Delhi District Court
State vs . on 11 February, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIVEK KUMAR GULIA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTHWEST)
DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of :
State
Vs.
Sanoj Kumar
FIR No. 38/07
P.S.: Najafgarh
JUDGMENT
1 Sr. No. of case : 02405R0988732008 2 Date of institution : 06.06.2008 3. Name of the complainant : HC Rambir Singh 4. Date of commission of offence : 13.01.2007 5. Name of accused : Sanoj Kumar S/o Shri Nathu Ram R/o Village Paprawat, PO Najafgarh,New Delhi. 6. Offence complained of : Sec. 279/304A IPC 7. Plea of guilt : Accused pleaded not guilty 8. Date of reserving the judgment : 11.02.2016 9. Final order : Acquitted Page 1 of 7 State Vs. Sanoj Kumar; FIR No. 38/07; PS:Najafgarh 2 10. Date of such judgment : 11.02.2016 FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
1. The important facts of the case are as follows. In this case, FIR was registered on the basis of DD no. 25A dated 13.01.2007 mentioning that an intimation was received at PS Najafgarh regarding road accident at Paprawat Road. Thereafter, HC Rambir Singh (PW6) and Const. Arun Kumar (PW1) reached at the spot and found one scooter bearing registration no. DL 9SC 6021 in accidental condition. No eyewitness was found and injured were stated to be shifted to hospital. In the meantime, DD no. 30A was received from RTRM hospital qua admission of two injured persons, where Deen Mohd. Naag @ Deenu and Sanoj Kumar were found admitted and both were declared unfit for statement. Thereafter, injured Deen Mohd. Naag @ Deenu was referred to RML Hospital. During investigation, said scooter was seized and injured Deen Mohd. Naag @ Deenu succumbed to injuries. Thereafter, his medical documents were collected. Further, it was revealed that Sanoj Kumar was driving the said scooter at the time of accident and injured Deen Mohd. Naag @ Deenu was the pillion rider and accident had happened as accused Page 2 of 7 State Vs. Sanoj Kumar; FIR No. 38/07; PS:Najafgarh 3 Sanoj was driving the said scooter in a rash and negligent manner and under the influence of liquor. After culmination of investigation, accused was chargesheeted and summoned to face trial. TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:
2. In light of the above stated facts and proceedings and after making compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 01.02.2010, the then Ld. MM, SouthWest, New Delhi, gave notice under section 251 Cr.P.C for offences under section 279/304A IPC to accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. For proving its case, prosecution has produced six witnesses.
3.1 PW1, Const. Arun Kumar, deposed that after receiving DD no. 25A regarding accident, he alongwith HC Rambir reached at the spot i.e. RewlaPaprawat Road, in front of Chopra Farm House, where one scooter bearing registration no. DL 9SC 6021 was found in accidental condition. Thereafter, passers by informed that injured were shifted to the hospital. In the meantime, DD no. 30A from RTRM Page 3 of 7 State Vs. Sanoj Kumar; FIR No. 38/07; PS:Najafgarh 4 hospital regarding admission of two injured was received. Then, he remained at the spot and IO went to the hospital. After returning back from the hospital, IO prepared tehrir and sent him for registration of FIR.
3.2 PW2, Puran Chand, testified that he conducted mechanical inspection of scooter bearing registration no. DL 9SC 6021 and submitted his report Ex. PW2/A. 3.3 PW3, ASI Ramesh Terkey, deposed that he recorded the FIR Ex. PW3/A in this case and made his endorsement Ex. PW3/B on the rukka.
3.4 PW4, Dr. Parminder Singh, testified that he conducted postmortem of deceased namely Deen Mohd. and gave his report Ex.
PW4/A. 3.5 PW5, Bholu, testified that he came to know about accident of his brother Deen Mohd. Deena through phone and thereafter he went to hospital. During crossexamination conducted by Ld. Prosecutor, he replied that he was not present at the spot at the time of accident and denied that accused was driving the scooter in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. Further, he denied Page 4 of 7 State Vs. Sanoj Kumar; FIR No. 38/07; PS:Najafgarh 5 making any statement to the IO. Further, he mentioned that he identified the dead body of his brother and received the same vide memos Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/C. Further, he mentioned that accused was driving the offending scooter but he came to know about the same through the villagers.
3.6 PW6, SI Rambir Singh, deposed on the lines of PW1. Apart from that, he mentioned that he received DD no. 25A Ex. PW6/1, prepared rukka Ex. PW6/2, site plan Ex. PW6/3 and seized the scooter vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/4.
4. Since the sole eyewitness PW5 Bholu had not supported the prosecution case and rest of the witnesses were related to investigation, P.E was ordered to be closed.
5. Since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
6. I have heard the State through Shri Anil Kumar, Ld. Page 5 of 7 State Vs. Sanoj Kumar; FIR No. 38/07; PS:Najafgarh 6 Additional Public Prosecutor and accused. Record is also gone through.
7. It is not disputed by Ld. Prosecutor that the only eye witness PW5 Bholu has not supported the prosecution case. It is observed that he specifically denied having witnessed the accident. Further, it is seen that he admitted that accused was driving the offending vehicle, however, he explained that he came to know about this from the villagers. Thus, this part of his statement is hearsay evidence and cannot be acted upon. Moreover, he has not said anything about rash and negligent driving of accused. In view of this, remaining witnesses, who were related to investigation, were not called for their testimony as that would have been a wasteful exercise and therefore prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Another (1996 JCC 507) :
"...........when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce Page 6 of 7 State Vs. Sanoj Kumar; FIR No. 38/07; PS:Najafgarh 7 the conclusion on a future date".
CONCLUSION :
8. For the aforesaid reasons, it is concluded that prosecution has failed to prove the charges for offences punishable u/s 279/304 A IPC against the accused. Accordingly, he is pronounced not guilty in respect of above mentioned offences.
Announced in the open court (Vivek Kumar Gulia)
on 11 day of February 2016 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (SW)
th
(total 07 pages) Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
Page 7 of 7 State Vs. Sanoj Kumar; FIR No. 38/07; PS:Najafgarh