Delhi District Court
State vs . Jag Jeewan Singh on 20 January, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/ NEW DELHI.
State Vs. JAG JEEWAN SINGH
FIR No: 39/98
U/s: : 279/304 A IPC
P.S. : TUGLAK ROAD
JUDGEMENT
1. Sl. No. of the case : 453/2
2. Date of commission of offence :20.02.1998
3. Name of the complainant :Sh. Rakesh Rao S/o Sh.
Ram Chander R/o D2/94, East Kidwai Nagar, Delhi
4. Name of accused :Jag Jeewan Singh S/o Sh. Swaran Singh R/o S-124, Tajpur Pahari, Badarpur, Delhi
5. Offence complained off: :U/s 279/304 A IPC
6. Plea of the accused :pleaded not guilty
7. Final Arguments heard on :20.01.2010
8. Final Order :Acquitted
9. Date of such order :20.01.2010 2 BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.02.1998 at about 7.50 PM at Aurbindo Chowk, the accused was driving a blue line bus no.
DL 1P 0664 in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others and while driving the aforesaid vehicle in a aforesaid manner, the accused hit a pedestrian namely Tilak Raj Sharma and caused his death.
2. After the completion of investigation, challan U/s 279/304 A IPC was filed. Accused was summoned and notice U/s 251 Cr. PC was framed against the accused for the above said offences on 28.08.1998 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. SI Mahender was examined as PW 1, Sh. Amar Nath was examined as PW 2, Dr. Rajiv Sharma was examined as PW 3, HC Ram Kewal was examined as PW 4, Sh. Deen Dayal, record clerk, RML hospital was examined as PW 5, Retired SI Jaipal Singh was examined as PW 6, Sh. Kanwardeep was examined as PW 7, Sh. Brijlal Sharma was examined as PW 8, Sh. Rakesh Rao, who is the complainant as well as the only eye witness was examined as PW 9, SI Kishan Chand (Retd) was examined as PW 10, Retired SI Kedar Nath was examined as PW 11. Thereafter, PE was closed.
4. Documents were exhibited as under:
(i) Carbon copy of FIR is exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A.
(ii) The postmortem report prepared by Dr. Ravi Goel is exhibited as Ex. PW 3/A. 3
(iii) The MLC is exhibited as Ex. PW 5/A.
(iv) The statement of Rakesh Rao was recorded by Retired SI Jaipal Singh is exhibited as Ex. PW 6/A.
(v) Retired SI Jaipal Singh prepared rukka vide memo Ex. PW 6/B.
(vi) The site plan is exhibited as Ex. PW 6/C.
(vii) Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 6/D.
(viii) The bus and the DL of accused were seized vide memo Ex. PW 6/E & Ex. PW 6/F.
(ix) The bus was mechanically examined as Ex. PW 6/G.
(x) After the postmortem, the body of deceased was handed over to relatives of the deceased vide memo Ex. PW 6/H & Ex. PW 6/I.
(xi) The bus bearing no. DL 1P 0664 was released on superdari to Sh. Kanwardeep vide memo Ex. PW 7/A.
5. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. PC r/w 281 Cr. PC was recorded. Accused denied the prosecution story. Accused stated that it was not his fault and the injured/deceased came in front of left side of the vehicle suddenly and he could not see him. Accused did not lead defence evidence.
6. Final arguments heard from the Ld. APP for State and from the Ld. Counsel for accused. Record perused and considered.
7. The accused is charged for the offence U/s 279 IPC and U/s 304 A IPC. Before appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is necessary to know the ingredients of Section 279 IPC and 304 A IPC.
4Section 279 of Indian Penal Code provides:
Rash driving or riding on a public way- Whoever drives any vehicle or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Ingredients of Section 279 is driving or riding any vehicle on a public way rashly or negligently.
The basic ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that a person drives any vehicle in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
Section 304 A of Indian Penal Code provides:
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 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Ingredients of Section 304 A is causing death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act.
In both the Sections, the important point to prove is rash or negligent act.
8. Ld. Counsel for accused relied upon the following ruling:
(a) Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972, Supreme Court 221
9. PW 9, Rakesh Rao is the only eye witness in the present case. All other witnesses are formal in nature. As per the prosecution story, PW 9 had seen the accident. PW 9 deposed in his evidence 5 "When the bus reached near Safdarjung Madarsa bus stop (Aurbindo Chowk), there was a red light when the light turned green, the driver suddenly started the bus, a person who was coming from race course side who tried to cross the road and came under the wheels of the bus.
The accused present today in the Court was driving the said offending bus."
PW 9 deposed in his cross examination "The deceased was got hitted by the left side of the bus. At the time of accident, the driver did not try to ran away from the spot and immediately stopped the bus. PW 9 who is the complainant in this case has stated in his complaint Ex. PW 6/A that the offending bus was standing at the red light and a person was trying to cross the road and the light turned green and the bus driver started bus and the person who was crossing the road was hitted by the bus."
10. The facts of the present case are similar to the Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs State of Maharashtra in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "If a pedestrian suddenly crosses a road without taking note of the approaching bus there is every possibility of his dashing against the bus without the driver becoming aware of it. The bus driver cannot save accident, however slowly he may be driving and therefore he cannot be held to be negligent in such a case.
11. Considering the deposition of PW 9 who is the complainant in the present case, I am of the considered view that Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt that accused was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently and due to his rashness, the accident was caused. The ruling relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused 6 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As the Prosecution fails to prove its case against accused, therefore, accused Jag Jeewan Singh is acquitted for offence U/s 279 and 304 A IPC. Bonds are discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court PRITAM SINGH
Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi
20.01.2010