Delhi District Court
State vs Sapna Khosla on 26 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. KRATIKA CHATURVEDI
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04 (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Sapna Khosla
FIR No : 654/06
U/s : 279/338/420/325 IPC
P.S. : Janakpuri
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020064822019
2. Date of commission of offence : 01.07.2006
3. Date of institution of the case : 09.02.2007
4. Name of the complainant : Ms. Neeta
5. Name of accused, parentage &
Address : Sapna Khosla w/o Sh.
Deepak Khosla R/o C-
4F/91, Janak Puri, Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 279/338/420/325 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Convicted u/sec 279/338
IPC
Acquitted u/sec 420/325
IPC
9. Date of final order : 26.03.2024
Argued by:- Mr. Manish Sidhawat, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. M.C. Jain, Ld. Counsel for accused.
FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 1 of 38
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX:
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 01.07.2006 at about 6:30 p.m., on the road besides the side wall of Flat No. 260, C4-B, Pocket 13, Janakpuri, Delhi, the accused, i.e., Sapna Khosla was found driving the vehicle bearing no. DL-9CP-4662 in a rash and negligent manner and had hit against the complainant, Ms. Neeta and caused grievous injuries to her. It is further the case of the prosecution that after hitting the complainant, the accused had intentionally run the car on the foot of the complainant and crushed it resulting into grievous injuries. Also, the accused had handed over the copy of the driving license i.e., P04062004397491 to the police officers when her original license was demanded with the intention to cheat the police officials. As such, it is alleged that the accused, Sapna Khosla has committed the offence punishable under section 279/338/420/325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), for which FIR No. 654/2006 was registered at the police station Janakpuri, Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED:
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused was filed. The court took the cognizance against the accused and summons were issued to the accused. On her appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 2 of 38 of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused, charge under section 279/338/420 IPC was framed against the accused on 08.07.2007. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide order dated 20.06.2015 passed by Ld. CMM (West), the charge was altered and in addition to the charges already framed, charge under section 325 IPC was also directed to be framed against the accused which was framed against the accused on 11.02.2020.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Ms. Neeta PW-2 Dr. RK Kapoor PW-3 Dr. AC Khosla PW-4 ASI Satbir Singh PW-5 Dr. Vivek Khanna PW-6 Dr. Gopal Goel PW-7 ASI Uttam Chand PW-8 ASI Shabbir Hussain PW-9 Ct. Gyan Das PW-10 Sh. Sudhir Jain PW-11 Sh. Devinder Kumar PW-12 Inspector Renu Sharma PW-13 SI Balram PW-14 Sh. Chittar Singh DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A Original prescription of the complainant Ex.PW-1/B Complaint to PS Janakpuri Ex. PW-1/C Complaint u/sec 200 CrPC Ex.PW-1/D Letter dated 13.10.2006 FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 3 of 38 Ex.PW-1/E Letter dated 15.10.2006 Ex. PW-1/F Complaint dated 13.10.2006 Ex. PW-1/G Letter dated 16.10.2006 Ex.PW-1/H Letter dated 26.10.2006 ExPW-1/I Letter dated 29.11.2006 Ex.PW-1/J Disability certificate Ex.PW-1/K Medical bills (colly) Ex.PW-4/A Copy of FIR Ex.PW-4/B Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW-5/A Certificate from the Dr. Vivek Khanna Ex.PW-6/A Prescription Ex.PW-6/B Advise of Dr. Gopal Goel Ex.PW-7/A DD No. 29 Ex.PW-8/A DD register Ex.PW-10/A Report regarding license Ex.PW-11/A Mechanical inspection report Ex.PW-12/A Seizure memo of original license Ex.PW-12/B Notice to the accused Ex.PW-12/C Request letter to Motor Licensing Authority Ex.PW-13/A Rukka Ex.PW-13/B Site plan Ex.PW-13/C Arrest memo Ex.PW-13/D Seizure memo of DL by SI Balram Ex.PW-13/E Seizure memo of offending vehicle Ex.PW-14/A Record pertaining to offending vehicle Ex.PW-14/B Computer generated copy of details of vehicle
4. PW-1 Ms. Neeta, has deposed that on 01.07.2006 it was Saturday at around 6.00 pm, she was coming to her house from the gate of C4/B of Pocket 14. She was walking left side of the road in a proper manner and there was day light at that time. When she was near the side wall of flat no.260 or 259, one Alto car no. DL9CP 4662 came from her back side and hit her. It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The speed breakers were omitted. Due to impact, she fell on the FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 4 of 38 road and instead of stopping the car her right foot was crushed by the driver of the said car and it was taken away. Many persons of locality came there and tried to stop the car. Instead of stopping the accused took the vehicle in the flat no.206 and hid herself. With the help of the persons who had come there she went to flat no.206. As this floor was one first floor, she remained downstairs while people tried to get the accused down. The accused lady who was driving the vehicle came out from the flat but managed to run away. Occupants of flat no.205 and 206 had not cooperated to apprehend the accused lady. The local police called at the spot and husband of the accused also came there with the accused. The accused started quarrelling with her and started pulling her hair and abusing her. Accused had also given beatings to her as to how she called her husband. The said locality person rescued her from accused and informed police on PCR. Before reaching of police, the persons of locality took her to the nursing home situated near the spot as she was in an injured condition. She reached at Khana Nursing Home at about 6.30 PM. She was not attended by the doctors at Khana Nursing Home. All the persons who had accompanied her were asked to leave the nursing home. At about 7.00 pm, Ct. Raghunath of PCR came to her and noted her name and address. She was not attended by Dr. Khanna and even first aid was not provided to her.
Even on her request for shifting her to another hospital, she was not given any treatment for shifting to another hospital. The said Constable was accompanied by husband of accused. Name of accused lady was disclosed on inquiry as Sapna and name of her husband was disclosed as Deepak. She told the FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 5 of 38 police of PCR that she wanted to lodge the FIR. She asked the doctor to the start the treatment and told her that local police are being called and even then, she was not attended by Dr. Khanna. At about 9 pm, ASI Uttam Chand came to her with husband of accused. Despite the fact that there was bleeding from her elbow, knee and feet and that she was feeling painful, ASI Uttam Chand declared that there was no need for X-ray and pain will go on application of Iodex only. On her several requests, X-ray was done at 8.30 pm. IO asked her to put her signature on a blank sheet which she refused. IO compelled her to sign on the same sheet saying that his duty was upto this time only some other police official will come to record her statement. She had requested that X-ray technician to perform the X-ray of her back but he refused saying that Dr. Khanna had not asked for the same. She remained unattended at Nursing home and her leg was plastered by Dr. Kapoor at 10.40 pm. Her MLC was not prepared and she was discharged at about 11.30 pm. Due to constant presence of husband of accused, her MLC was not prepared. She was compelled to write on the letter head of Khanna Nursing home that "No Police Inquiry" for giving her discharge. A prescription was issued to her without showing her injuries. He has brought the original prescription. She was not provided the X-ray report, X-ray plate, details of bills and MLC. Whenever, she tried to contact police for registration of case, accused threatened her. On 02.07.2006, accused had forcefully entered into her house with four male persons and started threatening her. Her neighbours had also came there being friend of accused. Accused had threatened her not to FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 6 of 38 lodge the police report saying that police is in their hand. She had visited her house on 15.10.2006 and also threatened her. She used to inform this to police but instead of taking any action against accused, police helped the accused. As soon as her plaster was removed, she went to the PS Janakpuri and gave her written complaint to the police. On 11.04.2007 a report was given by Dr. Khanna showing her injuries to be grievous caused by blunt object without giving details of her injuries. She had lodged complaint against Dr. Khanna in Medical Council and Health Ministry. Police had prepared wrong site plan. She had also filed a letter dated 13.10.2006 alongwith her complaint, letter dated 15.10.2006 and another complaint dated 13.10.2006 to the DCP. She has correctly identified the accused. In her cross examination, she stated that the accident occurred on 01.07.2006 vide DD no.29A. Her treatment was done in the Khanna Nursing Home. There is no MLC of Khanna Nursing Home on record. She was under treatment and bedridden that is why she could not file regular FIR in the Police Station. Actually, the vehicle no. DL9CP 4462 was written in her statement and she had signed the statement on 16.10.2006. However, she told to the police to write the vehicle no. DL9CP 4662. Mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was made on 02.11.2006. She handed over a copy of complaint to the Inspector Renu Sharma in the month of February 2007. All the documents were handed over to the IO in the Court of Sh. G.P. Singh, the then Ld. ACMM, Rohini Courts. No memo of other documents was prepared by the IO while receiving those documents.
5. PW-2 Dr. RK Kapoor has deposed that after about 2-3 days FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 7 of 38 of 01.07.2006, he had again gone to Khanna Nursing Home. On 01.07.2006 he had seen the patient of Khanna Nursing Home on receiving telephone call from there as Dr. Kamal Parwal, the Orthopedic Surgeon of Khanna Nursing Home was on leave. He medically examined Ms. Neeta. He had examined the patient on 01.07.2006 also when he had plastered her right leg due to fracture in her ankle. He had given the noting at point X. At that time swelling had reduced. He had given the prescription to the patient. In his cross examination, he stated that he does not remember the time of preparation of prescription. The portion Y was not prepared in his presence. He stated that he saw the prescription and examined the patient in pursuance to the prescription. He further stated that the first prescription by which the plaster was put on the leg of the patient was not on record.
6. PW3 Dr. AC Khosla has deposed that on 15.07.2006 a patient by the name of Neeta was medically examined by him with the history of 15 days old fracture of post posterior tibial malleolus. Patient had been treated with POP cast outside. She was advised continued as such. She was advised to consult if there is any problem. He had prepared the prescription which is in his handwriting. He had examined patient again on 18.08.2006 as well as 25.08.2006. The advice dated 18.08.2006 is on the back side of document whereas the continuation prescription is at page 2. The patient had not come to him after 25.08.2006. In his cross examination, he could not tell by going through the documents on record if the X-ray was conducted by him or not. All the records were handed over to the patient and since the patient had come to FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 8 of 38 him after 15 days of receiving injury, no MLC was prepared. He was not aware as to how the injury was inflicted on the patient.
7. PW-4 ASI Satbir Singh, has deposed that on 16.10.2006 he was posted at PS Janak Puri as Duty Officer. On that day, his duty hours were from 4.00 pm to 12 midnight. On that day, at about 8.30 pm, ASI Balram handed over him a rukka for registration of FIR on the basis of which he recorded the FIR No.654/06 and after registration of FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR to Ct. Gyan Dass. Despite opportunity given, he was not cross-examined.
8. PW-5 Dr. Vivek Khanna, has deposed that his father is the owner of the Khanna Nursing Home. He also worked at Khanna Nursing Home. He is Laparoscopic Surgeon. He had brought the OPD registers maintained at Khanna Nursing Home. As per the record patient Neeta Chadha was given treatment in their hospital on 01.07.2006 in the OPD. He had also seen the certificate prepared by him. This certificate/letter was issued when IO of PS Janakpuri had shown him a photocopy of OPD slip. After going through the record and the slip, he opined that the nature of injury sustained by the patient was of grievous nature caused by blunt object. In his cross examination, he had not personally examined Ms. Neeta. X-ray of injured was taken as per record. No MLC was prepared as the injured was brought by the police and police had stated that no MLC is required to be prepared due to compromise. He had issued the certificate as per record.
9. PW-6 Dr. Gopal Goel, has deposed that on 05.09.2006, he was running a clinic at Janakpuri and he was working as FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 9 of 38 Consultant Orthopedics Surgeon. On that day, one patient Neeta came at their clinic. She had brought some X-ray plates. He examined those plates and found that there was old fracture post malleolus on right side. The injuries were two months old. The patient was given treatment to relieve the pain and improve the moment. He recommended the patient for MRI of lumbo sacral spine. In his cross examination, the patient Neeta had two months old injury. The pain was not relieved by the earlier treatment as told by her so he recommended MRI as stated above. The report of MRI shows slip disk i.e. L-Spine at L4-5 and L5-S1.
10.PW-7 ASI Uttam Chand, has deposed that on 01.07.2006, he was posted at PS Janakpuri as ASI and was on emergency duty from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. At about 6.55 pm, he received DD no.29 regarding the accident at C-4B at about 6.30 pm with Maruti Alto car no. DL9CP4462. He further deposed on 02.02.2013 that on 01.07.2006, he alongwith one constable reached at the place of incident at C-4/B Janakpuri. He came to know through some children who were present at the spot that the injured was shifted to Khanna Nursing Home. After that he alongwith constable reached at said nursing home. He found the complainant Neeta admitted in Khanna Nursing Home. He recorded statement of complainant as she was fit for statement. He kept the call received by DD no.29A pending as the injured was admitted in the Nursing home. The injured told the name of the accused as Sapna Khosla. The husband of the accused met him in the Nursing Home. He told him that he is willing to bear all the expenses of medical treatment of complainant/injured Neeta. He also admitted the FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 10 of 38 guilt of his wife. The injured was also not willing to register the FIR against the accused at that time as husband of the accused was willing to bear the expenses of treatment. However, she demanded that driving license of accused be cancelled. He came back at PS and made arrival entry vide DD no.70B dated 01.07.2006 in which he had narrated the abovesaid fact. No investigation was conducted by him in the present case and the said DD No.29A was marked to ASI Balram. In his cross examination, he stated that DD No.29 shows that the matter was compromised, however, the same was kept pending on the request of the complainant. The complainant and the accused had not compromised in front of him however, they were talking about compromise and also complainant was not inclined to register case against the accused. When he reached the spot, offending vehicle was not present there.
11.PW-8 ASI Shabbir Hussain, has deposed that on 01.07.2006 he was posted at PS Janakpuri as Duty officer. On that day he received a call from PCR regarding the accident at C-4/B at about 6.55 pm with car no. DL9CP 4462 which he had recorded in his DD register at DD no.29A. In his cross examination, the PCR call related to vehicle no. DL9CP 4462 and not DL9CP 4662.
12.PW-9 Ct. Gyan Das has deposed that on 16.10.2006 he was posted at PS Janak Puri as Constable and on that day at about 9.15 pm, Duty Officer had given carbon copy of FIR and original rukka to him for giving the same to the IO. Accordingly, he went to the place of occurrence and he gave the same to the IO. IO recorded his statement. In his cross FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 11 of 38 examination, the place of occurrence is C-4B, Pocket-13, Near Flat no.213.
13.PW-10 Sh. Sudhir Jain, has deposed that on 03.07.2007 he was working as Inspector of Transport Department, Janak Puri, Delhi. On that day, he gave one report regarding license no. P04062004397491 on behalf of MLO. As per the report, the said license was issued to Sapna Khosla on 30.06.2004 and it was valid upto 29.06.2004. The holder of abovesaid license was permitted to drive light motor vehicle (NT). Despite opportunity given, he was not cross-examined.
14.PW-11 Sh. Devinder Kumar, has deposed that on 02.11.2006 ASI Balram requested for mechanical inspection of the vehicle i.e. Maruti Alto car bearing no. DL9CP 4662. He mechanically inspected the said vehicle. On mechanical inspection and physical examination of the said vehicle, no fresh damage was found and vehicle was fit for road test. Despite opportunity given, he was not cross-examined.
15.PW-12 Inspector Renu Sharma, has deposed that on 19.01.2007 she was posted at DIU West as SI. On that day, the investigation of case FIR no.654/06 was marked to her. She obtained the result of injury from Khanna Nursing Home Janakpuri. She took the original license in police possession. She also requested the MLO of Janakpuri Authority to verify the license of the accused. The report on behalf of the MLO Janakpuri was given by Inspector Sudhir Jain. She recorded the statement of witnesses. In her cross examination, she stated that the incident took place on 01.07.2006 and the FIR was registered on 16.10.2006. As no MLC was prepared, she obtained the opinion on prescription slip. PW12 further FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 12 of 38 deposed on 15.02.2013 in her examination-in-chief that when she received the case file of the case, one DL in the name of Sapna Khosla was in the file. The same DL did not appear to be genuine so she contacted ASI Balram who was the earlier IO of the case regarding seizing of the DL of the accused. ASI Balram stated that accused had given her DL to him being the original. She further deposed that she served notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to the accused regarding clarification of the DL which accused had earlier given to ASI Balram. Accused stated that she has only one license which she had already handed over to ASI Balram and thereafter she admitted her mistake and replied her notice in her writing and also handed over to ASI Balram the DL which he had taken into possession through seizure memo. Thereafter, she went to the Motor License Authority and produced both the DL to the Licensing Authority with a request to verify which one of DL is genuine and Sh. Sudhir Jain had replied that one DL is genuine license while the one given earlier is not the original license so she added Section 420 IPC. During the investigation, she had obtained result regarding nature of injuries received by Neeta and doctor had opined nature of injuries as grievous received by patient on 01.07.2006. After obtaining opinion regarding the nature of injuries she had added Section 338 IPC. In her cross examination, she had seen the report of the Licensing Authority. On the same day when she moved application before the Licensing Authority regarding verification of both the DLs of the accused, Licensing Authority had replied on the same day. She does not remember whether the name and designation of the officer FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 13 of 38 who gave the report on both the DL of accused as mentioned on the report or not. She herself had served the notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to the accused but she does not remember the time when she served this notice to the accused. She does not remember the exact address of the accused. She received the file of the case for further investigation on 19.01.2007. At the time when she received the case file no handing over memo was prepared. There was no need to prepare the same. She had not obtained the original X-ray plates, MLC and OPD slip as the same was with the complainant and the complainant was under treatment and was continued under treatment till filing of her final report. She inquired about the DL of the accused from ASI Balram on 30.06.2007. At that time ASI Balram was posted in PS Janak Puri and she met him outside PS Janak Puri. The DL seized by ASI Balram wherein it is not mentioned that the said license was duplicate one. The DL seized by the ASI Balram was not kept in the sealed envelope. She had not prepared any separate memo for taking opinion of Dr. Khanna. The reasons/cause of the injuries was not mentioned in the opinion of that Doctor. She had not prepared any other memo showing the delivery of DL to the Authority. There was no receiving in Ex.PW12/C for both the DL. However, it is so reflected from the report given by official of Authority in this document. PW12 further deposed on 24.08.2023 in respect of amended charge that on 19.01.2007, she was posted at DIU West District as SI. On that day the investigation of the present case was marked to her. She obtained the result on the prescription of the victim Neeta and nature of injury was opined as grievous. Therefore, one FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 14 of 38 license on record of the accused Sapna and she was doubtful of the said license to be genuine and therefore she contacted ASI Balram and asked him about the genuineness of the said license. The said license was obtained by previous IO and the accused told previous IO that the said license was original one. She had also served a notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to the accused regarding the clarifications of the driving license which she had given to the ASI Balram (previous IO). On the notice, accused Sapna told her that the license given by her to ASI Balram was original license but later she admitted her mistake and replied on her notice. She obtained the original license from the accused. She got verified both the licenses from the MLO, Janakpuri authority and was verified by the MLO, that the license seized by her was original one and other copy seized by previous IO was colour copy of original. The report was given on behalf of the MLO Janakpuri by the Inspector Sudhir Jain. She stated that she added two sections i.e. 338 and 420 IPC against the accused. On completion of investigation, she filed the charge-sheet before the court. In her further cross examination, when the investigation of the present case was handed over to her, she was SI in DIU, West. The incident took place on 01.07.2006 and the FIR was registered on 16.10.2006. No MLC was prepared in this case. She does not remember about the registration number of the vehicle. She could not admit or deny that in FIR the victim stated the car no. DL9CP 4462 and in her statement in chief before the court the victim improved her statement and she told to the court that the vehicle no. DL9CP 4662. She does not know that whether the previous IO ASI Balram had FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 15 of 38 investigated about the car bearing no. DL9CP 4462. The driving license seized by the IO ASI Balram was coloured photocopy of the original license. She could not admit or deny the suggestion that the FIR has been lodged by the PS Janakpuri after 3 months 15 days and no explanation has been given in challan about this delay. She could not admit or deny that after the accident, the victim was chasing the accused as she said in her examination in chief before the court. She could not admit or deny the suggestion that IO of the case also suggested to rub iodex on her injured part and the same was suggested by the doctors or Khanna Nursing Home that is why no MLC was prepared at that time. She could not admit or deny that at that time the victim also not wanted to proceed with this case of the accident because the victim hot minor injuries on her back.
16.PW-13 SI Balram has deposed that on 16.10.2006 he was posted as ASI at PS Janakpuri. On that day he received a DD No.29A dated 01.07.2006 regarding accident at C4/B 207 from car no. DL9CP 4462. He alongwith Inspector Pratap Singh reached at the house of the complainant. He recorded the statement of complainant Neeta. He prepared the rukka and handed over the same to the Duty Officer for registration of FIR. The duty officer registered case FIR No.465/06 and the copy of the same was sent to him through the Ct. Gyan Das at the place of incident. He alongwith complainant already reached at the place of the incident. He inspected the place of incident and prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. On 29.10.2006 he reached at the house of the accused situated at C-4F/91 Janak Puri. The accused was FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 16 of 38 interrogated and he arrested the accused. The driving license of the accused was seized. The DL which was produced by the accused in original is Mark A. The offending vehicle bearing no. DL9CP 4662 was also taken into police possession. The accused was released on bail. On 02.11.2016 the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was conducted by the mechanical Inspector ASI Devender Kumar at his request. He handed over the detailed report in this regard. On 03.11.2006, the investigation of the case present was transferred and handed over the case file to MHC(R). He has correctly identified the accused. In his cross examination, no MLC in the present case was prepared of complainant Neeta. The present case was registered only on the prescription of doctor and statement of complainant. The case was marked to him on 16.10.2006. The inspection of the offending vehicle was done after 4 months of the incident and investigation was initiated after delay of 3 and half months. No independent witness was joined in the investigation or spot witness was examined by the police. PW13 further deposed on 13.03.2023 in respect of amended charge that on 16.10.06, he was posted as ASI at PS Janakpuri. On that day, he received a DD No.29A dated 01.07.06 regarding accident at C4B/207 from car no. DL9CP4462. He alongwith Inspector Pratap Singh reached at the house of the complainant. He recorded statement of complainant Ms. Nita. He prepared a rukka and handed over the same to Duty Officer at PS Janak Puri for registration of FIR. The duty officer registered case FIR no.654/06 and the copy of the same was sent to him through Ct. Gyan Das at the place of incident. He alongwith FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 17 of 38 complainant already reached at the place of incident. He inspected the place of incident and prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. On 29.10.06, he reached at the house of accused Sapna Khosla situated at C-4F/91 Janak Puri. The accused was interrogated and he arrested the accused. The driving license of the accused Sapna Khosla was seized. The DL which was produced by the accused in original is mark A. The offending vehicle bearing no. DL9CP4662 was also taken into police possession. The accused was released on bail. On 02.11.06, the mechanical inspection of offending vehicle was conducted by mechanical Inspector ASI Devender Kumar at his request. He handed over the detailed report in this regard. He recorded his statement. On 03.11.06, the investigation of the present case was transferred and handed over the case file to MHC(R). In his cross examination, he had not got verified the license of the accused till he was the IO in the present case and therefore, he could not tell whether the license was original or not. The name of the accused, name of her husband and the address were mentioned on the license seized by him. At that time, the blood as well as scratch on the offending vehicle was not visible. There was only one person with him from the police station. The constable who was with him driving the vehicle. The FIR was lodged u/s 279/337. Only these sections were invoked because as per the content of the complaint only offences under these sections were made out. He had opined in his rukka to lodge an FIR u/s 279/337. He had not obtained any MLC of the complainant till he remained the IO of the present case. He was the IO of the present case from 16.10.06 FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 18 of 38 to 03.11.06.
17.PW-14 Sh. Chhittar Singh, has deposed that he had brought the details of the vehicle bearing no. DL9CP 4662 and DL9CP 4462. As per the record, vehicle no. DL9CP 4662 was registered on 05.04.2006 and owner of the same was Ashish Pant resident of G-146, Nauroji Nagar. The said vehicle was initially registered in the name of Sapna Khosla w/o Deepak Khosla r/o 91, C-4 Block, Janakpuri. Later on, the said vehicle was sold to Sh. Ashish Pant R/o G-146 Nauroji Nagar. On 11.01.2008 the name of the owner of the said vehicle was changed from Sapna Khosla to Ashish Pant as the vehicle was sold to Ashish Pant. He had brought the details of the vehicle bearing no. DL9CP 4462. As per the record, the abovesaid vehicle bearing registration no. DL9CP 4462 was registered in the name of Dr. Mohan Singh R/o RZF 173/1D Pradhan Chowk, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony. The said vehicle was registered on 24.05.2006 in the name of Dr. Mohan Singh. The computer-generated copy of details of the abovesaid vehicle generated through computer and duly signed by the person having possession and control of computer by which copy was generated, is compared with particulars of vehicle from original file. In his cross examination, police had not made any inquiry from him in respect of owner of vehicle no. DL9CP 4662 or vehicle no. DL9CP 4462.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED PERSON AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
18.Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 19 of 38 incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against her, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 26.06.2012 and 12.01.2024 without oath under section 281 CrPC r/w 313 CrPC, wherein she has stated that she is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. She further stated that she was not present at the spot and the accident had not occurred with her vehicle. She further stated that she wanted to lead defence evidence.
19.DW-1, Sapna Khosla, has deposed that she is working in the Indian Heights School, Sector 23 Dwarka, Delhi in administrative staff. She had a car make Alto bearing no. DL9CP 4662. After the 15 days, some police official from PS Janakpuri visited her house and they took her car to the police station. No notice has been given to her. Later on, she came to know that she is implicated in FIR No.654/2006 and they also took her driving license at that time. She had handed over the coloured photo of the driving license which was handed over to police official of PS Janakpuri. Later on, with the help of his counsel, she took her car on superdari and after sometime she sold that car with the permission of the court. She stated that she is innocent and that she does not know anything about the incident and that no MLC of complainant has been conducted in this case. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she is the owner of the Alto car bearing no. DL9CP 4662. In the year 2006, she was working as Admin Counsellor at Brilliant Tutorial, Janakpuri. Her duty hours were from 9.30 am to 6.30 pm. She had been residing at C-4F/91, Janak Puri, Delhi since 2001. She had purchased the above-mentioned car FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 20 of 38 in the year 2003-04. Sometimes, she used to travel to the Brilliant Tutorial, Janakpuri by her car in the year 2006.
20.DW-2 Deepak Khosla, has deposed that he is an estate agent and her wife purchased a car make Alto bearing no. DL9CP 4662. After sometime of the alleged incident, some police officials from PS Janakpuri visited her house and took away the car of her wife to the police station. At that time, her wife was in the house and then police official told them that this car had been involved in the alleged accident. After that with the help of an advocate, they took that car on superdari and later on they needed some money and with the permission of the court they sold that car. He further deposed that a false case has been made out against her wife and that his wife is innocent. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, he deposed that his wife sometimes used to travel to the Brilliant Tutorial, Janakpuri with the above-mentioned car. His wife had never told me that the accident had occurred with the above-mentioned car. He stated that since no accident had occurred therefore, she never mentioned to him about any accident to him.
ARGUMENTS:
21. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
22. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 21 of 38 ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
23.Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE:
24.The accused has been charged for the offences of rash driving on public way (S. 279 IPC) and causing grievous injuries upon the complainant, Ms. Neeta by a rash or negligent driving (S. 338 IPC) in the present case. Whereas under
Section 279 IPC, the factum of rash or negligent driving likely to endanger human life or cause hurt etc. is in itself the offence, under Section 338 IPC, grievous injuries upon the victim due to such rash or negligent driving. In addition to the aforesaid offences, the accused is also charged with section 420 IPC and section 325 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused instead of stopping the car, intentionally ran over the right foot of the complainant and caused voluntarily caused grievous injuries punishable under section 325 IPC and as the accused had handed over the coloured photocopy of the driving license when the IO demanded the original FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 22 of 38 license, the accused committed the offence of cheating punishable under section 420 IPC.
25.Thus, the gravamen of the offences under Section 279/338 IPC is the act of the accused, done with "rashness" or "negligence". The IPC does not define either of these terms. However, the ambit of these terms has now been settled by judicial pronouncements of superior Courts. In Empress of India vs. Idu Beg ILR (1881) 3 All 776 the term "rashness" was interpreted to mean commission of an act with indifference or recklessness towards the consequences of such act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rathnashalvan vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 474 has observed, inter alia, as under-
"7. .... 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. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what the amount of care and circumspection is which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it 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. As noted above, "rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 23 of 38 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."
26.Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Ansal vs. CBI (2014) 6 SCC 173. The standard of negligence was discussed in the said case, by observing, inter alia, as under-:
"58. In the case of "negligence" the courts have favoured a meaning which implies a 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 which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge arises, it may be the imperative duty of the accused to have adopted. Negligence has been understood to be an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. Unlike rashness, where the imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness, negligence implies acting without such consciousness, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him. The imputability in the case of negligence arises from the neglect of the civil duty of circumspection."
27.Thus, rashness implies doing an act despite the consciousness that it might result in injuries. Negligence, on the other hand, means lack of reasonable care that a person placed is the fact situation ought to take, in order to avoid injuries.
28.Further, Section 325 provides for the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt as, "Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 24 of 38 description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." The grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 IPC are as under
"First- Emasculation.
Secondly- Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. Fourthly- Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."
29.The offence of cheating is defined under as Section 415 - Cheating: Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
Section 420 - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property: Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
30.The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating, as punishable under Section 420 IPC were recently culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof. R.K Vijayasarathy Vs. FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 25 of 38 Sudha Seetharam (2019) 16 SCC 739, in the following terms:
"16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him:
16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or 16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and 16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property."
31.A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
32.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that an accident of the complainant, Ms. Neeta had taken place. Now, firstly, it was upon the prosecution to prove that offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at the relevant point of time in rash or negligent manner. It is pertinent to note that PW-1 in FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 26 of 38 her testimony has deposed that when she was near the side wall of the flat no. 260/259, then the offending vehicle came from the back side had hit her and that speed breakers were also omitted by the accused while she was driving. She had also deposed that instead of stopping the car, her right foot was crushed by the driver of the said car and was taken away. The witness has correctly identified the accused.
33.It is trite law that it is not the opinion of the witness as regards the rash and negligent driving of the accused which is significant, but what is essential is the depiction of the manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven for which a reliance is being placed upon Kishore Chand Joshi Vs. State Crl. Rev. Petition 627/2016 pronounced on 12.11.2018 by the Hon'ble Delhi HC. In the present case, the witness had deposed that the accused had hit her from the back side when she was near the wall of a flat and that instead of stopping the car, her right foot was crushed by the driver of the offending vehicle which itself shows the reckless attitude of the accused.
34.The Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that the testimony of injured cannot be relied upon as she is an interested witness. However, her testimony cannot be discarded merely because the star witness of the prosecution is the injured herself. In the instant case, PW-1, who is the victim had suffered grievous injuries and there is no reason to falsely implicate the accused. The contention that no other independent public person was made a witness in the present case or was joined by the IO during investigation is not acceptable as the prosecution has proved its case otherwise. In FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 27 of 38 this regard, it would also be apposite to the reiterate the settled legal position that non-joining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and another V. State of Gujarat [AIR 1988 SC 696]. Further, it has again been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Crl. Appeal No. 502 of 2015 that non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution when other prosecution witnesses are found to be trustworthy and reliable. Further, the testimonies of the witnesses are indeed impeccable and corroborative of each other. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW-1 when the same is found to be credible.
35.It has been further stated by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no public witness to prove the accident. Section 134 of the Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of fact. Once the evidence of a truthful public witness in the form of victim is available on record, there is no requirement of any other witness to prove such facts. The law regarding a witness who is a victim of the offence is well settled that it stands on a higher footing. For appreciating the evidence of a victim, the Court has to bear in mind that the presence of such victim at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted. While appreciating such evidence, the Court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies, if any. The complainant is the victim of the offence in the present case. She is the best witness to describe the manner in which the offence was FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 28 of 38 committed by the accused. Being the victim of the crime, she would be most keen to ensure that the real culprits do not go scot free. In Abdul Sayeed vs State of M.P, (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the reliability of testimony of injured witness, has held as under:
"The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
36.As far as the evidentiary value of the injured witness is concerned, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai and Others 1990 CrLJ 2531 has also observed as under, "For appreciating the evidence of the injured witnesses the Court should bear in mind that:
(i) Their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted.
(ii) They do not have any reason to omit the real culprits and implicate falsely the accused persons.
(iii) The evidence of the injured witnesses is of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted merely on some supposed natural conduct of a person during the incident or after the incident because it is difficult to FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 29 of 38 imagine how a witness would act or react to a particular incident. His action depends upon number of imponderable aspects.
(iv) If there is any exaggeration in their evidence, then the exaggeration is to be discarded and not their entire evidence.
(v) While appreciating their evidence the Court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies, but must consider broad spectrum of the prosecution version. The discrepancies may be due to normal errors of perception or observation or due to lapse of memory or due to faulty or stereotype investigation.
(vi) It should be remembered that there is a tendency amongst the truthful witnesses also to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. In this type of situation, the best course for the Court would be to discard exaggerated version or falsehood but not to discard entire version. Further, when a doubt arises in respect of certain facts stated by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story."
37.Now in the light of the above judgment, it is clear that the testimony of the injured witness of the offence stands on a very higher footing unless and until impeached by some clinching evidence. There is nothing on record which can impeach her credit or discard her testimony or to doubt her veracity. The witness has deposed about the manner in which the incident occurred. PW-1 is the injured in the present case and is the best witness to describe the manner in which the offence is committed by the accused.
38.In the instant case, it is an admitted position that there is no MLC of the victim on record, however, PW-2, Dr. R.K. FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 30 of 38 Kapoor has deposed that he had medically examined the victim vide prescription Ex.PW-1/A and had plastered her right leg due to fracture in her ankle. The same is also corroborated by the testimony of PW-3, Dr. A.C. Khosla who had examined the victim on 15.07.2006 and that the victim had a history of 15 days old fracture of post posterior tibial malleolus. Moreover, PW-5, Dr. Vivek Khanna has deposed that no MLC was prepared as the injured was brought by the police and stated that no MLC is required to be prepared due to compromise against whom separate complaints has been made by the victim. The case of the victim is further corroborated by the testimony of PW-6, Dr. Gopal Goel who has deposed that on examination of X-ray plates brought by PW-1 on 05.09.2006, he found out that there was old fracture post malleolus on right side and the report of MRI shows slip disk. Perusal of the prescription vide Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW6/A proves that the victim had sustained fracture and the nature of injury was grievous in nature which is corroborated by the testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses.
39.Further, the testimony of PW-7, Retd. ASI Uttam Chand, is relevant to the extent that he along with once constable reached at the spot and found out that the victim was taken to Khanna Nursing home and he kept the DD No. 29 A pending as the victim was admitted in the hospital and that the husband of the accused had admitted the fault of the accused and was ready to bear the medical expenses of the victim. Moreover, PW8, ASI Shabbir Hussain received a PCR call FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 31 of 38 regarding the accident in question with the offending vehicle. There was no improbable fact, which accused could cull out from the testimonies of the said prosecution witnesses, thus, their testimony is reliable to that extent. It is also worthy to note that the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was conducted on 02.11.2006 which was approximately after 3 months of the accident in question, thus, the said report vide Ex.PW-11/A is of no relevance in the present case, even if it shows no fresh damage on the vehicle.
40.The Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that the IO had not conducted a fair and proper investigation and there are material discrepancies in the investigation. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that the he had not preserved the CCTV footage of the spot. However, the same is not a material defect to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Further, the site plan vide Ex.PW-13/B also bears the signature of the PW-13, ASI Balram who is the IO. It depicts the state of affairs as told by PW-1 which is further corroborated by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the accident in question. It is a settled law that defective/ improper investigation by the investigating agency is solely not a ground for acquittal as it would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designed to be defective. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Muniappan and Others vs State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 with regard to the defective investigation has observed as under, FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 32 of 38 "Defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc., which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses carefully to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the objects of finding out the truth. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the Investigating Officer and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the fake and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded."
41.It is also pertinent to note that the Ld. Counsel has not been able to show any major contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses so as to disbelieve their testimonies and even if he would have pointed out, it is a settled law that some minor contradictions are bound to occur when the witnesses are examined after a long gap of time from the date of incident. However, such minor contradictions cannot make the evidence unreliable. A reliance be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Jagannath Markad and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537, wherein it has observed as under :
"19. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the court has to assess whether read as a whole, it is truthful. In doing so, the court has to keep in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities to find out whether such discrepancies shake the truthfulness. Some discrepancies FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 33 of 38 not touching the core of the case are not enough to reject the evidence as a whole. No true witness can escape from giving some discrepant details. Only when discrepancies are so incompatible as to affect the credibility of the version of a witness, the court may reject the evidence. Section 155 of the Evidence Act enables the doubt to impeach the credibility of the witness by proof of former inconsistent statement. Section 145 of the Evidence Act lays down the procedure for contradicting a witness by drawing his attention to the part of the previous statement which is to be used for contradiction. The former statement should have the effect of discrediting the present statement but merely because the latter statement is at variance to the former to some extent, it is not enough to be treated as a contradiction. It is not every discrepancy which affects creditworthiness and trustworthiness of a witness. There may at times be exaggeration or embellishment not affecting credibility. The court has to sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth. A statement may be partly rejected or partly accepted. Want of independent witnesses or unusual behaviour of witnesses of a crime is not enough to reject evidence. A witness being a close relative is not enough to reject his testimony if it is otherwise credible. A relation may not conceal the actual culprit. The evidence may be closely scrutinized to assess whether an innocent person is falsely implicated. Mechanical rejection of evidence even of a 'partisan' or 'interested' witness may lead to failure of justice. It is well known that principle "
42.It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 601] that, "normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 34 of 38 horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so."
43.In the present case also, there is no major contradiction noted in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Their testimonies are cogent and convincing. There is no reason to doubt their testimonies qua the offence under section 279/338 IPC.
44.With respect to the offence under section 420 IPC, it is worthy to note that PW-12, Inspector Renu Sharma has deposed that the DL of the accused, Sapna Khosla which was already on record did not appear to be genuine so she contacted the previous IO, PW-13, ASI Balram who stated to her that the accused had given her DL to him being the original DL and when she interrogated the accused regarding the same, the accused initially stated that she handed over the original DL to the ASI Balram but later she admitted her mistake and then handed over the original license which was seized by the IO and the same was verified from the Motor Licensing Authority and filed the report that DL as Mark A is a coloured copy of the original license. The accused in her defence evidence as DW-1 has also deposed that she gave the coloured photocopy of the driving license to the police officials of PS Janakpuri. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 35 of 38 prosecution that the DL which was initially handed over to the IO was not a valid license and was given to absolve from the liability. The only allegation against the accused is that she had given a coloured photocopy of the license instead of the original license which shows that there has been no inducement on behalf of the accused in order to make the IO believe that she did possess the valid DL instead of not having a valid one. As there has been no wrongful gain to the accused nor any wrongful loss to the IO or the victim by handing over the coloured photocopy of a valid license, the ingredients of the offence under section 420 are not fulfilled.
45.It is imperative to note that the charge qua the offence under section 325 was framed upon the accused on 11.02.2020, however the accused was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant qua the said charge, thus, no liability can be fastened upon the accused for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt punishable under section 325 IPC.
46.The accused during her examination under Section 281 r/w 313 Cr.P.C., has stated that she had not committed any offence. Further, in defence evidence, the accused as DW-1 and Sh. Deepka Khosla as DW-2 has not led any evidence to prove that the accident had occurred not due to her negligence or rashness. They have not led any evidence to prove that the accused was neither present at the spot nor that the accident had been caused due to her negligence or rashness, when the testimony of the victim alongwith other corroborative evidences are on record. The burden to prove her defence was on the accused, which she has failed to do so.
FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 36 of 3847.In the present case, for the aforesaid reason, in light of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and defence evidence, there is no specific reason to disbelieve the testimony of the victim when the same is otherwise credible and trustworthy. Therefore, the lapses which have been pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the accused does not materially affect the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the same leads to the conclusion that the accused was driving his vehicle in a such rash and negligent manner that it had caused the grievous injuries to PW-1, Ms. Neeta by the offending vehicle.
CONCLUSION
48.To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offence charged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the complainant and other witnesses is coherent and directly implicates the accused. The defence has failed to punch a hole in the consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences punishable under section 279/338 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, however it has failed to prove the ingredients of the offences punishable under section 420 and section 325 IPC.
49. Resultantly, the accused, Sapna Khosla is hereby found guilty for offences under section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is convicted accordingly and is acquitted for the offences punishable under section 420 FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 37 of 38 and section 325 IPC. Let the convict be heard separately on sentencing qua the offences under section 279/338 IPC.
Announced in open court on 26.03.2024 in the presence of the accused.
(Kratika Chaturvedi) Metropolitan Magistrate-04, Dwarka, Delhi/26.03.2024 Note:- This judgment contains 38 pages and each page has been signed by me.
FIR No. 654/2006, PS Janakpuri State vs. Sapna Khosla Page 38 of 38