Delhi District Court
State vs . Desh Raj on 21 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04,
SOUTH DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Desh Raj
FIR NO: 234/08
P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
U/s 279/304A IPC
Unique ID no. 02403R0113182009
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case : 206/2 (13.4.2009) Date of its institution : 13.4.2009 Name of the complainant : ASI Nawab Khan Date of Commission of offence : 22.5.2008 Name of the accused : Desh Raj Offence complained of : Section 279/304 A IPC and 3/181 M.V Act Plea of accused : Not guilty Case reserved for orders : 21.9.2013 Date of judgment : 21.9.2013 Final Order : ACQUITTED BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of the accused Desh Raj pursuant to a charge sheet filed by the State Vs. Desh Raj 1/5 FIR no. 234/08 Police Station Ambedkar Nagar under section Section 279/304 A Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and 3/181 Motor Vehicles Act (for short M.V Act) subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR no. 234/08.
2. As per the prosecution's story on 22.5.2008 at about 10.30 pm on Ambedkar Marg, BRT Corridor near Petrol Pump, New Delhi accused was found driving a bus bearing no. DL 1PC 0025 (for short referred to as "offending vehicle") in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of one Parminder, thus committed an offence u/s 279/304 A IPC.
3. After completing the formalities, charge sheet was filed against the accused and the accused was stated the substance of offence u/s 279/304 A IPC and 3/181 M.V Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined five witnesses.
5. PW 1 Sh. Prem Chand proved the dead body identification statement of his nephew Parminder as Ex.PW1/A and handing over memo as Ex.PW1/B. He was not cross examined by the accused despite according opportunity.
6. PW 2 Sh. Suresh Chand proved the dead body identification statement of his son Parminder as Ex.PW1/A and handing over memo as Ex.PW1/B. He was not cross examined by the accused despite according opportunity.
7. PW 3 HC Hans Raj deposed that on 22.5.08, he was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar and on that day, on receiving of DD no. 30A regarding the accident, he alongwith ASI Nawab Khan reached the spot i.e near Petrol Pump, Chirag Delhi, fly over, Ambedkar Nagar where one bus no. DL 1PC 0025 and one two wheeler scooter bearing no. DL 9SF 5388 make Bajaj Chetak were found in accidental condition which was in damaged condition. IO thereafter, searched for the eye witness but no such eye State Vs. Desh Raj 2/5 FIR no. 234/08 witness was found at the spot. In the meantime, DD no.35A was received from Safdarjung Hospital stating that one dead body has arrived at the hospital. Thereafter, investigating officer left him at the spot and went to the Safdarjung Hospital. After sometime, investigating officer came back to the spot and prepared the rukka on DD no.30A and sent him to the police station for the registration of FIR. After the registration of FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to the investigating officer. Thereafter, investigating officer seized both the vehicles vide memo Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. The photographs of the vehicle were taken. IO thereafter searched for the accused but he was not found present. On 23.5.08, the accused Desh Raj appeared before the police in the police station as he was produced by the registered owner of the vehicle namely Rajesh and thereafter, the accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW3/D. He was not cross examined by the accused despite according opportunity.
8. PW 4 Sh. T.U. Siddiqui proved the mechanical inspection of the vehicles as x.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. He was not cross examined by the accused despite according opportunity.
9. PW 5 Sh. Rajesh Aneja proved his reply to the notice u/s 133 M.V Act as Ex.PW5/A and photographs of the bus as Ex.P1. He was not cross examined by the accused despite according opportunity.
10. Prosecution evidence stood closed vide order dated 21.9.2013. Accused admitted genuineness of certain formal documents under section 294 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "the Code").
11. The accused was examined under the provision of section 313 of the Code and all the State Vs. Desh Raj 3/5 FIR no. 234/08 incriminating evidence were put to him which he denied. He, however, chose not to lead defence evidence. Consequently, matter was posted for final arguments.
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and Sh. Fahim Alam, Ld. LAC for the accused and perused the records of the case.
13. I have bestowed my thoughtful considerations to the rival submissions made before me. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence under section 279/304 A IPC. Firstly, I would embark upon Section 279 of IPC which reads as under :
"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 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 both".
Section 304 A reads as under :
Causing death by negligence Whoever caused the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
14. For establishing the aforesaid charges against the accused, prosecution has to prove two important facts. Firstly, that the accused was driving the vehicle bearing no. DL 1PC 0025 at the aforesaid time and place and secondly the same was driven by him in a rash and negligent manner which resulted into the death of Parminder.
15. The prosecution's case is that on the aforesaid date, time and place of incident, accused was found driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and State Vs. Desh Raj 4/5 FIR no. 234/08 caused the death of Parminder. There is only one public witness namely Sh. Krishna Sharma which has been found mentioned in the list of witnesses. However, as per his statement u/s 161 of the Code he reached the spot after the accident has already been caused. He is claimed to have not witnessed the accident in question. He has not stated anything about the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. Testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution cannot form the basis of conviction of the accused. Accused has conceded the genuineness of certain documents but that also by itself is not sufficient to warrant his conviction. Prosecution has to prove rashness or negligence on the part of the accused by adducing cogent evidence. Rashness or negligence cannot be presumed just because an accident did occur resulting in an injury or death. Therefore, it is said that there is no harm in coming to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
16. In a case titled as Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn. & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is held that " in a case where, 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 the conclusion on the future date"
17. Therefore, in ultimate analysis as a result of trial, the accused is acquitted of the offences with which he is charged. He is set at liberty.
Announced in the open court (Navjeet Budhiraja)
on 21.9.2013 Metropolitan Magistrate04,
South, New Delhi
State Vs. Desh Raj 5/5 FIR no. 234/08