Delhi District Court
State vs . Tejpal Singh on 2 December, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MS EKTA GAUBA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (CENTRAL-06): DELHI
State Vs. Tejpal Singh
FIR no. 330/99
U/s 279/337 IPC
PS I.P. Estate
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of case : 200/2/99/10 2. Date of commission of offence : 04.08.1999 3. Name of complainant : Naveen Sharma 4. Name, parentage and address of : Tejpal Singh S/o Banshi Lal R/o the accused D 147, Bhagirathi Vihar, Gali No. 11, Delhi-94 5. Offence complained of : 279/337 IPC 6. Plea of accused. : Pleaded Not Guilty 7. Final order : Convicted 8. Date of such order : 01.12.2010 BREIF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:-
1. Accused has been forwarded by SHO of the Police Station I.P. Estate to face trial u/s 279/337 IPC.
2. In a nut shell, the prosecution story is that on 04.08.1999 when PW Naveen Sharma was going on his motorcycle bearing no. DL9S 7108 from Karol Bagh to his house via DDU Marg and PW Zafar Khan was sitting at his back on the motorcycle. PW Naveen Sharma stated that he stopped his motorcycle at the DDU Marg due to the reason that there was red light at State Vs Tejpal Singh the ITO. PW Naveen Sharma stated that on his right hand side motorcycle bearing no. DL7SJ1405 make Hero Honda was standing and ahead of him Maruti Car bearing no. HR 29 D 3954 driven by PW Jiwan Singh was standing and another Indica car bearing no. DL7CA 0895 driven by PW Sarika Mehta was standing. PW Naveen Sharma stated that on his back bus bearing no. DLIP 5502, of route no. 317 came driven by driver accused Tejpal Singh whose name was known later on. PW Naveen Sharma stated that driver driving the bus in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came without giving any horn and hit his motorcycle and the vehicles ahead of him as a result of which, the maruti car and the Indica Car also got struck. PW Naveen Sharma stated that as a result of it the front and the back portion of his motorcycle got damaged and the front portion of motorcycle no. DL7SJ 1405 and back portion and front bonut of the said maruti car and back portion of the said Indica car also got damaged and he fell down with his motorcycle and he along with his pillan rider were admitted to the hospital. PW Naveen Sharma stated that bus driver by driving in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner has caused injuries to him and his pillan rider. On this complaint, FIR was registered. Accused was arrested and after completion of remaining investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court.
3. Finding a prima facie case against the accused u/s 279/337 IPC, notice was served upon accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined the following nine witness i.e. PW1 H.C. Hoshiar Singh; PW2 Ashish Mehrotra eye witness State Vs Tejpal Singh cum injured; PW 3 T.U. Siddiqui Mechanical Inspector; PW4 Naveen Sharma Complainant cum eye witness cum injured; PW 5 Ct. Narender Kumar; PW 6 HC Ram Singh ; PW 7 Jaffar Khan, eye witness cum injured; PW 8 Dr. Ritu Saxena and she proved all MLCs of all the three injured and PW-9 Retd. SI Jeet Singh, Investigating Officer.
5. Statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded separately in which accused denied allegations levelled against him and stated that on that date, accident was caused due to other vehicles and his vehicle has not caused the said accident and he has been falsely implicated. Accused also choose to lead defence evidence but no defence evidence was examined by accused and DE was closed by accused.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel and also gone through the case file carefully and thoroughly.
7. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined formal witness PW1 HC Hoshiar Singh and he proved that he recorded the FIR. PW-5 Ct. Narender Kumar was also examined and he stated that on 04.08.99 he alongwith IO ASI Jeet Singh went at the spot and he took the rukka in Police Station I.P. Estate and got registered case. PW-6 HC Ram Singh was also examined and he stated that he took three injured persons namely Ashish Malhotra, Naveen Sharma and Zaffar Khan and got them admitted to JPN Hospital casualty.
8. Prosecution examined PW 9 Retd. SI Jeet Singh, Investigation officer State Vs Tejpal Singh and he stated that he inspected the site and prepared site plan Ex.PW9/B. PW9 Retd. SI Jeet singh also stated that he has seized bus vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A and both motorcycles vide memo Ex. PW5/B. PW 9 Retd. SI Jeet Singh also stated that he arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW5/C. PW9 Retd. SI Jeet Singh also proved the other investigation conducted by him. PW-3 T.U. Siddiqui, Mechanical Inspector was examined and he proved that he conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle i.e. Bus vide report Ex.PW3/A and he also proved the mechanical inspection report of both the motorcycles vide Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C. PW-3 T.U Siddiqui also stated that during the inspection bus was found fit for road test, however, motorcycle bearing No. DL 9S 7108 was not fit for road test after accident and found badly damaged. PW 3 T.U. Siddiqui also stated that during inspection the head light, leg guard of motorcycle bearing No. 1405 was also found damaged but motorcycle was found fit for road test.
9. Prosecution examined PW 8 Dr. Ritu Saxena to prove the injuries on the injured and she proved that all the MLCs have been prepared by Dr. Ashok Kumar who has now left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. PW 8 Dr. Ritu Saxena stated that as per records she can identify his signature. PW 8 Dr. Ritu Saxena proved the MLC of patient Ashish Malhotra vide Ex. PW8/A, the patient Zaffar Khan vide Ex.PW8/B and of patient Naveen Sharma vide Ex.PW8/C are bearing signatures of Dr. Ashok Kumar.
10. Prosecution examined the most crucial witness PW 4 Naveen Sharma, State Vs Tejpal Singh Complainant cum injured cum eye witness. PW 4 Naveen Sharma stated that on 04.08.1999 he was going on his motorcycle bearing No. DL 9S 7108 from Karol Bagh via DDU and when he stopped at ITO red light, at that time, towards his right motorcycle No. 1405 was present and ahead of him, Maruti Car No. 3954 and Indica car No. 0895 were also present. PW4Naveen Sharma stated that at that time one bus bearing No. DL 1P 5502 route No. 317 driven by accused driver Tej Pal Singh came in a high speed and rash and negligent manner and without giving the horn and hit his motorcycle and motorcycle standing adjoining to him and as a result his motorcycle struck the car ahead of him and as a result of which he fell down. PW 4 Naveen Sharma stated that this accident has occurred due to negligence of the accused. Prosecution also examined PW 2 Ashish Mehrotra, eye witness cum injured. PW 2 Ashish Mehrotra also stated that on 04.08.99 at about 6.25 pm the bus bearing No. DL 1P 5502 came from back at his right side and struck against the right portion of his vehicle and also struck one Indica Car and another Yamaha Bike, the number of which he did not remember. PW 2 Ashish Mehrotra also stated that said offending bus came in a very fast speed and caused a forceful impact on his vehicle and also on abovesaid another vehicle. PW-2 Ashish Mehrotra stated that said bus was coming in very rash manner. PW 2 Ashish Mehrotra stated that he received injuries on his right leg as there was multiple fractures on his leg. Prosecution also examined PW 7 Jaffar Khan, eye witness cum injured. PW 7 Jaffar Khan stated that the bus was of route no. 317 and number of bus was 5502. Ld. APP for state also contended that although PW-7 Jaffar Khan turned hostile but PW-7 Jaffar Khan has still partly corroborated the State Vs Tejpal Singh prosecution version. Ld. APP for the State contended that prosecution was able to prove its case and accused should be convicted .
11. On the other hand, Accused has raised the only defence that accident was caused by some other vehicle and it was not caused by his vehicle. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that accused has been falsely implicated as PW 7 Jaffar Khan, eye witness cum injured has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that PW 7 Jaffar Khan in his examination in chief stated that he can not identify the driver of the bus who caused the accident. PW7 Jaffar Khan in his cross examination also stated that he has not told the police that Tej Pal Singh was the driver of the offending bus. Ld. Defence Counsel also contended that PW 9 Retd. SI Jeet Singh in his cross-examination admitted that he had not made the car as case property in the case. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that all these facts throws doubt on the prosecution story and accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and accused should be acquitted.
12. In view of the fact that accused has not led any evidence to prove his defence that accident was caused by some other vehicle. Also, the contention of ld. defence counsel that investigating officer had not made the car as case property in the case throws doubt on prosecution story, holds not good. Keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in Father Shepherd Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2007 (2) CCC (DHC) 472 wherein, it has been held that 'Merely, because the investigation has been conducted in a slipshod and defective manner and some lacune have been left by the Investigating Officer, an accused State Vs Tejpal Singh cannot be acquitted.'
13. In order to prove the essential ingredient for offence u/s 279/337 IPC that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving, prosecution examined PW2 Ashish Mehrotra Eye-witness-cum-injured. PW2 Ashish Mehrotra stated that on 04.08.1999 at about 6.25 pm, when he reached at DDU red light point on his motorcycle No. DL 7S J 1405. PW2 Ashish Mehrotra stated that at that time one bus bearing No. DL 1P 5502 came from back on his right side and struck against the right portion of his vehicle and also struck one Indica Car, one another Yamaha bike number of which he did not remember. PW 2 Ashish Mehrotra stated that the said offending bus came in a very fast speed and caused a very forceful impact on his vehicle and aforesaid vehicle. PW 2 Ashish Mehrotra also stated that the said offending bus was coming in a very rash manner. Also, prosecution has examined PW 4 Naveen Sharma complainant-cum- injured-cum-eye witness. PW 4 Naveen Sharma stated that on 04.08.1999 he was going on his motorcycle No. DL 9S 7108 alongwith his friend Jaffar Khan and when they reached on the ITO Red Light and when he stopped his motorcycle on the red light then towards his right motorcycle bearing No. 1405 was also stationed and ahead of him one Maruti Car No. 3954 driven by driver Jiwan Singh and Indica Car No. 0895 were also stationed. PW 4 Naveen Sharma stated that at that time one bus bearing No. DL 1P 5502 route No. 317 came from behind driven by driver accused Tej Pal Singh present in the court today. PW 4 Naveen Sharma stated that accused driving the vehicle in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came and without giving any horn and hit State Vs Tejpal Singh his motorcycle as well as the motorcycle on his right hand side. Thus prosecution was able to prove essential ingredient for offence U/s 279/337 IPC that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving.
14. In order to prove the essential ingredient for offence u/s 337 IPC that simple hurt was caused to the injured, prosecution examined PW2 Ashish Mehrotra eye-witness cum injured and he stated that he received injuries on his right leg as there were multiple fractures on his leg. Prosecution also examined PW 7 Jaffar Khan eye witness-cum- injured. PW 7 Jaffar Khan stated that after the said accident he alongwith his friend fell down on the road and PCR Jipsy took them to the hospital. Prosecution also examined PW 4 Naveen Sharma Complainant-cum- Injured-cum-Eye witness. PW 4 Naveen Sharma stated that as a result of being hit by the offending vehicle, he fell down and he was admitted to the JPN Hospital by the PCR Van. PW 6 HC Ram Singh was examined and he also proved that he admitted three injured persons namely Ashish Mehrotra, Naveen Sharma and Jaffar Khan to the JPN Hospital casualty. Prosecution to prove the injuries to the injured also examined PW-8 Dr. Ritu Saxena. PW 8 Dr. Ritu Saxena proved all the MLCs prepared by Dr. Ashok Kumar as she can identify Dr. Ashok Kumar's signatures. PW 8 Dr. Ritu Saxena also proved MLC of PW Ashish Malhotra as Ex. PW8/A and MLC of PW Zaffar Khan as Ex.PW8/B and MLC of PW Naveen Sharma as Ex.PW8/C all bearing signatures of Dr. Ashok Kumar. Perusal of MLC Ex.PW8/A shows that patient Ashish Malhotra has left against medical advise and therefore nature of the injuries could not be given.
State Vs Tejpal Singh But perusal of MLC Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C proved that injuries were simple. Thus prosecution was able to prove simple hurt was caused to injured PW 4 Naveen Sharma and PW 7 Jaffar Khan.
15. In order to prove the essential ingredient for offence U/S 279/337 IPC, that accident was caused by accused only while driving the offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing No. DL 1 P 5502 route No. 317. Prosecution examined PW 2 Ashish Mehrotra and he stated that on 04.08.1999 at about 6.25 pm the bus number DL 1 P 5502 came from back at his right side and struck against the right portion of his vehicle and the said bus was being driven by the accused Tej Pal Singh, present in the court and he was driving the said bus at the time of incident. Prosecution also examined PW 4 Naveen Sharma Complainant-cum- eye witness -cum- injured and he stated that at the time of incident, the offending bus bearing No. DL 1P 5502 route No. 317 came and hit his vehicle and another motorcycle No. 1405 and a Maruti Car No. 3954 and one Indica Car No. 0895 and the said bus was driven by the accused Tej Pal Singh, present in the court today. Also, prosecution examined PW 7 Jaffar Khan Eye witness -cum- injured, PW 7 Jaffar Khan stated that on 04.08.1999 he was a pillion rider on a motorcycle of his friend and when they reached at red light ITO, motorcycle was stopped due to red signal and suddenly one bus came from behind and hit their motorcycle and there were many other vehicles stationed on the red light which were also hit by the accused with his bus and the said bus was of route No. 317 and the number of bus was 5502. Even though PW 7 Jaffar Khan later on turned hostile but PW 7 Jaffar Khan has still corroborated the testimony of eye State Vs Tejpal Singh witnesses PW2 Ashish Mehrotra and PW4 Naveen Sharma. Also, no motive has been proved by the accused for falsely implicating the accused by PW 2 Ashish Mehrotra and PW 4 Naveen Sharma. Thus, prosecution was able to prove the essential ingredient for offence U/S 279/337 IPC that accident was caused by the accused only while driving the bus.
16. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid fact and circumstances, I am of the considered view that testimony of PW 2 Ashish Mehrotra and PW4 Naveen Sharma is clear, convincing and reliable and no material has come on record which falsify their evidence. Also, all the essential ingredients of offence U/s 279/337 IPC have been fully established. I am of the considered view that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is hereby convicted for the offence U/s 279/337 IPC. Let accused be heard separately on the point of sentence on 02.12.2010.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 01.12.2010 (EKTA GAUBA) MM-06,Central/Delhi/01.12.2010 State Vs Tejpal Singh (1) IN THE COURT OF MS. EKTA GAUBA:MM CENTRAL-06, DELHI State Vs. Tej Pal Singh F.I.R. No. 330/99 PS- I.P. Estate U/s 279/337 IPC 02.12.2010 ORDER ON SENTENCE :
Present : Sh. Sunil Dutt, Ld. APP for the state.
Convict in person with Ld. counsel Sh. R.S. Nirwal.
The case is fixed today for orders on the point of sentence.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
Ld. counsel for the convict contended that convict is the sole bread earner of the family and he has six young children to support. Ld. Counsel for convict contented that convict is an aged person of 60 years and he is not a previous convict. Ld. counsel for the convict also submitted that convict may kindly be released on probation as he is not a previous convict.
Contd...
(2)On the other hand, Ld. APP for the state contended that in the present case accused was driving the said bus and he had caused the State Vs Tejpal Singh injuries upon PW Ashish Mehrotra, PW Naveen Sharma and PW Jaffar Khan while driving the said bus in the rash and negligent manner. Ld. APP for the state contended that maximum punishment be given and accused does not deserves to be released on probation.
I have carefully considered the submission made by Ld. APP for state as well as Ld. counsel for convict.
In view of the fact that convict was driving a bus and he while driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner had caused the injuries upon PW Ashish Mehrotra and PW Naveen Sharma and PW Jaffar Khan and also convict was working as a commercial driver on the private bus and it is well know fact that accident due to the rash and negligent driving are on the increase in the city and in view of the facts and circumstances, convict does not deserve the benefit to be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
I am of the considered view that interest of justice will be served, if convict is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of Contd....
(3)two months for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC.
For offence punishable under Section 337 IPC, convict is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
State Vs Tejpal Singh Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Convict be given benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of judgment has been supplied to the convict free of cost yesterday itself i.e. on the date of judgment.
Copy of order on sentence be supplied to the convict today itself free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
Today i.e on 02.12. 2010 (EKTA GAUBA)
MM-06, Central/Delhi/02.12.2010
State Vs Tejpal Singh