Delhi District Court
State vs Bablu on 30 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH MANOJ KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (TRAFFIC)03/SOUTH WEST
DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
State Vs Bablu
Vehicle No. DL ILG 5115
Challan No. 55232
CircleDCC
State .............Complainant
Versus
Bablu S/o Sh. Ram Baj,
R/o T35, Raghubir Nagar,
New Delhi 110027 ..............Accused
a) Challan No. of the case : 55232
b) Date of commission of offence : 29.06.2012
c) Name of the complainant : State
d) Name of the accused, and his : Bablu S/o Sh. Ram Baj
parentage and residence R/o T35, Raghubir Nagar,
New Delhi 110027
e) Offence complained of : U/s 66(1)/192A & 138(3)/177 MV
Act
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
g) Final order : Convicted.
h) Date of such order : 30.07.2012
i) Date of institution of the case : 30.06.2012
j) Date of reserving the judgment : 24.07.2012.
k) Date of pronouncing the judgment : 30.07.2012
(1/5)
JUDGMENT
1. The case in brief is that on 29.06.2012 at 10.45 hours, the accused was driving vehicle bearing number DL ILG 5115 and while coming form Gurgaon side and going towards Dhaula Kuan side, he overtook another vehicle bearing no. HR 55 8879. Furthermore, it was also found that accused was driving his vehicle without wearing seat belt. Thereafter, ZO ASI Dhak Lal Yadav issued a challan bearing no. 55232 dated 29.06.2012 u/s 66(1)/192A & 138(3)/177 MV Act.
2. The accused appeared in the Court and was admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds as the offences were bailable in nature. Vide a separate order dated 30.06.2012, the vehicle in question was released on superdari on furnishing superdarinama in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ only. The notice of the accusation served upon the accused u/s 251 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 10.07.2012 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, two prosecution witnesses namely PW1 ZO ASI Dhak Lal Yadav and Ct. Ganesh Kumar stepped into the witness box. PW1 proved the challan against the accused which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point "A". The witnesses were examined, cross examined and thereafter the evidence of the prosecution was closed vide order dated 18.07.2012.
4. The statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by putting the entire incriminating evidence to him by the Court. The accused in his reply thereunder stated that he was wrongly challaned by the ZO and he did not overtake any vehicle.
(2/5)
5. (1) The testimony of PW1 brings out that the accused first changed the lane and then overtook the another vehicle. Both the vehicle were moving in the same lane.
(2) Testimony of PW2 brings out that he was the eye witness of the challan and he saw that both the vehicle were moving in the same lane and the offending vehicle overtook another vehicle. (3) There were no public witnesses joined by the PW1.
6. The accused raised the followings defences: (1) The vehicle which was overtaken and the vehicle of the accused, were running in the same lane.
(2) No public witness was made by the challaning officer. (3) The statement of the driver of the vehicle which was overtaken, not recorded.
(4) Testimony of Police officials cannot be relied upon without corroboration.
7. PW1 failed to state his location/position at the time of making challan as in his examination in chief he has not stated where he was standing when he watched the offending vehicle overtaking another vehicle. In my view, it is highly improbable that PW1 watched the two vehicle first coming in the same lane and then overtaking by one vehicle as it is not the case of prosecution that PW1 watched the offending vehicle on some bike or chased the vehicle after witnessing the incident.
Moreover, the another vehicle was stopped by the challaning Officer i.e. PW1 but neither the name of driver is mentioned in the challan nor he was cited as a public witness. Thus, it is highly improbable that driver of another vehicle was even stopped by PW1.
(3/5) PW2 stated that he was standing around 100 meters far from the PW1. Thus, mere this fact is sufficient to indicate that he had not witnessed the offending vehicle overtaking the another vehicle. Moreover, he had not signed the challan as only his name find mentioned in witness column of challan. Thus, it is difficult to believe that he witnessed the incident.
Furthermore, no public witness was made by the PW1. Thus, the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 is highly improbable and thus not reliable.
8. Thus, I am of the view that prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There are several lacuna's in the prosecution case and as per the settled principal of law, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. So, the accused is hereby acquitted for the charge u/s 66(1)/192A MV Act.
9. For offence u/s 138(3)/177 MV Act, PW1 stated in his examination in chief that driver was driving the vehicle without wearing seat belt. No question were asked in his cross examination regarding this fact. Thus offence u/s 138(3)/177 MV Act stands proved.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, on perusal of the entire case file and after hearing the arguments advanced at length by both the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the offence against the accused stands not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused stands acquitted u/s 66(1)/192A MV Act.
(4/5)
11. Let the accused be heard on quantum of sentence u/s 138(3)/177 MV Act.
(PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.07.2012) (MANOJ KUMAR) MM(Traffic)03/SW/Dwarka New Delhi/ 30.07.2012 (5/5) State Vs Bablu Vehicle No. DL ILG 5115 Challan No. 55232 CircleDCC 30.07.2012 ORDER ON SENTENCE I have heard the convict and the Ld APP for the State, on the point of sentence. The convict is a driver by profession. He is a poor fellow with a family to maintain. The convict has already suffered a great deal during the trial process itself.
Accordingly, keeping in view the nature of the offence and the given facts and circumstances of the present case alongwith the aggravating and mitigating factors related thereto, convict is hereby sentenced to fine of Rs. 100/ u/s 138(3)/177 MV Act and in default of payment of fine SI for 01 days.
(PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.07.2012) (MANOJ KUMAR) MM(Traffic)03/SW/Dwarka New Delhi/ 30.07.2012