Delhi District Court
State vs . Raj Kishore on 18 December, 2015
Challan No. 27260007014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SADHIKA JALAN, MM, TRAFFIC - 01 (NORTH
DISTRICT) ROHINI COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
State v. Raj Kishore
Challan no.: 27260007014
Vehicle No.: DL 1RP 3523
Circle: TNC
Date of institution of the challan : 25.07.2014
Date of Decision : 18.12.2015
JUDGMENT
(a) The date of commission of offence : 27.06.2014
(b) Name and Parentage of Accused : Raj Kishore
s/o Sh. Baban
r/o B8, Sainik Enclave, Vikas
Nagar, New Delhi 59.
(c) Offence complained of : DMVR 11(9)/177 and Section
66(1)/192A M.V. Act
(d) Plea of both accused : Not Guilty
(e) The final order : Acquitted
(f) The date of such order : 18.12.2015
State Vs. Raj Kishore
Brief statement of reasons for the decision--
1.The accused person Raj Kishore is on trial in this case under Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules (referred to as DMVR) 11(9) read with Section 177 Motor Vehicles Act (referred to as M.V. Act) and Section 66(1) M.V. Act read with Section 192A M.V. Act.
2.The facts in brief as per the prosecution story are that on 27.06.2014 at about 11:53am, the accused Raj Kishore, was found on Outer Ringroad at Kashypur Depot, while coming from Meera Bagh and going towards Flyover District Centre. He was driving vehicle bearing registration number DL1RP 3523. The accused refused to take a passenger. The accused was thus challaned under DMVR 11(9)/177 and as this is also a permit violation, under Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act.
3.Accused Raj Kishore appeared in the Court and was informed of the substance of the allegation against him vide separate notice dated 09.10.2014, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4.To prove its case the prosecution examined three witnesses namely PW1 DHG Ct. Vikas, PW2 ASI Ajaib Singh and PW3 Ct. Mahesh.
5.PW1 in his examination in chief stated that on 27.06.2014 he was posted at Tilak Nagar Circle as DHG constable. He was on duty along with ASI Ajaib Singh and Ct. Mahesh of Delhi Traffic Police. On that day they laid a trap on the outer ring road near Keshav Pur depot to stop and ask TSR drivers to take them somewhere. At around 11:53 State Vs. Raj Kishore am, he stopped one auto bearing no. DL 1RP 3523 being driven by the accused. He asked the driver to take him to his destination however the accused refused to do so. He then took the accused to the challaning officer. Challaning officer ASI Ajaib Singh challaned the accused under DMVR 11(9)/177 and Section 66(1)/192A M.V Act. The challan is Ex PW 1/A bearing his signature at point A. Accused driver is correctly identified in the court.
In his cross examination, he stated that he asked the accused to take him to Anand Vihar. He stated that he didnot know Ct. Mahesh. The challaning officer on the day of the challan was ASI Ajaib Singh. He stated that the challaning officer must have been at a distance of around 200 metres from him. He stated that no public persons were present on the spot. He stated that he didnot remember the exact time. It was around 11:30 in the morning. He stated that the challan was prepared in front of Manohar Nagar Bus Depot on the road going to Peeragiri. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely and not to the best of his knowledge. He denied the suggestion that public persons were present. He stated that routine checking was going on at the spot. Other challans were also prepared on that day. The accused in those matters were not joined in this challan as those challans were not made at the same time.
6.PW2 in his examination in chief stated that on 27.06.2014 he was posted at Tilak Nagar Circle as ASI/ZO. He was on duty along with Ct. Mahesh and Ct. Vikas. Ct. Vikas was made a decoy passenger. Ct. Vikas asked a TSR driver/ the accused to go to Nagafgarh. The accused was coming from the side of Keshavpur Depot and was going State Vs. Raj Kishore towards District Centre Flyover. The TSR driver refused to take him to Nagafgarh. Thereafter, Ct. Vikas took the driver of TSR bearing registration no. DL 1RP 3523 to him and Ct. Vikas told him that the driver of the abovesaid TSR has refused to go to Nagafgarh. Then, he prepared a challan against the TSR driver under sections 11(9)/177 and 66(1)192A of M.V. Act. The said challan is already Ex PW 1/A bearing his signature at point B. Permit and RC of the above said TSR seized in the challan. Accused driver is correctly identified in the court.
In his cross examination, he stated that Ct. Vikas was in civil dress at the time of challan. The distance between where the TSR driver refused and the point where he was standing, was around 100 meters approximately. He never saw the conversation between the constable and the TSR driver. Challan was prepared on a public road. He denied the suggestion that the TSR driver had not refused to take Ct. Vikas to Nagafgarh. He denied the suggestion that the challan against the TSR driver was prepared due to an altercation between Ct. Vikas and the driver.
7.PW3 in his examination in chief stated that on 27.06.2014 he was posted at Tilak Nagar Circle as constable. He was on duty alongwith ASI Ajaib Singh and Ct. Vikas (DHG). Ct. Vikas was made a decoy passenger. Ct. Vikas took the driver of TSR bearing registration no. DL 1RP 3523 to ASI/ZO Ajaib Singh. Ct. Vikas told them that the driver of the abovesaid TSR refused to go to the place where Ct. Vikas asked him. Thereafter, IO/ZO ASI Ajaib Singh issued challan against the TSR which is already Ex PW 1/A bearing his signatures at point C. Accused Raj Kishore was correctly identified in Court. State Vs. Raj Kishore In his cross examination, he stated that public was present at the spot when the challan was made, however no public witness were joined in the investigation. He did not know which place Ct. Vikas had asked the driver of the TSR to take him. He stated that He did not talk to the accused when the challaning officer was preparing the challan. The challan was issued by ASI/ZO Ajaib Singh. He denied the suggestion that accused had not refused and that no bribe had been demanded from the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
8.Statement of the accused Raj Kishore was recorded vide separate order sheet under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) on 24.11.2015. In his statement he stated that on the day of the challan, 27.06.2014, he dropped a passenger at CRPF Camp and was driving on District Centre road. When around Manohar Nagar, Ct. Vikas asked him to stop his auto and take him to Nagafgarh. He asked Ct. Vikas as to how many passengers were to be taken in total. At which point Ct. Vikas asked him whether he was not willing to take passengers to Nagafgarh. He stated that he was willing to take passengers however he was not allowed to take more than three passengers at one time. Ct. Vikas was wearing proper uniform at that time. Ct. Vikas asked him to show the documents of his vehicle, which he did. The documents of his vehicle were complete in all respect. Despite that Ct. Vikas told him that his vehicle would be impounded in the instant matter. Ct.Vikas asked him to pay a bribe of Rs. 500/ which if he refused to pay would lead to impounding of the vehicle. The Challaning officer as well as Ct. Mahesh were present at the spot. Challan Ex PW 1/A was prepared against him. He was forced to sign the said challan at point D. The challan State Vs. Raj Kishore had been falsely prepared against him.
9.The accused did not wish to lead any defence evidence.
10.I have heard the both the parties and also perused the record. In compliance of requirements under Section 437A CrPC, bail bond and surety bond of similar amount has been taken on record.
11.The burden in a criminal case lies on the prosecution, to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. Firstly in the instant matter, the challaning officer who prepared challan Ex. PW1/A states that he prepared the challan on the statement of PW1 Ct. Vikas. He stated he himself never saw the conversation that took place between the accused and Ct. Vikas. This being the case, the challan is based on hearsay, which is inadmissible in evidence.
13. Secondly, PW1 stated that he had asked the accused to take him to Anand Vihar whereas PW2 stated Ct. Vikas had asked the accused to take him to Nagafgarh. There is also no mention in the challan itself as to what place the accused had allegedly refused to take the decoy passenger. Both versions are in contradiction to each other. This further weakens the prosecution case.
14. Thirdly, it is stated that public witnesses were not joined in the investigation. In the case of Sanspal Singh v. State of Delhi, 1999 Cr. L.J. 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that nonjoining of public witnesses would not be fatal to the prosecution in State Vs. Raj Kishore the situation where there were no public witnesses available or none was willing to associate in the investigation but would be fatal only when despite the availability of the public witnesses no one was joined in the investigation. In the matter at hand, PW1 stated that no public witnesses were present at the spot. Whereas PW3 stated that though public witnesses were present however none were joined in the investigation. PW2 stated that the place where the challan was made was a public road. Further it is stated that the challan was made near the bus depot, which leads one to assume that there would be public present in such a place, especially at the time when the challan was made. The fact of not joining public witnesses further weakens the prosecution case which otherwise was contradictory at many junctures.
15.It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, I find that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore accused Raj Kishore is acquitted for the offences punishable under DMVR 11(9)/177 and Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act respectively.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT DATED: 18.12.2015 (Sadhika Jalan) MM01/Traffic (North) Rohini/ New Delhi 18.12.2015 State Vs. Raj Kishore