Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Kumar Jha on 30 April, 2026
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAURABH GOYAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01, DWARKA COURTS,
DELHI
State Vs. : Amit Kumar Jha
FIR No : 753/2024
U/s : 281/125 (a)/125 (b) BNS & 185 MV Act
P.S. : PALAM VILLAGE
CNR NO. : DLSW020776642025
1. Criminal Case No. : 7323/2025
2. Date of commission of offence : 12.12.2024
3. Date of institution of the case : 07.07.2025
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused, parentage & Address : Amit Kumar Jha S/o Sh.
Shailendra Kumar Jha
6. Offense complained or proved : Section 281/125
(a)/125(b) BNS
& 185 MV Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 16.04.2026
9. Final order : Acquittal
10. Date of final order : 30.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The accused is facing trial for commission of offences U/S 281/125
(a)/125 (b) BNS and 185 MV Act. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 12.12.2024 at about 9:00 Pm at Palam Flyover towards Dwarka, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Palam Village, accused was found FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 2 driving one Tata Safari Car bearing registration No. DL 10 CW 8671 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others and hit the same with two motorcycles i.e. Honda SP 125 Bike bearing NO. DL9SCN 4583 and Bike bearing NO. DL 9SCJ 7095 and also one Innova Car bearing NO. MH 02 F 5873 due to which complainant Sh. Amit Kumar Singh and Victim Mohd. Asraf, sustained grievous injuries and victim Mohd. Shahbuddin sustained simple injuries and thereby, accused is facing trial for commission of offence punishable U/S 281/125 (a) / 125 (b) BNS. Further, accused was found driving above said vehicle Tata Safari Car bearing registration No. DL 10 CW 8671 under the influence of alcohol and on being checked through breathe analyzer, the quantity of alcohol was found to be 147.2 MG/100 ml and thereby accused is facing trail for commission of offence U/s 185 M V Act. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet for offences U/S 281/125 (a)/125 (b) BNS and 185 MV Act was submitted for trial of accused.
2. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offences was taken on the basis of material available on record, notice of accusation for offences U/S 281/125
(a)/125 (b) BNS and 185 MV Act was framed on 17.10.2025 and served upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined Nine prosecution witnesses which are as under.
4. PW-1 Sh. Amit Kumar Singh S/o Late Sh. Chandrika Singh, R/o 17- C, Street No. 14, Harphool Vihar, Nangli Dairy Extension, New Delhi- 110043 is the complainant in this case and has deposed that he is residing on the above said address for the last 10 years. On 12.12.2024, he was FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 3 returning from his duty from Noida and going towards his above said house. At about 09:00 PM when he reached at Palam Flyover towards Dwarka, some vehicle hit his motorcycle from behind. He got disbalanced and fall on ground. Thereafter, he did not know anything regarding present case. It is pertinent to mentioned that during the trial, the witness compounded the offence u/s 125 (a)/125 (b) BNS with the accused for a compensation amount of Rs. 5000/-. This witness was therefore not expected to support the case of the prosecution and therefore, during the examination, Ld. APP cross-examined the witness with the permission of the court. However, no incriminating statement could be extracted by the prosecution.
5. PW-2 Mohd. Ashraf S/o Mohd. Farman, R/o Baisi District Purniya, Bihar has deposed that he used to reside at Mahavir Enclave, Delhi and used to do embroidery work at Delhi in year 2024. On 12.12.2024 he was returning from Nizamuddin towards his home at Mahavir Enclave. One unknown person has taken lift on his motorcycle and he along with said unknown person were on motorcycle. He was driving the said motorcycle and said person was sitting behind him. When he reached over Palam Flyover, some vehicle hit his motorcycle from behind and he got dis- balanced and he along with said person fallen on ground. He did not know the vehicle who had hit his motorcycle from behind due to heavy traffic. Similar to the PW-1, this witness/victim also compounded the matter with the accused and despite being cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state, no incriminating statement against the accused was deposed by the witness.
6. PW-3 SI Sandeep Kumar No. D5755, Zonal Officer, Kapasehra Circle, who is the IO of this case has deposed that on 12.12.2024 he was FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 4 posted as SI at PS Palam Village. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 138 A, he along with HC Parveen went to spot i.e. Palam Flyover towards Dwarka where they found one Tata Safari Car, Innova Car and Two Motorcycles in accidental condition. At the spot complainant as well as the accused were also found. The driver and owner of the Innova Car was also found present there. Thereafter, all the accidental vehicles were brought to the PS Palam Village. The accused got medically examined from IG Hospital for his medical examination. Thereafter, statement of complainant Sh. Amit Kumar was recorded ie. Mark X and is now Ex PW3/A. He prepared tehrir/rukka Ex. PW3/B, he got the present case FIR registered, he went to the spot alongwith the complainant and prepared site plan Ex. PW3/C at the instance of complainant. Both the motorcycles as well as the vehicle of complainant and accused were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/D, Ex PW3/E and Ex. PW3/F. The documents of accused also seized vide memo Ex. PW3/G. Notice U/s 133 MV Act was also served upon the accused i.e. Ex. PW3/H. Notice U/s 35 (3) BNSS was also served i.e. Ex. PW3/1. Interrogation memo was also prepared and vehicles were got mechanically inspected. Statement of witnesses U/s 180 BNSS was also recorded. Accused was correctly identified by witness in the court. The Vehicle of accused was released on superdari vide superdarinama photographs Ex. PX1 (Colly). Both the motorcycles were also released on superdari vide superdarinama and photographs Ex. PX2 (Colly). During the cross examination, the witness admitted that the Innova Car was neither seized, nor mechanically inspected and no photographs were clicked. The IO denied presence at that time when medical examination of the accused was FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 5 conducted.
7. PW- 4 Sh. Chander Prakash, Mechanical Inspector has deposed that on 19.12.2024, as per the instructions of the IO, he mechanically inspected the Vehicle No. DL 9SCJ 7095 (Honda Bike), No. DL 9SCL 4583 (Honda Bike) and NO. DL 10CW 8671 (Tata Safari Car) and prepared his reports Ex. PW4/A (Colly).
8. PW-5 Sh. Deepak Jaiswal, Medical Record Officer, DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi has deposed that he has brought the Original MLC Register of MLC NO. 9280 dated 12.12.2024 along with X Ray report. He can identify the hand writing and signatures of Dr. Renuka as he had seen her writing and signing the documents during the ordinary course of his duties as he had worked with her. The aforesaid MLC i.e. Ex. PW5/A was prepared by Dr. Renuka bearing her signatures and stamp at point A.
9. PW- 6 HC Sunil Kumar No. 318/SW, PS Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi has deposed that on 13.12.2024, he was posted as HC at PS Palam Village. On that day as per the instructions of IO SI Sandeep Yadav, he took the accused Amit Kumar to Indra Gandhi Hospital for his medication examination and vide ME No. 33030/24 dated 13.12.2024 the accused Amit Kumar was medically examined in the concerned hospital by Doctors and Doctors recorded the Alcohol level of the accused as BAC 47.2 Mg/100 ML. After the medical examination of the accused he handed over the Accused as well as Medical Examination report to the IO. During the cross examination the witness admitted that, there was no receipt issued from the Alcometer Machine/Breath Analyzer. He further admitted that in his presence in the police station no alcohol test of accused was conducted.
FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 6
10. PW-7 Dr. Sandeep Dagar, CMO, DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi has deposed that on 12.12.2024 he was posted as Casualty Medical Officer, aforesaid hospital. On that day patient namely Ashraf and Shahbuddin were brought to Casualty Department. Dr. Renuka and Dr. Gurkirat Singh, examined both these patient and prepared their MLC No. 9280 and No. 9308. He can identify the hand writing and signatures of Dr. Renuka and Dr. Gurkirat Singh on the said MLC,s as he had seen them writing and signing the documents during the ordinary course of his duties as he had worked with them. The aforesaid MLC NO. 9280 i.e. Ex. PW5/A was prepared by Dr. Renuka bearing her signatures and stamp at point A and MLC NO. 9308 is Ex. PW7/A was prepared by Dr. Gurkirat Singh bearing his signatures and stamp at points A.
11. PW-8 Dr. Vipul Khurana, Sr.Resident, Ortho, DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi has deposed that on 12.12.2024 he was posted as Sr. Resident in the aforesaid hospital. On that day patient namely Ashraf and Shahbuddin were brought to Casualty Department. Dr. Renuka and Dr. Gurkirat Singh, examined both these patient and prepared their MLC No. 9280 and No. 9308 and referred those patients to Orthopedic Department. In Orthopedic Department, Dr. Rahul Bindal examined them and prepared report. He identified the hand writing and signatures of Dr. Rahul Bindal on the said MLC, as he had seen him writing and signing the documents during the ordinary course of his duties as he had worked with him.
12. PW-9 Dr. J. Touthang, Casualty Medical Officer, Indira Gandhi Hospital, Dwarka, New Delhi has deposed that on 13.12.2024 he was posted as CMO in the aforesaid hospital. On that day, person namely Amit FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 7 Kumar (accused) was brought to the aforesaid hospital for his medical examination. Dr. Gaurav Bhardwaj medically examined him and prepared his Medical Examination Report i.e. Ex. PW9/A. He identified the hand writing and signatures of Dr. Gaurav Bhardwaj on the said report, as he had seen him writing and signing the documents during the ordinary course of his duties as he had worked with him. During the cross examinatio, the witness admitted that no blood or urine test of the accused was conducted for analysis of the alcohol content in the blood of the accused in this case. He further admitted that no calibration certificate has been filed before this Court for authenticity of Breath Analyser Instrument. He further admitted that no printed receipt or printed strip from the instrument has been filed to show the BAC quantity.
13. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, PE was closed on 16.04.2026. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded U/S 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence and stated that the accused has been falsely implicated. Further, the accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
14. I have heard the arguments led by learned APP for the State and counsel for the accused and perused the case file carefully.
15. It is argued by learned APP for the State that accused was apprehended at the spot and there is no dispute qua his identity. It is further argued that from the perusal of evidence lead by the witnesses as well as documents thereof, it is clear that offending vehicle was driven by the accused in rash or negligent manner and as such accused is liable to be convicted.
FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 8
16. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that prosecution has failed to establish that the rash or negligent driving of the accused lead to the accident. He further argued that the prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused was driving under the influence of Alcohol and as such, has failed to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubts and accused is entitled to be acquitted for the offences he is charged for.
17. Before, discussing the testimonies of PWs, it would be prudent to discuss the legal position involved in the present case.
LAW INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE
18. Section 281of the BNS provides for the offence of rash driving or riding on a public way. It 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 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."
19. On bare reading of the above provision, it becomes clear that there are primarily three essential ingredients which constitute offence of rash driving on a public way.
a. Person must be driving or riding on a public way;
b. He must be driving in a rash or negligent manner;
c. Likely to endanger human life or cause hurt or injury to any person.
20. Now a question arises as to what would constitute a rash or negligent act. At this stage, reference may be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 9 Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed in detail as to what constitute a rash or negligent act. It interalia held the following:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sens that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
21. Therefore, indifference to the consequences of one's act or absence of reasonable care and precaution is the most important ingredient constituting rashness or negligence. It should be noted that intention of the person acting rash or negligent act is immaterial. What is important is that he has not taken due care or has done the said act with indifference to the consequences.
22. Further, it should be noted that there should be direct link between the act or rashness or negligence and hurt/grievous hurt/death, as the case may be, suffered by the victim. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abdul Subhan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562 has discussed the ingredients which need to be established by the prosecution for convicting an accused u/s 281/125 (a)/125 (b)/185 BNS. The Hon'ble Court has interalia held the following:
"As observed in Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 10 driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. As regards the offence punishable under section 304A IPC, it was observed that the point to be established is that the act of the accused was responsible for the death and that such act of the accused must have been rash and negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under section 279 or section 304A, the commission of a rash or negligent act has to be proved."
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
23. As discussed in the preceding part of this judgment, the accused Amit Kumar Jha has been charged for the offences punishable u/s 281/125
(a)/125 (b) BNS and 185 of MV Act. After considering the materials available on record, following issues are involved in the present case which need to be examined in the backdrop of legal provisions.
i. Whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time and has caused the accident?
ii. Whether the accused had committed the accident while driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner under the influence of Alchohol?
iii. Whether there is a direct nexus between the rash / negligent act of the accused and injury caused?
FINDINGS
24. For an offence under Section 281 BNS to be made out, the prosecution must prove that the accused drove or rode a vehicle on a 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. The essence of offence FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 11 lies in the presence of "rashness" or "negligence," which must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Rashness implies a reckless disregard for the consequences, while negligence denotes a failure to exercise the care that a prudent person would in similar circumstances.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that mere involvement in an accident or driving at a high speed does not, by itself, constitute rash or negligent conduct. In State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 5 SCC 67, the Apex Court observed:
"Merely because the truck was being driven at a 'high speed' does not bespeak of either negligence or rashness by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by 'high speed'."
This principle underscores that speed must be coupled with other evidence of recklessness or disregard for safety to sustain a conviction.
26. Applying these laws to the present case, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution has discharged its burden by proving a rash or negligent act attributable to the accused, without relying on conjecture or isolated statements about speed.
27. Coming to the facts of this case, the accused Amit Kumar Jha is facing trial for offences punishable U/S 281/125(a)/125(b) BNS and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the allegations that on 12.12.2024 at about 9:00 PM at Palam Flyover towards Dwarka, New Delhi, he was driving Tata Safari car bearing No. DL 10 CW 8671 in a rash and negligent manner and caused an accident involving two motorcycles and one Innova FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 12 car, resulting in injuries to the victims. It is further alleged that the accused was under the influence of alcohol at the time of incident. The case of the prosecution primarily rests upon the testimonies of the complainant and injured witnesses, coupled with the investigation conducted by the IO and medical evidence.
28. PW-1, the complainant Amit Kumar Singh, deposed that some unknown vehicle hit his motorcycle from behind and he fell down. However, he categorically stated that he did not know anything further about the incident. It is significant that this witness compounded the offence with the accused and did not support the prosecution case. Even during cross- examination by the Ld. APP, no incriminating material could be elicited against the accused. Thus, the complainant has turned hostile.
29. PW-2, injured Mohd. Ashraf, also did not support the prosecution case. He merely stated that some unknown vehicle hit his motorcycle from behind in heavy traffic and he could not identify the offending vehicle or the driver. He too compounded the matter with the accused and did not attribute any rash or negligent act to the accused. Despite cross-examination by the prosecution, nothing incriminating surfaced. Thus, this material witness has also turned hostile.
30. It is pertinent to note that both the star witnesses, i.e., complainant and injured victim, have not supported the case of the prosecution on the crucial aspect of identity of the accused as well as the manner of driving. Their testimonies fail to establish that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Further, no independent public FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 13 witness has been examined by the prosecution, despite the incident having taken place at a public place. Even as per the testimony of PW-3/IO, no other public witness was joined in the investigation. This omission assumes significance in light of the hostile nature of the complainant and injured witnesses.
31. PW-3, the Investigating Officer, is not an eye-witness to the incident. His testimony is confined to the investigation carried out by him. During cross-examination, he admitted that the Innova car involved in the accident was neither seized nor mechanically inspected and no photographs of the same were taken. Such lapses create doubt regarding the completeness and fairness of investigation.
32. The mechanical inspection report (PW-4) and medical evidence (PW- 5, PW-7, PW-8) merely establish that an accident took place and that injuries were sustained. However, these pieces of evidence do not establish that the accident was caused due to rash or negligent driving of the accused.
33. It is settled law that mere occurrence of an accident or involvement of a vehicle does not ipso facto establish rashness or negligence. There must be cogent and reliable evidence to show that the accused acted with recklessness or failed to exercise reasonable care. In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show the manner in which the accused was driving the vehicle. Neither speed, nor conduct, nor surrounding circumstances indicating rashness have been proved. In absence of any eye-witness account supporting the prosecution version, and FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 14 in absence of any other corroborative evidence, the essential ingredient of rash and negligent driving remains unproved.
34. Coming to the allegation under Section 185 MV Act, the prosecution has relied upon the alleged breath analyzer reading and medical examination. However, serious infirmities are apparent in this regard. PW-6 admitted during cross-examination that no receipt or printout from the breath analyzer machine was generated. He further admitted that no alcohol test was conducted in his presence. PW-9 categorically admitted that no blood or urine test was conducted to ascertain alcohol content. He also admitted that no calibration certificate of the breath analyzer machine was placed on record and no printed strip showing BAC level was produced. In absence of any reliable scientific evidence, such as blood test report or authenticated breath analyzer record, the allegation that the accused was driving under the influence of alcohol remains unsubstantiated. Mere oral assertions without supporting documentary or scientific proof are insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 185 MV Act. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused was under the influence of alcohol at the relevant time.
35. In criminal jurisprudence, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of every reasonable doubt must go to the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove:
FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha 15
(i) that the accused was driving in a rash or negligent manner;
(ii) that such alleged act caused the accident and injuries; and
(iii) that the accused was under the influence of alcohol.
36. The testimonies of material witnesses do not support the prosecution, no independent public witness has been examined, and the documentary and scientific evidence is deficient. The cumulative effect of these deficiencies creates serious doubt in the prosecution case. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused Amit Kumar Jha is hereby acquitted of all the charges under Sections 281/125(a)/125(b) BNS and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Bail bonds stand cancelled and surety discharged. Case property, if any, be dealt with as per rules after expiry of period of appeal.
Digitally signed byAnnounced in the open court on SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL this day i.e. 30th April, 2026 GOYAL Date: 2026.04.30 15:17:02 +0545 (SAURABH GOYAL) Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 15 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.04.30 15:17:07 +0545 (SAURABH GOYAL) Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 New Delhi Delhi FIR NO. 753/2024 St. Vs. Amit Kumar Jha