Delhi District Court
State vs . Raj Kumar Saini on 30 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI FIR No. : 311/04 PS : Paschim Vihar Offence complained of : 279/304A IPC Date of commission of offence : 11.05.2004 C C No. : 704/2/10 State vs. Raj Kumar Saini S/o Late Sh. Dharam Pal Saini R/o C-1/8, Janta Flats, Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi-85 .............. Accused ASI Radhey Shyam PS Paschim Vihar ........... Complainant Date of Institution : 07.02.2005 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. Date of reserving judgment/ order : 30.09.2014 Date of pronouncement : 30.09.2014 Final Order : Acquitted BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION 1.
Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/304A IPC.
ALLEGATIONS FIR No. 311/04 State Vs. Raj Kumar Saini U/s.279/304A IPC 1/7
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 11.05.2004 at about 12.42 am opposite Hero Honda Show Room, Power House, near Red Light, Paschim Vihar, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Paschim Vihar, the accused Raj Kumar Saini was driving a vehicle i.e maruti van bearing registration number DL7CB 0649 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in such a manner, he hit against one pedestrian namely Anil Rajoria and caused his death not amounting to culpable homicide. Thus, accused Raj Kumar Saini is alleged to have committed offence punishable under section 279/304A IPC.
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 311/04 under section 279/304A IPC was lodged at Police Station Paschim Vihar.
CHARGE
4. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 07.02.2005. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the charge- sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 279/304A IPC was framed against accused Raj Kumar Saini to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 13.09.2005.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTION
5. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:-
1. That the accident actually took place.
2. That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
FIR No. 311/04 State Vs. Raj Kumar Saini U/s.279/304A IPC 2/7
3. That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
6. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 9 witnesses of which PW Nitish D Costa is the sole eye witness. However, the said witnesses has remained unserved even through DCP concerned. Vide order dated 26.08.2014, the name of the said witness was dropped from the list of witnesses.
7. Prosecution has examined three witnesses i.e (1) HC Raja Ram, (2) Rakesh Rajori (3) Ct. Hanuman.
8. PW-1 HC Raja Ram proved the FIR as Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW1/B.
9. PW-2 Rakesh Rajori deposed that in the year 2004 he was working in London and he received an information that his father Sh. Anil Rajoria had expired in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, he came to India and on 12.05.2004 he went to the mortuary, DDU hospital and identified the dead body of his father. IO recorded his statement which is Ex. PW2/A. After postmortem he received the dead body vide memo Ex. PW2/B. During cross examination, he stated that IO recorded his statement in the hospital. He made both the statement at one time and signed the same.
10.PW-3 Ct. Hanuman deposed that on 11.05.2004 he was posted at PS Paschim Vihar. On that day, on receipt of DD No.36B again said 26B, he along with ASI Radhey Shyam reached in front of Hero Honda Showroom. Upon reaching the spot, they found one maruti van bearing no. DL3CB 0649. At the spot, it was revealed that the injured had been removed to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital by a PCR FIR No. 311/04 State Vs. Raj Kumar Saini U/s.279/304A IPC 3/7 Van. IO left the witness at the spot and went to hospital. IO came back at the spot and prepared rukka and rukka was handed over to the witness. Accordingly, he went to PS Paschim Vihar got the FIR registered and came back at the spot and handed over copy of rukka and FIR to the IO. Thereafter, they went to the address of the driver of the offending vehicle at JH-14 but nobody met there. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP after taking permission from the court. During cross examination by Ld. APP, he admitted that Maruti van bearing no. DL7CB 0649 is the offending vehicle. He admitted that IO seized the Maruti van no. DL7CB 0649 vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. He admitted that on 14.05.2004 he joined the investigation of the case and on that day, the registered owner of the offending vehicle i.e Maruti Van namely Surender Saini came to PS in pursuant to notice under Section 133 M V Act. He produced accused Raj Kumar in the court and stated that accused Raj Kumar was driving the offending Maruti Van on 11.05.2004 and caused the accident. PW-3 further deposed that on that day, eye witness Nitesh D Costa also came to the PS and identified accused Raj Kumar being a driver of offending vehicle Maruti Van. He admitted that on 14.05.2004 IO arrested the accused Raj Kumar vide memo Ex. PW3/B and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW3/C and seized the driving license of the accused vide memo Ex. PW3/D.
11.During cross examination, they received the above mentioned DD Number at about 12.40 am on 11.05.2004. The place of incident is about 1 Km away from the PS. He along with IO went to the place of incident on a motorcycle which was owned by the IO. It took 15-20 minutes to reach the spot. The IO took the photographs and made the site plan. Prior to that IO went to hospital. After 1½ FIR No. 311/04 State Vs. Raj Kumar Saini U/s.279/304A IPC 4/7 hours, the IO came back to the spot. IO took the photographs of the place of incident and prepared the site plan and also prepared the rukka and sent him to get the case registered. He came back to the spot after 1 ½ hour after getting the FIR registered. He went to PS on foot and came back on a motorcycle but he did not remember its registration number. IO removed the offending vehicle to the PS with the help of crane but he did not remember as to who had arranged the crane. It was about 2.30 am but he did not remember the date. He did not know what were the proceedings conducted in the PS. Witness stated that he did not join any other proceedings or investigation in respect of the present case after the visit of the house of the registered owner. He denied the suggestion that he never went to the spot or participated in the investigation.
12.All the other remaining witnesses are merely formal witnesses, sufficient only to prove that one person had died and that an FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged on the same day at PS Paschim Vihar vide FIR bearing No.311/04. None of them is a witness to the accident,
13.In absence of the testimony of the sole eye witness, the prosecution can never prove that the accident in the present case was a result of an act of accused and that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing number DL7CB 0649 which was being driven by the accused Raj Kumar Saini in a rash and negligent manner.
14.The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/s 279/304A IPC. The case is at the stage of PE, however, in absence of the testimony of sole eye witness, there is nothing incriminating against the accused for proceeding further and recording FIR No. 311/04 State Vs. Raj Kumar Saini U/s.279/304A IPC 5/7 the statement of remaining formal witnesses would be futile and wastage of judicial time, resources and money.
15.In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge."
16.It has been held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put to an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted".
FIR No. 311/04 State Vs. Raj Kumar Saini U/s.279/304A IPC 6/7
17.Accordingly, in view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/304A IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused. Statement is accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is also dispensed with.
Final Order
18.In absence of the testimony of eye-witness Nitish D. Costa and in the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under S. 258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Raj Kumar Saini qua offences u/s 279/304A IPC and hereby releases the accused Raj Kumar Saini under sections 279/304A IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
19.As per section 437A Cr.P.C accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount. ANNOUNCED ON 30.09.2014 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court/30.09.2014 Certified that this judgment contains 7 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court/30.09.2014 FIR No. 311/04 State Vs. Raj Kumar Saini U/s.279/304A IPC 7/7