Delhi District Court
State vs Bhagwati Prasad on 2 July, 2012
State v. Bhagwati Prasad
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT SOUTH
EAST, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
Case No. 161/2N
Unique Case I.D. No.02403R0766622008
STATE VERSUS BHAGWATI PRASAD
FIR No.575/07
U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC
P. S. New Friends Colony
Date of filing of the charge sheet: 02.09.2008
Date of reserving order : 26.06.2012
Date of pronouncement : 02.07.2012
JUDGEMENT
(a Serial Number of the case : 161/2N )
(b The date of the commission : 30.10.2007
) of the offence
(c The name of the : Kumari Mansi D/o Sh.
) complainant Pardeep R/o H. No.
A-1943, Greenfield
Colony, Faridabad,
Haryana.
(d The name of the accused : Sh. Bhagwati Prasad S/o ) person, his parentage and Sh. Ravi Dutt R/o 389, residential address Devli Village, New Delhi.
Present Address:
Village Pakhi, PS Joshi Math, Chamoli Gharwal, Uttarakhand, (e The offence complained of : S. 279/337/338/304A IPC )
(f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty (g The final order : Convicted ) Case No. 161/2N Page No. 1 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad (h The date of the order : 02.07.2012 ) PROSECUTION CASE:
1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.10.2007 at 03.30 PM at Mathura Road leading towards Faridabad, the accused was driving Bus No. DL 1PB 3720 (Hereinafter 'offending vehicle) on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others and he caused death of Manu Gupta and grievous injuries to Satbir Singh (PW-5), and simple injuries to Sh. Simranjeet Singh (PW-4) and Ms. Mansi (PW-1) who were standing on the pavement under Modi Mill Flyover and fled from the spot. On completion of investigation, charge-
sheeted U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC was laid against the accused.
2. The Court had taken cognizance of offence U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC. The accused was supplied documents as per Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. Substance of accusation was put to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty of charges.
3. In Admission/Denial U/s 294 of the Cr. P. C., the accused admitted documents namely, the case FIR Ex.A1, DD No. 15-A Dt. 30.10.2007 Ex.A2, DD No. 29-A Dt 31.10.2007 Ex.A3, Seizure Memo of Bus and Bicycle Ex.A4, Notice U/s 133 MV Act Ex.A5, Personal Search Memo Ex.A6, Arrest Memo Ex.A-7, Seizure Memo of Driving Licence Ex.A-8, Mechanical Inspection Report of Bus Ex.A9, TIP Proceedings Ex.A10, MLC of Satbir Singh Ex.A11, MLC of Simranjeet Ex.A12, MLC of deceased Manu Gupta Ex.A13, Dead Body Identification Memos Ex.A-14 and Case No. 161/2N Page No. 2 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad Ex.A-15, Death Report Ex.A-16, Post Mortem Report of the deceased Ex.A17 and Dead body handing over Memo Ex.A-18.
4. To substantiate the above charges, the prosecution examined six witnesses namely Kumari Mansi (PW-1), Sh. V. K. Kapoor (PW2), Sh. Mahinder Rai (PW-3), Sh. Simranjeet Singh (PW-4), Sh. Satbir Singh (PW-5) and IO Insp. Ashok Kumar Singh (PW-6).
5. In his statement recorded U/s 313 of the Cr. P. C., accused pleaded innocence and alleged false implication. According to him, the bus was not in working order at the time of accident since it had no CNG. The bus was pulled by a crane from Khanpur to CNG Station at CRRI near Modi Mill Flyover. The bus was having speed of 10 Km. per hour. The chain with which the bus was tide suddenly broken due to which he could not control the bus and accident had taken place. He stated that he was on driving seat at that time. He stated that brakes were not functioning due to power break. He stated that there was a turning point. The bus did not climb over the pavement. He stated that he had not fled from the spot. He stated that he was not arrested at the spot. He also stated that no accident had taken and no one got injured.
6. PW-1 Ms. Mansi is the complainant in this case. She deposed that on 30.10.2007 she was standing at the bus stand along with three children in school dress. She deposed that at about 03.30 PM, a bus no. DL-1PB-3720 (Route No. 469) was coming down from Modi Mill Flyover and going towards Apollo Hospital. She deposed that the Case No. 161/2N Page No. 3 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad bus came over the pavement where she was standing with three children. She deposed that she tried to rescue herself and children. She deposed that the bus hit her from behind and due to this, she had fallen on the pavement.
7. According to PW-1 Ms. Mansi, she could not see the driver and therefore, she cannot identify him. The accused was shown to her. She could not identify the accused as driver of the bus. She deposed that the driver of the bus fled from the spot and he could not be apprehended on the spot. She deposed that there was no passenger in the bus at the time of accident. She deposed that conductor was also not there. She deposed that she got up and saw that the bus was standing over the pavement. She deposed that she had taken the said three children to Apollo Hospital in two auto-rickshaws. She deposed that she was medically examined and she had received abrasion marks. She deposed that no MLC was prepared. She deposed that police recorded her statement in Apollo Hospital. She signed the statement after going through her statement. She proved her statement Ex.PW-1/A. She deposed that IO had not prepared site plan at her instance. She deposed that her second statement was not recorded and she never met the police thereafter.
8. In her cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, she denied the suggestion that IO prepared Site Plan at her instance. She denied the suggestion that the accused present in the Court was driving the vehicle and caused the accident. She deposed that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and with a high speed due to which accident had taken place.
Case No. 161/2N Page No. 4 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad
9. PW-2 Sh. V. K. Kapoor is the owner of the offending vehicle. He stated that on 30.10.2007, he handed over the bus to the driver/accused and he drove the bus towards CNG Station beyond Modi Mill Flyover.
10. PW-2 Sh. V. K. Kapoor further deposed that the driver told him that there was no gas in the bus and the engine was not functioning and the accident had taken place under Modi Mill Flyover. He deposed that he received Notice U/s 133 MV Act Ex.PW-2/A to which he replied. He deposed that he got the bus released on superdari vide superdaginama Ex.PW-2/B.
11. PW-3 Sh. Mahinder Rai deposed that on the day of incident, he was going towards Badarpur from Ashram Road side. He deposed that when he reached near Modi Mill Flyover, one bus came from behind and hit his bicycle. He deposed that due to this, he fell down on the footpath and he received minor injury. He deposed that IO recorded his statement.
12. In his cross - examination by Ld. APP for the State, PW-3 Mahinder Rai denied the suggestion that on 30.10.2007 at 03.30 PM, when he reached near Modi Mill Flyover, one bus bearing no. DL - 1PB - 3720 (Route No.
469) was coming from behind with a high speed and hit his bicycle. He denied the suggestion that the accused/driver was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the accident had taken place due negligence of the accused and the driver/accused climbed over the footpath. He denied the suggestion that 3 male and 2 Case No. 161/2N Page No. 5 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad female got injured due to accident and 4 were shifted to Apollo Hospital for medical examination. He denied the suggestion that he had seen the driver at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the driver and the conductor fled from the spot. He stated that he never made any statement to the police.
13. PW-4 Sh. Simranjeet Singh deposed that on 27.10.2007 at 03.50 PM, he along with his friends namely Manu and Satbir was waiting for a bus on the footpath at Modi Mill Flyover. He deposed that one bus bearing no. 3720 was coming from Faridabad side and the driver of the bus over-ride the bus on the footpath and hit them. He deposed that the driver of the bus was driving the said bus with a high speed. He deposed that due to accident, he received injuries over his legs and head. He stated that he had seen the driver / accused at the spot. He stated he cannot identify the driver / accused present in the Court.
14. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, PW-4 Sh. Simranjeet Singh stated that the accident had taken place on 30.10.2007 at 03.30 PM at Modi Mill Flyover. He stated that the bus was coming from Faridabad side. He stated that accused / driver of the bus was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed and due to this, he over-ride the bus to footpath. He was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW4/A.
15. PW-5 Sh. Satbir Singh deposed that on 30.10.2007, he along with friends was standing on the footpath under Modi Mill Flyover. He deposed that one bus bearing no.DL-1PB-3720 coming from Modi Mill Flyover and Case No. 161/2N Page No. 6 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad going towards Faridabad. He deposed that the said bus struck against them and caused death of his friend namely Abhimanyu Gupta. He deposed that he got injuries in his legs and other parts of the body. He deposed that police came to the spot. He deposed that he became unconscious and regaining consciousness in the Apollo Hospital
16. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, PW-5 Sh. Satbir Singh stated that the accident had taken place due to negligent driving of the accused. He stated that it was a vacant bus. He stated that the speed of the bus was very high on the turning point and it climbed over the footpath where they were standing. He stated that there was no signal at the place of accident as it was a turning point. He stated that he could not see the person who was driving the offending vehicle as the accident had taken place and immediately, he became unconscious. He stated that he has not seen the accused earlier.
17. PW-6 Insp. Ashok Kumar Singh investigated the case. On 30.10.2007, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS New Friends Colony. He stated that on receipt of DD No.15A Ex.A2, he along with Ct. Yogesh reached at the spot at Mathura Road, Under Modi Mill Flyover, leading towards Faridabad. He deposed that at the spot, he found one bicycle and bus bearing no. DL 1PB 3720 in accidental condition. He deposed that he came to know that injured had been shifted to Apollo Hospital. He left Ct. Yogesh at the spot and he went to Apollo Hospital. He deposed that one of the injured was declared 'unfit for statement' whereas other injured were declared 'fit for statement' by the Doctor. He deposed that he recorded statement of Ms. Mansi and Case No. 161/2N Page No. 7 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad returned to the spot. He prepared ruqqa Ex.PW-6/A. He seized bicycle and the bus vide Seizure Memo Ex.A4. He sent ruqqa for registration of FIR through Ct. Yogesh and got the FIR registered. He deposed that in the mean-while, Ms. Mansi (PW-1) reached at the spot and he prepared Site Plan Ex.PW-6/B at her instance.
18. According to PW-6 Insp. Ashok Kumar Singh, Ct. Yogesh returned to the spot with a copy of FIR and original ruqqa. He recorded statement of Ct. Yogesh at the spot and thereafter, he reached to the Hospital and recorded statement of witnesses. He deposed that he seized vehicles vide Seizure Memo Ex.A5 and Ex.A6. He deposed that he got the vehicles mechanically inspected vide Ex.A21 and Ex.A22. He deposed that he served Notice U/s 133 MV Act Ex.A18. He deposed that he got post mortem of the deceased conducted. He deposed that on 09.10.2003, owner of the vehicle produced the accused. He arrested the accused vide Memo Ex.A19 and Ex.A20. He seized Driving Licence and badge of the accused, and Registration Certificate of the bus vide Ex.A13 to Ex.A15. He deposed that he presented challan against the accused.
19. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Sh. Vinay Kumar Verma, Advocate (LAC) for the accused and considered the evidence on record.
20. Ld. APP argued that the accused has not disputed the fact that he was driving the offending vehicle. He argued that the accused has taken the plea that the offending vehicle was being pulled by a crane and the connecting chain broken down which it resulted in the accident. He argued that the accused has neither suggested Case No. 161/2N Page No. 8 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad his version to the prosecution witnesses nor lead any evidence in this regard. He argued that PW-1 Ms. Mansi, PW-4 Sh. Simranjeet Singh and PW-5 Sh. Satbir Singh have proved that the accused was driving the offending bus with a high speed on a turning point and it climbed over the footpath and caused death of Sh. Manu Gupta and grievous injuries to Sh. Satbir and simple injuries to PW-1 Ms. Mansi and PW-4 Simranjeet Singh.
21. Ld. APP for the State argued that Post Mortem Report of Sh. Manu Gupta Ex.A-17 proves that he died of shock due to hemorrhage which could be possible in Road Traffic Accident. He argued that MLC of Sh. Satbir and Sh. Simranjeet Singh Ex.A11 and 12 prove that they suffered grievous injuries and simple injuries due to the accident caused by the accused. He argued that Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending vehicle Ex.A9 proves that front left bumber of the bus got damaged in accident. He argued that seal of the speed sensor was broken. He argued that accused was driving a public vehicle and he was supposed to observe high degree of diligence while driving on a public way. He argued that high degree of diligence and care is expected from a driver of public vehicle. He argued that the accused failed to observe road safety measures. He argued that the accused should have slowed down the offending vehicle on a turning point. He argued that the accused was driving the offending vehicle with a high speed on a turning point without caring for evil consequences which could follow. He argued that the accused was completely indifferent to evil consequence of driving with a high speed on a turning point. He argued that the offending vehicle climbed over the footpath and dashed Case No. 161/2N Page No. 9 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad against the persons standing there and this fact shows that the speed of the offending beyond control of the accused. He argued that the accused is guilty of causing death, simple and grievous injury by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on a public way and therefore, accused is liable to be held guilty for committing offences U/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC.
22. On the contrary, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that the prosecution witnesses have not identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. He argued that there is no photograph regarding the mode and manner of accident. He argued that the public witness namely Rajender not examined. He argued that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being pulled by a crane and it was not running on the road. He argued that the prosecution has not able to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle and further, that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on a public way. He argued that accused cannot be held guilty for committing offences U/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. He argued that the accused is entitled to be acquitted from charges U/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC.
23. Before considering merits of the prosecution case, let us have a glimpse of 304 A, IPC which is as under:
"304A. Causing death by negligence. - Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be Case No. 161/2N Page No. 10 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
24. In order to attract Section 304A IPC, three things are required to be proved. Firstly, the accused was driving the offending vehicle on a public way. Secondly, such driving or riding was rash or negligent and thirdly, he caused death of Sh. Manu Gupta by driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner.
25. Section 304-A applies to cases in which without any intention or knowledge death is caused by what is described as a rash and negligent act.
26. In State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar, AIR 2009 SC 1621; It was held that "6.......A negligent act is an act done without doing something which 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. Negligence is the genus, of which rashness is the species. It has sometimes been observed that in rashness the action is done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a hope that they will not. Lord Atkin in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) AC 576 at p.583 : 2 All ER 552) observed as under:
"Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough. For purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence; and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the felony is Case No. 161/2N Page No. 11 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad established. Probably of all the epithets that can be applied 'recklessness' most nearly covers the case. It is difficult to visualize a case of death, caused by reckless driving in the connotation of that term in ordinary speech which would not justify a conviction for manslaughter; but it is probably not all embracing, for 'recklessness' suggests an indifference to risk whereas the accused may have appreciated the risk and intended to avoid it, and yet shown in the means adopted to avoid the risk such a high degree of negligence as would justify a conviction."
27. Section 304-A applies to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304-A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. Criminal negligence is gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
28. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors.
Case No. 161/2N Page No. 12 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad
29. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. 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. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness, or indifference as to the consequences.
30. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway, J., in these words :
"Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the negligence of the civic duty of circumspection." (See In re: Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad HCR 119) Case No. 161/2N Page No. 13 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad
31. There is sufficient on record to prove that the offending bus was being driven rashly on a public way. PW-1 Mansi is the complainant and one of the injured persons. According to her, on 30.10.2007 at about 03.30 PM, she along with three children was standing on the Bus Stand and at that time, a bus bearing no. DL IPB 3720 coming down from Modi Flyover and heading towards Apollo Hospital. She deposed that the offending bus climbed over the pavement and hit her from behind. She deposed that the accused was driving the vehicle with high speed due to which accident had taken place. The defence failed to elicit anything from her cross-examination. Besides making suggestion that accused was not involved in the accident and falsely implicated in the case, her testimony was not challenged. Her testimony remained intact insofar as manner of accident is concerned.
32. Therefore, it is proved from the depositions of PW1 Mansi that the offending bus was coming down from Modi Mill Flyover with high speed and it climbed over the pavement and dashed against her.
33. PW-4 Sh. Simranjeet was also standing on the footpath and waiting for bus. According to him, on 30.10.2007 at 03.30 PM, he along with his friends namely Sh. Manu (deceased) and Sh. Satbir (PW-5) was standing on the footpath at Modi Mill Flyover and waiting for a bus. He deposed that one bus bearing no. DL 3720 was coming from Faridabad side and the driver of the bus climbed over the footpath and hit them. He deposed that he suffered injuries due to the said accident. He deposed that the driver of the bus was driving the bus with high speed and therefore, he Case No. 161/2N Page No. 14 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad climbed over the footpath. He proved his MLC Ex.PW-4/A (accused has not disputed his MLC vide Ex.A12). He suffered simple injuries due to the said accident. Testimony of this witness was also seriously disputed. Besides suggestion that the accused was not involved in the accident, the defence has not disputed the manner of driving, factum of accident and injuries to PW-4 Simranjeet Singh on account of accident.
34. PW-5 Sh. Satbir Singh was also one of injured persons. According to him, on 30.10.2007, he along with his friends was standing on the footpath under Modi Mill Flyover. He deposed that one bus bearing no. DL 1 PB 3720 coming from Modi Mill Flyover and heading towards Faridabad struck against them and caused death of his friend Abhmanyu Gupta. He also suffered injuries to his legs and other parts of his body and became unconscious on the spot.
35. According to PW-5 Satbir Sing, the speed of the bus was very high on the turning point and it climbed over the footpath where they standing. He deposed that there was no signal at the site of accident as it was a turning point. His depositions not disputed by the defence. Besides making suggestion that the accused was not involved in the accident, his testimony remained challenged on material particulars.
36. It is therefore, proved that the offending bus was driven with high speed over turning point and therefore, it climbed over the footpath where PW-5 was standing and caused death of Manu Gupta and grievous injuries to PW-5.
Case No. 161/2N Page No. 15 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad MLC of PW-5 Satbir Singh Ex.A11 that he suffered grievous injuries. MLC Ex.A13 of the deceased Manu Gupta that he was admitted with feeble pulse and severe abdomen pain. Post Mortem Report of the deceased Manu Gupta Ex.A17 proved that he died of shock due to hemorrhage on account of Road Traffic Accident.
37. Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending bus Ex.A9 proves that the left bumber of the bus was broken.
38. In his examination U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused taken the plea that the bus was out of CNG and it was pulled by a crane to CNG filling station and it was having a speed of 10 km per hour. He deposed that he had not fled from the spot. He stated that there was a turning point and he was not driving the bus. He stated that he was sitting on the steering wheel of the bus. He deposed that no accident had taken place and the bus had not climbed over the pavement.
39. The defence has not made any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that the bus was being pulled by a crane. There is clear deposition of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 that the bus was coming down from Modi Mill flyover with a high speed and it climbed over the pavement. The accused could not control the speed of the bus at turning point and therefore, it climbed over the pavement and caused death of Sh. Manu Gupta and grievous injuries to PW-5, and simple injuries to PW-1 Ms. Mansi and PW-4 Sh. Simranjeet Singh.
40. Therefore, it is proved on record that the offending bus was driven with recklessness. The driver of a Case No. 161/2N Page No. 16 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad bus should drive the bus at a slow speed when it is coming down from a flyover and further, when there is a turning point. The fact that the offending bus climbed over the pavement and caused death of persons standing at a bus stand is itself proof of the fact that offending vehicle was driven with high speed at turning point while coming down from a flyover. The accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness since he had taken due care while driving the bus down from a flyover at a turning point. The accused driven the offending bus with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused. The accused had run the risk of driving with high speed at a turning point while coming down from a flyover with recklessness, or indifference as to the consequences. The offending bus was driven at a high speed on a turning point while coming down from a flyover with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequence will follow but with the hope that it will not. It is proved that the offending bus was driven rashly.
41. In the present case, the defence has raised the plea that the prosecution witnesses have not identified the accused as driver of the offending vehicle and therefore, there is no evidence to show that the accused was driving the offending vehicle.
42. PW-2 Sh. V. K. Kapoor is the owner of the offending vehicle. In his depositions, he stated that on 30.10.2007, he had handed over the bus no. DL 1PB 3720 to the accused and he drove the bus towards CNG Filling Station. He deposed that the accused told him that the Case No. 161/2N Page No. 17 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad accident had taken place under Modi Mill Flyover. The defence has not challenged his testimony that the said bus was not being driven by accused at the time of the accident.
43. The accused has given false answers to the questions put U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. He stated that the bus was pulled by a crane and it was not running. He stated that speed of the bus was not high and it did not climb over the pavement. He stated that he was just sitting on the steering wheel of the bus and no accident had taken place. He stated that no one had suffered injury and front bumper of the bus got damaged since the connecting chain had broken. These answers are false in view of credible testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5. There is not even a suggestion to PWs that the bus was tied with a crane with a chain.
44. The Court can draw adverse inference against the accused for giving false answers to the questions put under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Examination of accused U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality.
45. In Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 2352; 125.....While answer given by the accused to question put under Section 313 of the Code are not per se evidence because, firstly, it is not on oath and, secondly, the other party i.e., the prosecution does not get an opportunity to cross-examine the accused, it is nevertheless subject to consideration by the Court to the limited extent of drawing an adverse inference against such accused for any false answers voluntarily offered by him and to provide an additional/missing link in the chain of circumstances. It was further held that "130....This Court Case No. 161/2N Page No. 18 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad has time and again held that where an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference qua him and such an inference shall become an additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused."
46. In Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3570; It was held that "In other words, the use is permissible as per the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations. The Courts may rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution, however, such statements made under this Section should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution.
47. Admissions made by an accused in answers to question U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. can be legally taken into consideration in judging his guilt or innocence. Admission of the accused that he was driving the offending bus cannot be treated as an in-culpatory statement.
48. In the case of Vijendrajit v. State of Bombay [AIR 1953 SC 247], the Court held as under :
"(3)..................As the appellant admitted that he was in charge of the godown, further evidence was not led on the point. The Magistrate was in this situation fully justified in referring to the statement of the accused under S.342 as supporting the prosecution case concerning the possession of the godown. The contention that the Magistrate made use of the inculpatory part of the accused's statement and excluded the exculpatory part does not seem to be correct.
Case No. 161/2N Page No. 19 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad The statement under S.342 did not consist of two portions, part inculpatory and part exculpatory. It concerned itself with two facts. The accused admitted that he was in charge of the godown, he denied that the rectified spirit was found in that godown. He alleged that the rectified spirit was found outside it. This part of his statement was proved untrue by the prosecution evidence and had no intimate connection with the statement concerning the possession of the godown."
49. In State of U.P. v. Lakhmi, AIR 1998 SC1007; In very rare instances accused may even admit or own incriminating circumstances adduced against him, perhaps for the purpose of adopting legally recognised defences. In all such cases the Court gets the advantage of knowing his version about those aspects and it helps the Court to effectively appreciate and evaluate the evidence in the case. If an accused admits any incriminating circumstance appearing in evidence against him there is no warrant that those admissions should altogether be ignored merely on the ground that such admissions were advanced as a defence strategy.
50. The accused in reply to q.1, q.2, q.6, q.7, q.12, q. 15, q.18, q.19 and q.20 clearly stated that he was just sitting on the steering wheel of the bus which was pulled by a crane. In his statement recorded on 19.04.2012, the accused stated that he was on the driving seat of the bus.
51. Therefore, it is proved on record that the accused was driving the offending bus at the time of the accident.
Case No. 161/2N Page No. 20 of 21 State v. Bhagwati Prasad
52. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused was driving the offending bus and further, that the accused was driving the offending bus rashly on a public way and thereby, he caused death of Sh. Manu Gupta, grievous injuries to PW-5 Satbir Singh and simple injuries to PW-1 Ms. Mansi and PW-4 Simranjeet Singh.
53. Accordingly, the accused Bhagwati Prasad is herby held guilty for committing offences U/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC.
54. A copy of the judgment given to the accused free of cost.
Announced in the open Court on 02.07.2012 (SANJAY SHARMA) ACMM - 01/SE, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Case No. 161/2N Page No. 21 of 21