11, PS. Model Town, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh CIS No. 5285488/16 5/13 same; that he did not remember as to when, IO had shown him the site plan; that he did not know the speed limit of the road where the accident took place; that he did not remember that he had seen the site plan for the first time in the Court only; that the accused was driving the offending vehicle with a flow of traffic. He denied that he had initiated false case against the accused only for the purpose of extracting money from him.
9) PW4 HC Satveer Singh the then duty officer, deposed of registering present FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A and made endorsement on the original rukka vide Ex.PW4/B; that copy of DD entry no.15A dated 23.08.2011 is Ex.PW4/C. He was not cross examined by the Ld. defence Counsel despite opportunity given.
10) PW5 (Retd.) ASI/Tech. Devender Kumar deposed of conducting mechanical inspection of the Toyota Fortuner car and motorcycle in question on 24.08.2011 and gave his report, which are Ex. PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D respectively.
11) PW6 SI Jogender Singh is the investigating officer in this case, who deposed that on 23.08.2011, upon receiving of DD no.15A regarding quarrel at Pantamed hospital, he alongwith Ct. Lakshman went to Pantamed hospital, where injured Sahil Grover was admitted; that he collected MLC of injured on which opinion was FIR No. 351/11, PS. Model Town, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh CIS No. 5285488/16 6/13 reserved and recorded his statement which is Ex.PW3/A; that injured Sahil told him that the driver who hit him had taken him to the hospital; that he went to the spot where he found one motorcycle bearing registration No. DL3SBB9299 in an accidental condition; that he prepared the Rukka and sent the same to the PS through Ct. Laxman and got the FIR registered. He further deposed the investigation part conducted by him subsequent to the registration of FIR i.e preparing site plan Ex. PW6/A, seizure of motorcycle and offending vehicle vide memo Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B respectively, arrest and personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C respectively, getting mechanical inspection of both the vehicles done and obtaining its report, obtaining opinion of MLC of injured, seizure of documents of offending vehicle vide memo Ex. PW6/D and Ex. PW6/E respectively, seizure of DL of accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/F.
12) IO/ PW6 was cross examined at length by Ld. defence Counsel. In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW6 stated that he came to know about the incident at about 3.15 pm through a PCR call, which was made by the complainant/injured Sahil Grover. He further stated that there were shops at the place of incident and public persons were moving there but no eyewitness was found there; that he asked the public person to join the investigation but none of them agreed; that the width of the road was FIR No. 351/11, PS. Model Town, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh CIS No. 5285488/16 7/13 about 50 feet; that there was no sign board and he did not know about the speed limit on that road; that there was no traffic signal; that he did not know at what speed the complainant was riding his bike; that he did not know at what speed accused was driving his vehicle. He denied that the vehicle of accused was in parked condition and complainant hit his motorcycle with the vehicle of the accused as complainant lost his control over his bike. He further stated that offending vehicle hit the motorcycle from the left side of the bumper; that he prepared the site plan at the spot of his own and no witness was present there and he did not obtain the signatures of complainant on the site plan. He denied that he prepared the site plan while sitting in the PS. He further stated that the accused was driving the vehicle on his side; that he cannot say the flow of the traffic at the time of the accident. He admitted that accused was driving his vehicle in the correct direction; that he did not mention the width of the road in the site plan; that damaged footpath was also not shown in the site plan; that accused took the injured to the hospital. He denied that complainant lost his control over his racing bike due to over speed. He denied that the accused was standing stationed for U turn or that he had got registered a false case upon the accused in connivance with the complainant.
13) Accused did not dispute the genuineness of documents i.e MLC of injured. His statement in this regard was recorded u/s 294 FIR No. 351/11, PS. Model Town, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh CIS No. 5285488/16 8/13 Cr.P.C and the said MLC is Ex. D1.
14) After prosecution evidence, Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein the stand of accused was of general denial. He pleaded innocence and false implication. He stated that he was not negligent at the time of accident and complainant was driving his motorcycle at a very fast speed and his vehicle was stationed at that time.
15) I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
16) It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The general burden of establishing the guilt of accused is always on the prosecution and it never shifts.
17) In the present case, complainant/PW3 Sahil Grover was the star witness for the prosecution, being the only eyewitness cited and examined by the prosecution in support of its case. He is also injured in the present case. Hence, his testimony is required to be scrutinized with greatest care and circumspection in order to arrive at the conclusion whether the same is clear, cogent and sufficient to bring FIR No. 351/11, PS. Model Town, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh CIS No. 5285488/16 9/13 home the guilt of the accused in the present case.
18) However, from the perusal of the testimony of complainant/PW3 Sahil Grover, it is transpired that he made inconsistent statements as to the material facts and circumstances of the case, which cast serious doubt over his trustworthiness and credibility. In his examinationinchief, PW3 deposed that while driving vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, accused hit the same against his motorcycle. However, contradictorily, he admitted in his crossexamination that his bike had hit the offending vehicle from the side portion and he did not remember, whether the bike hit against the left front tyre of the offending vehicle. Meaning thereby, while complainant/ PW2 deposed in his examinationinchief that it was the vehicle driven by accused, which hit against his motorcycle. However, contradictorily, in his crossexamination, he admitted that it was his bike, which hit against the car driven by the accused. Such an inconsistent statement made by the complainant/ eyewitness on a very material aspect makes the case of prosecution highly doubtful. It is well settled that a witness making inconsistent statements as to the material facts and circumstances is unworthy of credence.
19) Moreover, complainant/PW3 stated in his examinationin chief that accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. However, he admitted in his crossexamination that accused FIR No. 351/11, PS. Model Town, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh CIS No. 5285488/16 10/13 was driving the vehicle with the flow of the traffic. He stated that he was driving the vehicle at a speed of 5560 kmph and denied that he was driving his bike in a rash and negligent manner. He also deposed that he did not know the speed limit of the vehicles on the road where the accident took place. In his crossexamination, IO/PW6 stated that accused was driving his vehicle on his side and in correct direction. In these circumstances, when complainant himself admitted that accused was driving his vehicle with the flow of traffic on the road and he himself was driving his motorcycle at a speed of 5560 kmph, whereas, there are no evidence as to the speed at which, accused was driving his vehicle on the road nor there is any evidence as to the speed limit of the vehicles on the road where the accident was allegedly took place, inference of rashness or negligence on the part of accused cannot be drawn particularly when as per IO, accused was driving his vehicle in his lane and correct direction and also that there is material contradiction in the testimony of complainant/ PW3 as to the vehicle which hit the another one.
20) Moreover, IO/PW6 stated in his crossexamination that he came to know about the incident through a PCR call, which was made by the complainant. However, contradictorily, complainant/PW3 admitted in his cross examination that he did not call the police. There is no investigation done by the IO as to the speed limits of the vehicles on the road, where the incident allegedly FIR No. 351/11, PS. Model Town, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh CIS No. 5285488/16 11/13 occurred. IO/ PW6 admitted that he did not mention the width of the road in the site plan nor skid marks of the complainant's bike were shown in the site plan. He also admitted that he had not shown the damaged footpath in the site plan. Admittedly, site plan was not prepared by the IO in the presence of complainant/ witness and IO prepared the site plan of his own. No sincere efforts were made by the IO to join public persons to the proceedings despite their availability.
21) None of the other witnesses examined by the prosecution were present at the spot at the time of incident in question. None of them had even seen the accused driving the vehicle on that day and their testimony is not sufficient to establish the charges against the accused. There are no cogent evidence available on record to bring home the guilt of the accused in the present case. On the basis of material available on record, finding of guilt of accused cannot be recorded.
22) It is settled preposition that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that too by leading independent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. There is no controversy to the proposition that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt occurring in the prosecution case. The general principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that the prosecution has FIR No. 351/11, PS. Model Town, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh CIS No. 5285488/16 12/13 to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, are to be borne in mind.
23) In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges u/s 279/337 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, accused is acquitted of the said offences u/s 279/337 IPC. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2019.05.09
16:17:04 +0530
Announced in open Court (SACHIN GUPTA)
on 9th Day of May, 2019 MM3/North District
Rohini Courts/Delhi/09.05.2019
FIR No. 351/11, PS. Model Town, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh CIS No. 5285488/16 13/13