Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijay Singh on 11 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03, NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Vijay Singh
FIR No. 286/07
PS. Jahangir Puri
U/s. 279/304A IPC
CIS No. 5285617/2016
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission : 28.04.2007
of offence
2) The name of the complainant : ASI Jagbir Singh
3) The name & parentage
of accused : Vijay Singh
S/o Sh. Jaipal
Singh
4) Offence complained of : U/s. 279/304A IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 11.05.2018
Date of Institution : 02.04.2008
Judgment reserved on : 04.05.2018
Judgment announced on : 11.05.2018
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1.Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on CIS No. 5285617/2016, FIR No. 286/07, PS. Jahangir Puri State Vs. Vijay Singh 1/9 28.04.2007 at about 4.25AM at outer Ring road, bypass, towards Mukarba Chowk, near Delhi Fire Bridge, Jahangir Puri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS. Jahangir Puri, accused Vijay Singh was driving the vehicle i.e Canter bearing registration No. HR 38M 0960 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the said vehicle in aforementioned manner, he struck the said vehicle against a bus bearing no. DL 1PA 3689, which was stationed there and as a result of which, driver of the said bus namely Satish Kumar, who was sleeping at the top of the bus fell down from the bus, who succumbed to his injuries and thereby accused committed offence punishable u/s 279/304A IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for offence u/s. 279/304A IPC was prepared and filed in the court against the accused whereupon cognizance was taken.
3. After complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C, arguments on notice were heard and vide order dated 22.01.2011, Notice was served to the accused for offence u/s. 279/304A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In Prosecution evidence, the prosecution got examined six witnesses. PW1 Rakesh Kumar deposed of identifying dead body of his brother at mortuary of BJRM Hospital vide memo Ex.
CIS No. 5285617/2016, FIR No. 286/07, PS. Jahangir Puri State Vs. Vijay Singh 2/9 PW1/A. PW 2 Sunita Devi deposed of identifying dead body of her husband at mortuary of BJRM hospital vide memo Ex. PW2/A.
5. PW 3 Rohtash deposed that he had no knowledge about the present case and nothing happened before him. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for State on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police. In his cross examination, PW3 denied that his cousin brother Satish was sleeping on the roof of bus no. DL 1PA 3689 and then a Canter no. HR 38N 0960 came from the side of Burari with fast speed and in rash and negligent manner and hit the bus from behind due to which Satish fell down on the road and succumbed to his injuries. He also denied that accused present in the Court caused the accident in his presence or that accused was arrested in his presence. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW 4 Anil Sharma deposed of taking photographs of the vehicles in question at the spot, Photographs are Ex. PW4A and Ex. PW4/B respectively.
7. PW 5 Sanjay Kumar deposed that he did not remember the date, month and year but in the night, he was sitting on the rear seat of the bus driven by Manoj; that he did not know how and for whose rashness and negligence, the accident took place. He further stated that he lost his consciousness; that he did not remember CIS No. 5285617/2016, FIR No. 286/07, PS. Jahangir Puri State Vs. Vijay Singh 3/9 whether his statement was recorded by the police or not but they made enquries from him.
8. PW 5 was cross examined by Ld. APP for State on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police. In his cross examination, PW5 stated that he was not able to recollect whether the accident took place on 28.04.2007. He furhter stated that he cannot say whether accused was driving the vehicle in fast speed and in rash and negligent manner as he was sleeping. He denied that accused was driving the truck in a high speed due to the long journey and in rash and negligent manner or that he asked him many time to drive carefully but accused did not pay any heed or that accused hit the truck in a standing bus bearing no. DL 1PA 3689 from behind by driving in rash and negligent manner. He denied that accused Vijay, who was present in the Court was driving the said truck and Manoj was not driving the same.
9. PW (numbered again as PW5) Gayaseram deposed that he did not know anything about the present case; that his bus was driven by Rajender Singh and there was one another driver, whose name he did not remember. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for State on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police. In his cross examination, he admitted that on 27.04.2007, his bus bearing no. DL 1PA 3689 was plying on the CIS No. 5285617/2016, FIR No. 286/07, PS. Jahangir Puri State Vs. Vijay Singh 4/9 route medial to medical. He denied that the driver Satish was driving his above mentioned bus. He also denied that after finishing of duty, he alongwith driver Satish and his brother were returning via Ring road to village Mukhemel Pur or that at about 9.30PM at outer ring road, near fire station, bus was breakdown due to the smoke from the engine. He also denied that after asking the driver, he left for his home or that on the next day, he visited the workshop at Siras Pur mod, however, he did not find his bus there. He also denied that he visited the spot, where he found his bus in accidental condition. He denied that one Canter hit the above said bus from behind. He also denied that deceased Satish was his driver of the abovesaid bus.
10. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW Gayaseram stated that on 27.04.2007, his bus was plying on route medical to medical and Rajender Singh and one another driver whose name, he did not remember, were posted on said bus. He further stated that in the night of 27.04.2007, he had not taken his bus to workshop.
11. Summon to PW Rajpal, owner of vehicle in question bearing no. HR 38 M 0960, were issued several times on his given address, however, he was reportedly not found residing at the given address. Hence, the said PW remained untraceable despite issuance of summons to him several times. After affording sufficient CIS No. 5285617/2016, FIR No. 286/07, PS. Jahangir Puri State Vs. Vijay Singh 5/9 opportunities to the prosecution to lead evidence, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 04.04.2018.
12. After prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein accused pleaded innocence and has false implication in the present case. He opted not to lead defence evidence.
13. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
14. 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.
15. In the present case, PW3 Rohtash and PW 5 Sanjay Kumar are stated to be the eyewitnesses of the incident in question, who could have testified regarding the mode and manner in which offending vehicle was driven by the accused to bring home guilt of the accused in the present case. However, the said witnesses completely failed to support the prosecution case. PW 3 Rohtash denied of having any knowledge about the present case. He denied of witnessing the incident. Moreover, PW 5 Sanjay Kumar deposed that he was sitting on the rear seat of the bus driven by Manoj; that CIS No. 5285617/2016, FIR No. 286/07, PS. Jahangir Puri State Vs. Vijay Singh 6/9 he did not know for whose rashness and negligence, the accident took place and he lost his consciousness. The said witnesses were also cross examined by Ld. APP for State, however nothing material from their cross examination which would make accused liable for the incident in question. During cross examination by Ld. APP for State, PW 3 Rohtash stated that he was not present at the place of incident. He denied that the accused, who was present in the Court, caused accident in his presence or that accused was arrested in his presence.
16. PW 5 Sanjay Kumar in his cross examination by Ld. APP for State, stated that he cannot tell whether accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as he was sleeping. He denied that accused hit the truck in a standing bus bearing no. DL 1PA 3689 from behind by driving in rash and negligent manner. He also denied that accused Vijay, who was present in the Court, was driving the said truck and Manoj was not driving the same. Hence, PW 5 Sanjay Kumar has even disputed the identity of driver of the offending vehicle and categorically denied that it was driven by accused Vijay. PW Gayaseram, owner of bus in question bearing no. DL 1PA 3689, though not quoted as the eyewitness of the incident in question, also failed to support the prosecution case and also disputed the identity of driver of his aforesaid bus on the date of incident i.e 27.04.2007. He also denied that deceased Satish was the driver of his abovementioned bus. In his cross examination by CIS No. 5285617/2016, FIR No. 286/07, PS. Jahangir Puri State Vs. Vijay Singh 7/9 Ld. Counsel for accused, he stated that one another driver Rajinder Singh and one another driver, whose he name he did not remember, were posted on the said bus. Hence, none of the aforesaid so called eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution supported the prosecution case. Even the identity of accused being the driver of offending vehicle is also disputed by PW 5 Sanjay Kumar. There is no evidence available on record to show that accused was driving the vehicle in question in rash and negligent manner which caused incident in question and consequent injuries and death of Sh. Satish.
17. Other witnesses examined by the prosecution are the formal witnesses who were admittedly not present at the given time and place of incident. None of them had even seen the accused driving the offending vehicle. Material available on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case.
18. It is settled preposition that the prosecution has to prove the guilt against 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 to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, are to be CIS No. 5285617/2016, FIR No. 286/07, PS. Jahangir Puri State Vs. Vijay Singh 8/9 borne in mind.
19. In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused for offence u/s 279/304A IPC. Accordingly, accused Vijay Singh is acquitted of the said offences U/s. 279/304A IPC.
Announced in open court (SACHIN GUPTA)
on 11th day of May, 2018 MM03/NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS/DELHI
11.05.2015
CIS No. 5285617/2016, FIR No. 286/07, PS. Jahangir Puri State Vs. Vijay Singh 9/9