Delhi District Court
State vs Rinku Kumar Mishra on 17 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ISRA ZAIDI: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-04, NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
JUDGMENT
Cr. No. of the case 466267/2015
CNR Number DLNE020004032008
FIR Number 7/2008
Police Station Dilshad Garden
Name of the Complainant/Informant Ms. Manju @ Rinky
Name of the Accused, his Rinku Kumar Mishra
parentage and address S/o Sh. Anil Mishra
R/o Shiv Sidh Hanuman Mandir,
A-Block, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence 08.01.2008
Date of institution 14.05.2008
Offences complained of Under Section 279/337/338 IPC
Offences charged of Under Section 279/337/338 IPC
Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of final arguments 17.01.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 17.01.2026
Final Order Acquitted
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
01. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint are that on 08.01.2008 at 5.45 p.m. at 66 Road near CNG Petrol Pump, opposite Tahirpur, Delhi, accused was found driving a Tata Indica Car bearing No. HR-55B-5327 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving so, he struck it against a motorcycle bearing No. DL-5SU-5783 and caused grievous hurt on the person of complainant ISRA FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra ZAIDI page 1 of 14 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.17 15:06:21 +0530 Manju @ Rinky (pillion rider) and simple hurt on the person of Dr. Arvind Kumar (rider of the motorcycle). Thereafter, an FIR against was registered against the accused under section 279/337/338 IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
02. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 279/337/338 IPC was filed before the Court against the accused. The then Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 14.05.2008 and accused was summoned to face the trial. On his appearance in the Court, copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to him as per norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.03.2013, notice under sections 279/337/338 IPC was framed against the accused Rinku Kumar Mishra, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
03. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses to prove its case.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES S. No. Witness number Name of the witness
1. PW1 ASI Begraj
2. PW2 HC Sukhbir
3. PW3 Dr. Sanju Kohli
4. PW4 Sh. Arvind
5. PW5 Ms. Manju
6. PW6 Dr. Pratima Prasad
7. PW7 Sh. Taslimuddin Siddiqi
8. PW8 Sh. Virender Singh ISRA FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra ZAIDI page 2 of 14 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.17 15:06:35 +0530 DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION S. No. Ex./Mark Nature of documents
1. Ex.PW1/A Endorsement on rukka
2. Ex.PW1/B FIR
3. Ex. PW2/A& Ex. PW2/B Seizure memos of the case properties.
4. Ex. PW2/C & Ex. PW2/D Arrest and Personal Search Memo
5. Ex. PW2/E Seizure Memo of DL of accused
6. Ex. PW3/A MLC
7. Ex. PW4/A Application qua status of case property i.e. motorcycle.
8. Ex. PW5/A Statement of Ms. Manju
9. Ex, PW7/A& Ex. PW7/B Reports of Mechanical Inspector
10. Ex. PW8/A Registration Certificate Record of vehicle No. HR-55B-5327 STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S. 313 Cr.PC.
04. The accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C examined on 15.12.2025. The accused stated that he has been falsely implicated by the police officials in this case, he was passing through the spot i.e. near CNG Petrol Pump, Tahirpur on the day of incident, he saw a person lying in the injured condition, he tried to help the injured and took to the hospital and instead they implicated him in the present case. He stated that the injured insisted to drop him, but he refused the same. No defence evidence was led by the accused despite granting him an opportunity.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
05. The Court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on 17.01.2026. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the case against the accused ISRA FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra ZAIDI page 3 of 14 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.17 15:09:30 +0530 is false and frivolous and has prayed that accused be acquitted of the offence charged. He pointed out various discrepancies in the version of the prosecution witness. Learned APP for the State submitted that accused be convicted of the offences under the above-mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused.
POINTS TO BE DETERMINED
1) Whether the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing the grievous injuries to the person of complainant and simple injury to the rider of the motorcycle?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
06. In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 279/304-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt:
Section 279 IPC:-
"Section 279 IPC provide that "whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both".
Section 337 IPC:-
"Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both".
Section 338 IPC:-
"Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing ISRA FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra ZAIDI page 4 of 14 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.17 15:09:40 +0530 any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.".
07. Section 279 IPC makes rash driving or riding on a public way so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person an offence. 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. The question whether conduct of the accused amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection 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.
08. Relevantly, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is observed that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC inter alia are that there must be, "rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person."
09. In order to prove the ingredients of section 337 IPC, it is to be proved that accused caused hurt by doing an act in a rash and negligent manner and consequently endangered the safety of the complainant. In order to prove the ingredients of section 338 IPC, it is to be proved that accused caused grievous hurt by doing an act in a rash and negligent manner and consequently endangered the safety ISRA FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra ZAIDI page 5 of 14 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.17 15:09:49 +0530 of the complainant.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE
10. 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 must be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 IPC. It is a settled proposition of law that to secure conviction under the aforesaid provisions, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and that such rash or negligent act was the direct cause of the accident resulting in injuries to the victims. Mere proof of accident or injuries is not sufficient to attract criminal liability.
11. PW1 ASI Begraj, in his examination in chief, has deposed that on 08.01.2008, he received a rukka sent by SI Rishi Om through Ct. Sukhir, on which, he made endorsement Ex. PW1/A and registered the present FIR Ex. PW1/B and also recorded the DD No. 48-B. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 admitted that he did not had any personal knowledge about the present case. He denied the suggestion put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
12. PW2 HC Sukhbir, in his examination in chief, has deposed that oп 08.01.2008, on receiving PCR call, he along with IO/SI Rishi Om reached the spot i.e. near Tahir CNG Petrol Pump, where they came to know that injured had already gone to hospital and thereafter, he along with IO reached GTB hospital, where IO collected MLC of one Manju. He deposed that IO had recorded the statement of injured Manju, prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He deposed that accordingly, he went to PS Dilshad Garden, got the FIR registered, then reached GTB hospital and handed the same over to IO. He deposed ISRA FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra ZAIDI page 6 of 14 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.17 15:09:56 +0530 that thereafter, they reached the spot, where one Indica car and one motorcycle were seized by the IO vide seizure memos Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. He deposed that PW Dr. Arvind was also present at the spot. He further deposed that IO had prepared the site plan on the pointing of Dr. Arvind.
13. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel that he had received the police call from GTB hospital. He admitted that he firstly visited the hospital and that the rukka was also prepared at the hospital and that he had not visited the spot before the preparation of the rukka alongwith the IO. He testified that he he did not remember for how much time he remained at the hospital. He testified that he received the rukka at about 8.15 PM. He also testified that he had gone to the hospital while walking. He did not remember whether IO asked any public person to join the investigation. He denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
14. PW3 Dr. Sanju Kohli, in his examination in chief, has deposed that on 08.01.2008, at about 6.00 p.m., one patient namely Rinku was brought to the casualty with alleged history of road traffic accident. He deposed that the said patient was examined by Dr Nitin, who left the said hospital and his whereabouts were not known to the hospital This witness has proved the MLC Ex. PW3/A of injured Rinku and proved the signature of Dr. Nitin on the MLC. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
15. PW4 Sh. Arvind, in his examination in chief, has deposed that he is the owner of Motorcycle No. DL-5SU-5783 and he got released the said vehicle, but he could not tell the exact date when he got his vehicle released. He deposed that in the afternoon, he along with his sister was going to see one patient at the Hospital on bike and when he reached at CNG Pump Red light in the meantime, one car came from behind and hit his bike from the back, due to which, they both fell on the road and his sister fell at a distant place. He deposed that thereafter, when he woke up and tried to stop the car, the car driver took reverse and again hit him at a very high speed. He ISRA FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra page 7 of 14 ZAIDI Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.17 15:10:03 +0530 deposed that he somehow entered his hand inside the glass of the car from the driver side, due to which, the upper shirt button of the driver of the car got torn. He deposed that he rescued himself by stepping aside and thereafter accused had fled away from the spot.
16. He deposed that the blood was oozing out from the mouth of his sister and two teeth were also extracted. He further deposed that thereafter; he had taken his sister to the hospital through Rikshaw and got admitted her in emergency ward. He further deposed that he informed to the Police and police officials came at the hospital and his statement was recorded there. He deposed that due to the accident, he also sustained injuries on his elbow and shoulders. He deposed that when he came out from the hospital to take the medicines, he saw that the driver of the offending vehicle was drinking alcohol. He deposed that he again visited the Chowki and informed the police officials about the accused, on which, police officials went there and brought the accused in the Chowki. He deposed that driver of the car wanted to give him money to settle down the matter and also threatened him.
17. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW4 testified that on the day of the incident, he was coming from the side of Loni and moving towards general hospital. He did not know whether at the time of the accident, he was riding the bike on the learning license or the license. The witness denied the suggestion that he was not wearing the helmet at the time of the accident. He did not remember whether his pillion rider was wearing the helmet or not. He denied the suggestion that Mark "L" was not affixed upon his bike's back side. He did not remember whether he had produced any photograph of the motorbike suggesting that there was a mark of 'L' at the back side of the bike. He testified that no police officer had come at the spot. He denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
18. PW5 Ms. Manju, in her examination in chief, has deposed that on 08.01.2008 at about 05:45 p.m., he alongwith Dr. Arvind was going to GTB hospital ISRA FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra ZAIDI page 8 of 14 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.17 15:10:12 +0530 on his bike and when they reached at Tahirpur Chowk, meanwhile, one car i.e. Indica came from behind and hit their bike, due to which, they both fell on the road and due to this accident, her two front teeth were extracted and thereafter when she came in consciousness, she saw that public persons gathered there. She deposed that she saw that Dr. Arvind had caught the collar of the said car driver namely Rinku, due to which, the upper button of his shirt was also broken. She further deposed that thereafter when they reached hospital, they came to know through the police officials that the driver of the offending car was drunk. She deposed that Dr. Arvind called police and police recorded her statement Ex.PW-5/A. She deposed that accused Rinku also threatened her also, outside the PS.
19. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel she did not remember whether it was T point or crossing roads. She testified that she remained admitted into the hospital till 1.30 a.m. to 2.00 a.m. and thereafter, she had gone to the PS. She did not remember whether the police had arrived at the spot or not. She admitted that she was not wearing helmet at the time, when accident took place. She did not know since when Dr. Arvind was riding the motorbikes. She testified that she had not re-visited the spot after the alleged accident in question. She did not remember how many documents were signed by her on that day. She denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
20. PW6 Dr. Pratima Prasad has proved on record MLC Ex. PW3/A, prepared by Dr. Puneet and identified the signature of Dr. Puneet. During cross- examination by Ld. Defence Counsel PW6 admitted that Dr. Puneet has not signed the MLC in her presence. She denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
21. PW7 Sh. Taslimuddin Siddiqi, in his examination in chief, has deposed that on 11.01.2008, he inspected two vehicles i.e. Tata Indica Car bearing No. HR- 55B-5327 and Bajaj Platina bearing No. DL-5SU-5783 and prepared his report Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW7 ISRA FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra ZAIDI page 9 of 14 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.17 15:10:20 +0530 denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
22. PW8 Sh. Virender Singh, in his examination in chief, has brought on record registration certificate record Ex. PW8/A of vehicle No. HR-55B-5327, which was registered in the name of Rajbir Singh. During cross-examination, PW8 admitted that he does not have any personal knowledge about the present case and that particulars entered into the said register were not written in his handwriting. He denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
23. In the present case, the prosecution version suffers from material inter se inconsistencies which hit the root of the case of the prosecution. PW2 HC Sukhbir admitted during cross-examination that the rukka was prepared at the hospital and that neither he nor the IO visited the spot prior to preparation of the rukka. PW4 Dr. Arvind categorically stated that no police official came to the spot of the accident, whereas PW5 Manju was unable to state whether police officials had arrived at the spot or not. These contradictory versions cast serious doubt on the manner of investigation and the alleged inspection of the place of occurrence.
24. There are material contradictions with respect to the conduct and presence of the accused at the spot. PW4 stated that the accused fled away from the spot after hitting the motorcycle, whereas PW5 deposed that PW4 had caught hold of the accused at the spot. PW1 deposed that he had taken his sister to hospital through rickshaw, however, as per the complaint Ex. PW5/A, they came to the hospital with the driver of the offending vehicle, which does not go inconsonance with each other. Such inconsistent versions regarding a vital circumstance render the testimony of the prosecution witnesses unreliable and unsafe to rely upon.
25. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation of the conviction of the accused. These are the few principles which the Court has stated consistently and with certainty. Reference in this regard can be made to the ISRA FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra ZAIDI page 10 of 14 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.17 15:10:27 +0530 case of "Joseph v. State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC".
26. The prosecution has also failed to establish the essential ingredients of rash and negligent driving. Both PW4 and PW5 merely stated that the offending car was being driven at a "high speed". However, neither of the witnesses explained what constituted high speed in the given circumstances. No evidence has been led regarding the traffic conditions, width of the road, visibility, presence of traffic signals, or the speed limit applicable to the said road. It is well settled that high speed by itself does not amount to rash or negligent driving unless supported by other circumstances, which are conspicuously absent in the present case. Also, the case property was not produced before the Court.
27. No scientific or objective evidence has been brought on record to prove rash or negligent driving. There is no evidence regarding skid marks of impact or manner of collision. It is not clear if the bike had suddenly put brake and it was hit. The mechanical inspection reports proved by PW7 do not indicate any mechanical defect due to high-speed collision. Infact, as per mechanical inspection report, front pumper was only scratched. It did not even sustain any dent on bumper. The kind of damage sustained by the bike was not even specified.
28. The allegation that the accused was under the influence of alcohol also remains unproved. No medical examination, breath analyser test or blood test of the accused was conducted. The prosecution witnesses merely stated that they came to know that the accused was drunk, which is hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. In absence of medical or scientific proof, the allegation of intoxication cannot be accepted.
29. The incident is stated to have occurred at a busy public place near a CNG petrol pump and red light. Despite availability, no independent public witness was joined in the investigation. The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation ISRA FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra ZAIDI page 11 of 14 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.17 15:10:35 +0530 for non-joining of public witnesses, which raises an adverse inference against the prosecution case. The investigation suffers from further infirmities, as no public persons were joined despite the incident occurring at a crowded location, and the IO did not record the names of any such persons who allegedly refused to join the investigation. There is no independent witness to the alleged apprehension of the accused driver, no CCTV footage and no evidence establishing the manner of rash and negligent driving on the part of accused.
30. There is no independent witness examined by the prosecution. In case of Pradeep Narayan State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 1930 held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of investigation, benefit of which must go to the accused.
31. Further, the possibility of contributory negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider cannot be ruled out. PW5 admitted that she was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. PW4 also expressed uncertainty regarding the nature of his driving licence at the relevant time. The prosecution has failed to rule out these possibilities and has not established that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the accused.
32. The medical evidence only proves the factum of injuries and does not throw any light on the manner in which the accident occurred or on the alleged rash or negligent driving of the accused. Doctors examined in the present case are not eyewitnesses to the incident.
33. Even the site plan was not signed by the complainant, which alleged to have been prepared at the instance of complainant. She even denied the presence of the police at the spot. The evidentiary value of the spot map/sketch map prepared ISRA FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra ZAIDI page 12 of 14 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.17 15:10:53 +0530 by the investigating officer is relevant under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and since it is based on the actual observation of the officer at the crime scene, it is treated as direct evidence and is admissible u/s 60 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the case of Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana (2003)12 SCC 758 it was held that any defect in the site plan creates a doubt regarding the place of occurrence and accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. The site plan also does not reflect the direction from where the offending vehicle was going or coming. It only reflects point A where car hit the bike. In fact, as per site plan, bike and car were going parallel to each other. It is also not clear, if car was trying to overtake the bike.
34. Even for the sake of assumption, the involvement of the car was to be assumed, the prosecution has failed to prove rashness or negligence, as no witness has given any specific description of speed, manner of driving, or conduct of the accused has been specified by the prosecution. In the Judgment by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Vinod Kumar vs. State, (2012) 1 RLR (Cr.) 567 it was held that no evidence or any material was placed on record by the prosecution to show the manner in which the said petitioner was driving the vehicle to prove rashness and negligence of the petitioner. There is no evidence to show the speed of vehicle or the manner in which the vehicle was being driven to show his rashness or negligence. The gravamen of the offence consists in conduct of accused being rash and negligent which has not been proved by the prosecution.
35. The prosecution has failed to establish an unbroken chain of evidence. These serious contradictions, lapses in investigation, absence of identification of case property, and lack of corroboration create a deep and reasonable doubt about the prosecution case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner so as to FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra ISRA page 13 of 14 ZAIDI Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.17 15:11:05 +0530 attract the provisions of Sections 279/337/338 IPC. The prosecution case suffers from material contradictions, lack of independent corroboration, absence of scientific evidence and serious investigative lapses. Consequently, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
36. It is an adage that law works on the wheels of evidence. Every criminal trial is a journey of discovering and unfolding the truth. But in the present case no sufficient evidence is there on record to warrant the conviction of the accused person. In the case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI 178 (2011) DLT 529 it was held that where it is possible to have both views one in favor of prosecution and one in favor of accused, the later one should prevail. The prosecution could not prove by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt.
37. Therefore, keeping in view the overall conspectus of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this Court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Therefore, this Court gives benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly, accused Rinku Kumar Mishra is acquitted for offences punishable u/s. 279/337/338 IPC. Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
Pronounced in the open Court on 17.01.2026. ZAIDI 2026.01.17 15:11:14 +0530 (Isra Zaidi) Judicial Magistrate First Class-4 North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
This Judgment contains 14 pages and each page bears my signature.
FIR No. 7/2008 State Vs. Rinku Kumar Mishra page 14 of 14