Delhi District Court
State vs Vijender Singh on 19 January, 2019
1/13
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR-I
MM-02: -WEST: TIS HAZARI COURTS:NEW DELHI
FIR No.136/09
PS: Rajouri Garden
U/s. 279/337/338 IPC
State Vs.Vijender Singh
Date of Institution of case : 14.12.2009
Date of Judgment reserved :19.01.2019
Date on which judgment pronounced :19.01.2019
JUDGMENT
1) Unique ID no. of the case : 67030/16
2) Date of commission of offence : 23.04.2009
3) Name of complainant : Balbir Singh
4) Name and address of accused : Vijender Singh
S/o Sh. Tara Chand
R/o F-4/220, Sultan Puri,
Delhi
5) Offence complained of : U/s 279/337/338 IPC
6) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final Order : Convicted for the offence u/s
279/337 IPC & Acquitted for
the offence u/s 338 IPC
8) Date of order : 19.01.2019
FIR No. 136/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Vijender Singh
2/13
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
Brief facts
1. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.04.2009 at about 5.15 pm in front of Petrol Pump, Ring Road, Rajdhani College, Red Light Point, accused was found driving one Blue Line Bus bearing registration no. DL-1PB-9353 route no.567 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC.
Secondly, on the aforementioned date, time and place while driving the said vehicle in aforesaid manner, accused caused simple injuries upon the person of Inder Singh s/o Sh. Budh Singh, Sitara Ghosh w/o Sh. Rajiv Ghosh and Munni Khatoon w/o Sh. Azgar Khan and grievous injuries upon the person of Jasmeen d/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh and thereby the accused committed offence punishable u/s 337/338 IPC.
Trial
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against the accused for offence u/s. 279/337/338 IPC was filed in the court and after complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C., arguments on notice were heard. Vide order dated 21.10.2010, notice was framed U/s. 279/337/338 IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 136/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Vijender Singh 3/13
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Thereafter, statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Appreciation of evidence in the light of settled legal propositions.
4. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused and also perused the record carefully.
5. PW-1 Dhan Raj stated that he was registered owner/superdar of bus bearing no. DL-1PB-9352. On that time and place of incident the accused Vijender was driving his above-mentioned bus as he was his driver on the date of incident. The photocopy of RC of above-mentioned bus is Ex.PW1/A. The superdarinama is Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. The four photographs of bus bearing no. DL-1PB-9353 which are already annexed with the file shown to the witness who correctly identified the same as of his above-mentioned vehicle. The photographs is Ex.P1 to P4.
Accused Vijender and his counsel S. C. Phogat submitted that they will not dispute the identity of bus bearing no. DL-1PB-9353 at any stage of the case.
Witness correctly identified the accused present in the court.
6. PW-2 Balbir Singh stated that he did not remember his exact address due to lapse of memory. He was conductor in DTC at Rohini Depot. He did not remember the exact date of incident however an accident took place. He was medically sick and 80 % physically disabled. FIR No. 136/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Vijender Singh 4/13 Certificate in this regard is Ex. PW2/A (OSR). Due to his disability he was not recollecting the incident.
7. PW-3 Krishan Kumar stated that on 23.04.2009 he was working as a driver of DTC bus bearing no.1309 Route no.568 along with his conductor Balbir Singh. On that day, he started from Safdarjung towards Rajouri Garden and at about 5:15 PM reached at Red light of Rajdhani College. He stopped his bus at the red light. Suddenly one blue line bus bearing no.9353 hit his bus from the backside which was driven by accused Vijender Singh. Balbir Singh made complaint to the police. Police seized both the vehicles vide seizure memos Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively, both memos bearing his signatures at point A. Police seized the driving license and permit of the accused vide memos Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D respectively, both memos bearing his signatures at point A. He handed over the documents regarding his bus to the police and the same were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/E, bearing his signature at point A. Police also seized the photocopy of insurance of the offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/F, bearing his signature at point A. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court.
8. PW-4 ASI Sohan Lal stated that on 23.04.2009 he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as duty officer. His duty was from 4 pm to 12.00 midnight. On that day, at about 8.30 pm, Ct. Anil Kumar handed over to him rukka sent by ASI Ajmer Singh. On the basis of rukka, he had FIR No. 136/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Vijender Singh 5/13 registered the present FIR, the copy of the same is Ex.PW4/A bearing his signature at point A(OSR). He made endorsement on the rukka and same is Ex.PW4/B bearing his signature at point A.
9. PW Jasmin Vohra stated that on 23.04.09, she boarded the bus bearing registration no. DL 1PB 9353 having route no.568 from Andrew Ganj for Raja Garden. The bus was over-crowded and being driven rashly by the driver. When the bus reached at the Raja Garden Fly Over and coming down from it, the driver of the bus suddenly lost his control over the bus and hit against DTC bus. Her left hand was fractured due to this accident. Witness could not identify the driver of the above said bus. Witness was asked about rash and negligent act of the driver of aforesaid bus to which witness answered that the driver was driving the bus in a rash manner. It was further stated by witness that the driver was plying the bus in a zig zag manner and when the bus was coming down from the Raja Garden Flyover, it was on a high speed and the driver did not try to bring down the speed of the bus.
DDU Ambulance took her to the Hospital.
10. PW-5 Inder Singh stated that on 23.04.2009, he was going to Nangloi from Kirti Nagar. He boarded a bus no.9353 blue line. He did not remember the complete number of the bus. The bus was over-crowded and all seats were occupied. So he went in front side of the bus behind the driver seat and stood there. The bus driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and in a very high speed. The driver was over taking the vehicle in rash and negligent manner on the road for picking the FIR No. 136/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Vijender Singh 6/13 passengers. When the bus reached near Maya Puri Fly over red light, one DTC bus having green colour and of low floor was in front of the offending bus. When the DTC bus stopped at red light, the bus driver of the blue line bus struck the DTC bus from behind. Due to the impact of the accident, he sustained fracture on his left hand wrist. Some 4 to 5 persons also sustained injuries in the accident. After the accident, the bus driver of the offending bus left the bus and ran away from the spot. In the meantime, police came at the spot and they took him to DDU hospital for medical examination where the doctor gave him the medical attention. He called his brother Narender Singh and he came at the DDU hospital and took him to his home in Nangloi. After the accident, he went to Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan his native place where he underwent medical treatment. Witness correctly identified the accused Vijender present in the court and stated that at the time of accident, the accused was driving the offending blue line bus.
4 photographs of the offending bus shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the offending bus in the photographs. Photographs are already Ex.P1 to P4.
11. PW-6 HC Anil Kumar stated that on 23.04.2009, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as constable. On that day, he was on emergency duty. On that day, he alongwith IO/ ASI Ajmer Singh went to the Rajdhani College Red light, on receiving the information regarding the incident. Where at the spot, they found two bus stationed at the spot in accidental condition. At the spot, one person Balbir was found present. IO FIR No. 136/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Vijender Singh 7/13 left him at the spot and went to the DDU hospital. Thereafter, IO came back at the spot. IO handed over to him one Rukka for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to the police station and got present FIR registered. After the registration of the FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over the original Rukka and copy of the FIR to the IO. The DTC conductor Balbir produced the accused Vijender before the IO and the conductor Balbir stated to the IO that accused was driving the offending blue line bus at the time of incident. IO arrested the accused and took his personal search vide arrest memos Ex. PW-6/A and Ex PW-6/B both bearing his signatures at point A respectively. IO seized the blue line bus No. DL-1PB-9353 and DTC bus no. DL-1PC-1309 vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/B both bearing his signatures at point B respectively. IO seized the DL of the accused and permit of the offending blue line bus Vide seizure memos already Ex. PW-3/C and Ex.PW-3/D both bearing his signatures at point B respectively.
12. PW-7 Murlidhar stated that on 24.04.2009 he was posted as Foreman DTC Rohini Depot-01. On that day he visited the PS Rajouri Garden. At the request of IO, he conducted the mechanical inspection of DTC bus bearing no. DL-1PC-1309. He prepared his report which is Ex.PW7/A bearing his signature at point A.
13. PW-8 Balkishan stated that on 24.04.2009 he was posted as ATI. On that day, on the instructions of the IO, he visited PS Rajouri FIR No. 136/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Vijender Singh 8/13 Garden. He got released the bus no. DL-1PC-1309 on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW8/A bearing his signature at point A. He did not remember anything regarding the present case.
14. PW-9 Retired ASI (Tech) Devender Kumar stated that on 24.04.2009, on the request of ASI Ajmer Singh, he conducted the mechanical inspection of Tata Bus bearing registration no. DL-1PB-9353. He prepared his report for the above-mentioned vehicle which is Ex.PW9/A bearing his signature at point A. As per his report, the front side body was damaged and the vehicle was found not fit for road test due to gear shifting Liver system damage.
15. The very first question that is to be determined is whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle in question on the date, time and place of the alleged incident or not. PW-3 Krishan Kumar and PW-5 Inder Singh have been projected as eye witnesses of the case. Both the witnesses have categorically stated that the accused was driving the vehicle in question on the date, time and place of the incident.
16. Having established that it was none else but the accused who was driving the offending vehicle on the date, time and place of the incident, the next question that is required to be determined is whether the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 9353 that was being driven by the FIR No. 136/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Vijender Singh 9/13 accused on the date, time and place in question had caused the accident or not, or, to put it in another words the present issue is whether the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 9353 was involved in the accident on the date, time and place of the incident or not. Again the testimony PW-3 Krishan Kumar and PW-5 Inder Singh come prominently into picture. Both the above witnesses have categorically and emphatically stated that vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 9353 was involved in the accident on the date, time and place of the incident. PW Jasmin Vohra also categorically stated that vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 9353 was involved in the accident on the date, time and place of the incident. Moreover, PW-6 HC Anil Kumar in his evidence stated that when he reached the spot after receipt of the information regarding accident near Rajdhani College, Red Light Point, he found two buses stationed in accidental condition. IO seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. IO also seized the other bus bearing no. DL-1PC-1309. Moreover, during evidence, the identity of the vehicle was not disputed by the accused. Therefore, in the light of the testimonies of these witnesses, it stands established beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 9353 had caused the accident.
17. Further, in terms of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, where a fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving the same is upon him. It was therefore for the accused to have established on record the circumstances under which the vehicle was found to be in accidental condition soon after the accident, if at all his vehicle was not involved in the accident. On the basis of evidence led on this point, I am FIR No. 136/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Vijender Singh 10/13 convinced that it was the vehicle bearing registration no. DL 1PB 9353, which was being driven by the accused on the date, time and place of the accident.
18. After having established that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the date, time and place of the incident and was involved in the accident; what remains to be decided is whether the accused had acted rashly and negligently in causing the accident as to bring home the offence under section 279/337/338 IPC, in addition to the above fact, it has to be established that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and further that the injuries caused to the injured persons of such rash and negligent act.
19. In this regard the testimonies of PW-3 Krishan Kumar and PW-5 Inder Singh would be relevant. PW-3 Krishan Kumar stated that on 23.04.2009 he was working as a driver on DTC bus bearing no.1309 Route no.568 along with his conductor Balbir Singh. On that day, when he stopped his bus at Red light of Rajdhani College, the offending vehice in question hit his bus from the backside which was driven by accused driver Vijender Singh. Similarly, PW-5 Inder Singh stated that on 23.04.2009, he boarded the offending bus in question. The bus was over-crowded and all seats were occupied. So, he went in front side of the bus behind the driver seat and stood there. He further deposed that the bus driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. He went on to depose that the driver FIR No. 136/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Vijender Singh 11/13 of the bus was driving the bus in a very high speed and was over taking the vehicle in rash and negligent manner on the road for picking the passengers. He further stated that near Maya Puri Flyover red light, one DTC bus of low floor and green colour, was in front of the offending bus and when the DTC bus stopped at red light, the bus driver of the blue line bus struck the DTC bus from behind. Due to the impact of the accident, he sustained fracture on his left hand wrist. Some 4 to 5 persons also sustained injuries in the accident. After the accident, the bus driver of the offending bus left the bus and ran away from the spot.
20. The above testimonies of PW3 and PW5 assumes significance for the reason that they categorically stated that the offending bus hit the DTC bus from behind while being driven in rash and negligent manner. It has also come in their depositions that the offending bus was being driven in high speed. The DTC bus was hit at Red Light. This aspect on the face of it is a rash and negligent act. In the case reported as Paras Nath Vs. State of Delhi 2003 (3) JCC 1500 it has been held that hitting a person from behind is in itself a rash and negligent act. While negotiating the traffic at road, it is the bounden duty of the person to remain assiduously cautious and vigilant. He is supposed to observe optimum care and circumspections and ensure that vehicular movements of all kind are strictly negotiated in a manner to avoid any untoward incident.
FIR No. 136/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Vijender Singh 12/13
21. Moreover, the DTC bus was hit at red light signal. The very presence of Red Light is supposed to have alarmed the drivers negotiating the road traffic to remain extra cautious and to observe maximum care and guard. A person negotiating such traffic scenario are expected to engineer and maneuver the speed and directions of his vehicle accordingly. It is expected that a person negotiating his motorized vehicle against the Red Light Signals on the road does the same cautiously and at a slow speed. Therefore, from the evidence on record I am of the opinion that the accused had acted rashly and negligently while driving the offending bus bearing registration no. DL 1PB 9353 on the aforesaid date, time and place and the same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.
22. The last issue that remains to be adjudicated is whether on account of rash and negligent driving, the accused caused simple injuries upon the person of Inder Singh and other injured persons and grievous injuries upon the person of Jasmeen. PW5 Inder Singh deposed that he suffered fracture on his left hand wrist and some 4-5 persons also sustained injuries in the incident. Grievous injuries to PW5 not proved on record. However, the witness has categorically stated that he suffered fracture and received medical attention and treatment for the same. The said depositions naturally indicates that the injured must have suffered pain and hurt if not the grievous one on account of the injuries suffered due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Section 337 IPC simply talks about hurt caused by the rash and negligent act. Hurt has been defined in section 319 IPC wherein it has been provided that whoever FIR No. 136/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Vijender Singh 13/13 causes bodily pain, decease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. In view of the aforesaid facts and legal positions, it stands proved that the injured suffered simple hurt on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused. However, the grievous injuries to injured persons could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt with evidence of probative value.
23. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion the prosecution has established the element of rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused and that he had caused simple injuries to Inder Singh. Accordingly, accused Vijender Singh is convicted for the offences under sections 279/337 IPC. However, in view of the aforesaid discussions, accused is acquitted for the offence u/s 338 IPC.
24. Bail bond in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C has already been obtained from the accused in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in State Vs. Virender Yadav & Anr. 2014 I.A.D (Del.) 389.
Digitally signed DEEPAK by DEEPAK
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2019.01.19
16:06:52 +0530
Announced in open Court on (DEEPAK KUMAR-I)
19.01.2019 (13 pages) M.M.-02(West)/THC,
Delhi/19.01.2019
FIR No. 136/09 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Vijender Singh