Delhi District Court
State vs Paramveer Singh Gill on 14 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF AAYUSHI SAXENA,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR Case No. -: 492/2018
CNR No. -: DLSH020003262018
FIR No. -: 152/2017
Police Station -: Jagatpuri
Section(s) -: 279/304A IPC and
Section 146/196 M.V.
Act
In the matter of:
STATE
(Represented by Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma,
Ld. APP for the State)
VERSUS
1. Paramveer Singh Gill,
1. S/o Sh. Baljinder Singh,
R/o 1449/213, 30 Foot Road, Durgapuri, Delhi.
2. Baljinder Singh,
S/o Sh. Gurmail Singh,
R/o 1449/213, 30 Foot Road, Durgapuri, Delhi.
...... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : ASI Naveen Tyagi
1. Paramveer Singh
Gill,
S/o Sh. Baljinder
2. Name of Accused : Singh.
2.Baljinder Singh
S/o Sh. Gurmail
Singh.
3. Offence complained of or proved : 279/304A IPC and
Section 146/196
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 1 of 21
M.V. Act
1. Accused
Paramvir Singh
Gill pleaded not
guilty and claimed
4. Plea of Accused : trial.
2. Accused
Balijnder Singh
pleaded guilty and
did not claim trial.
5. Date of commission of offence : 15.06.2017
6. Date of filing of case : 11.01.2018
7. Date of reserving Order : 29.10.2024
8. Date of pronouncement : 14.11.2024
Accused no.1
9. Final Order : Paramveer Singh :-
Acquitted.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on
15.06.2017 at about 06:40 AM near Radhey Puri bus stop, road
no. 57, Jagatpuri, Delhi accused Paramvir Singh Gill was found
driving a car bearing no. DL-8CX-7657 make Micra of silver
colour, whose owner was accused Baljinder Singh and the said
car was not having valid insurance at the time of the incident.
Further, accused Paramvir Singh Gill was driving the said car
in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and
personal safety of others and struck against a rickshaw and
caused death of rickshaw puller namely Bharat, not amounting
to culpable homicide. On the complaint of the complainant,
present FIR was registered.
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 2 of 21
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED-
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer
(hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination
of the investigation, the Police Report under Section 173
Cr.P.C., against the accused was filed.
3. Vide order dated 11.01.2018, Ld. Predecessor of this Court
took cognizance of the offence. On thar vey date since both the
accused persons had appeared before the court, copy of charge-
sheet alongwith documents annexed therewith were supplied to
them as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. On 26.05.2018, notice U/s Section 279/304A IPC and
Section 146/196 of MV Act was given to accused Paramvir
Singh, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Notice U/s Section 146/196 of MV Act was given to accused
Baljinder Singh, to which he pleaded guilty and did not claim
trial. His plea of guilt was recorded and was accepted. On that
very date, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in
default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo 7 days
simple imprisonment.
5. It is pertinent to state here that accused, admitted copy of
FIR No. 152/2017, Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act,
DD NO. 6A dt. 15.06.2017, DD No. 12 dt. 15.06.2017 and DD
No.11B Dt. 15.06.2017, Mechanical Inspection Report, Death
Identification memo of Munna Singh, Death Identification
memo Putta Singh, 100 Call Form, Superdarinama of offending
vehicle, receipt of handing over dead body, postmortem Report
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 3 of 21
and MLC No. 1980/17 dt.15.06.2017 in respect of Doctor
Ravinder & Doctor Yanshul Rathi, which were exhibited as Ex.
P1 to Ex.P13, respectively. Accordingly, witnesses at serial
no.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19 were dropped as
admitted from the list of witnesses.
PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE;
6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has
examined following witnesses;
6.1 PW-1 ASI Naveen Tyagi deposed that on 15.06.2017, he
was posted at PS Jagat Puri as ASI and on that day, he was
patrolling on Govt. motorcycle JP-1 along with Ct. Ashish
from 05:00 AM to 09:30 AM. He further deposed that at
about 06:40 AM they reached at road no. 57 near, Radhey
Puri bus stop and in the meantime, one car bearing no.
DL8CS- 7657 of silver colour came from the side of
Shahdara and driver of said car was driving it at a high
speed and one rickshaw was going ahead of his car and near
the above-said bus stop, the said car hit against the above-
said rickshaw from its back side. He further deposed that
the rickshaw puller of said rickshaw was on his side at that
time and he was riding his rickshaw slowly but accused
driver came at a fast speed and hit said rickshaw from its
back side and in this manner driving of the accused was
negligent. He further deposed that due to the said hit, above-
said rickshaw turned turtle and rickshaw puller fell down on
the road. He also deposed that due to the same, front portion
of above-said car got damaged and above-said rickshaw
also got broken/damaged. He also deposed that driver of the
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 4 of 21
above-said car stopped his car and they immediately
apprehended him and on inquiry name of the accused driver
came to be known as Paramvir. He further deposed that with
the help of public persons present at the spot, the above-said
injured rickshaw puller was sent to hospital and the Accused
as well as the above-said car remained in his custody at the
spot. He further deposed that he had informed in the PS
through phone with regard to present incident and sometime
later ASI Vinod Kumar and Ct. Pawan reached at the spot
and he produced accused along with above-said car to IO
ASI Vinod Kumar, who recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A
and then left the accused and the above-said car in his
custody. He further deposed that the IO went to hospital
along with Ct. Ashish and sometime later IO again came
back at the spot, seized the above-said car and above-said
rickshaw vide seizure memos Ex.PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C
respectively. He further deposed that IO had seized
documents of accused Paramvir with regard to above-said
car and his DL vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D and IO had
prepared a rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Ashsish
for registration of FIR. He further deposed that IO arrested
the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/E, personally
searched him vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/F and
also prepared the site plan of the spot at his instance.
He also identified 6 photographs of the offending vehicle
and riskshaw in accidental condition, which were exhibited
as Ex. P-1 to P-6 (colly.).
He was also shown 4 photographs of the above-said
rickshaw and 6 photographs of above-said car and he
correctly identified the above-said car and rickshaw shown
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 5 of 21
in the said photographs. Photographs of rickshaw were
exhibited as Ex. P- 7 to P-10 (colly.) the photographs of
above-said car were exhibited as Ex. P-11 to ex. P-16
(colly.).
At that stage, Ld. APP for the State had sought permission
to put a leading question to the witness with regard to the
fact as to who had taken rukka to the PS.
PW1 deposed that "It is correct that Ct. Pawan had taken
rukka prepared by IO to PS for registration of FIR and I
inadvertently deposed that Ct. Ashish had taken rukka for
registration of FIR to PS."
Thereafter, a question was put to PW1 by Ld. APP for the
State:
"Q. It is put to you that you had stated in your examinatin in
chief on 17.09.2018 that at around 06:40 AM you and Ct.
Ashish were present at Radheypuri bus stop and you have
seen one car bearing no. DL 8C S 7657 of silver color
hitting a rickshaw in a very high speed and you had
apprehended the accused, whereas in your cross
examination you have stated that you reached the spot prior
to which the accident had occurred and the accident took
place prior to your reaching at the spot of incident, what do
you have to say about both of the statement as to which one
is true and correct?"
He answered that "I and Ct. Ashish were at a distance from
the exact spot of incident and the incident had occurred
when I reached near the accidental rickshaw and the
offending car. The rickshaw and the car were at a distance
of 20-25 steps from the exact spot we were standing."
Again he was asked a question by Ld. APP for the State that
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 6 of 21
"Q. It is put to you that had you seen the collision between
the offending car and the rickshaw?
He answered that "I got the sight of the offending car and
the rickshaw after the collision had taken place."
PW1 duly identified the Accused, who was present in the
court on the date of his examination.
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the
accused.
6.2 PW-2 HC Ashish deposed that on 15.06.2017 he was posted
at PS Jagatpuri as Ct. and he along with ASI Naveen Tyagi,
were on patrolling duty on motorcycle JP-1 from 05:00 AM
to 09:30 AM. He further deposed that at around 06:40, they
were near Radhey Puri bus stop and one car came from
behind and it hit a rickshaw on the road from the side. He
further deposed that the rickshaw turned down on getting hit
and the rickshaw rider got injured and the car driver also
stopped the car. He further deposed that the front portion of
the car got damaged in the accident and the rickshaw rider
was taken to the Dr. Hedgewar hospital with the help of
passersby. He further deposed that on inquiry, the car driver
told his name as Parminder s/o Baljinder Gill and he again
said Paramveer s/o Baljinder Gill. He further deposed that
ASI Vinod and Ct. Pawan reached the spot and he along
with ASI Vinod went to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital where the
rickshaw puller was declared brought dead by the doctor
vide MLC No. 1980/2017. He further deposed that the IO
gave him a letter to preserve the dead body and he got the
dead body preserved at Sabji Mandi mortuary and after
getting the body preserved, he returned to the PS and ASI
Vinod recorded his statement. He further deposed that the
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 7 of 21
accident had occurred due to failure of the driver to apply
breaks.
PW2 duly identified the Accused, who was present in the
court on the date of his examination.
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the
accused.
He also identified 6 photographs of the offending vehicle
and riskshaw in accidental condition, which were exhibited
as Ex. P-1 to P-6 (colly.).
He was also shown 4 photographs of the above-said
rickshaw and 6 photographs of above-said car and he
correctly identified the above-said car and rickshaw shown
in the said photographs. Photographs of rickshaw were
exhibited as Ex. P- 7 to P-10 (colly.) the photographs of
above-said car were exhibited as Ex. P-11 to ex. P-16
(colly.).
6.3 PW-3 ASI Vinod Kumar deposed that he was posted as ASI
and his duty hours were from 8 PM to 8 AM and he was on
emergency duty. He further deposed that on that day at 6:30
AM, he received DD No. 6 regarding accident and he
alongwith Ct. Pawan went to the spot i.e. Road no. 57,
Radhey Puri Bus Stand, Nala Side where he met ASI
Naveen Tyagi & Ct. Ashish. He further deposed that there
he saw one Vehicle No. DL BCA 5657 and one rickshaw, in
accidental condition. He further deposed that ASI Naveen
produced accused Paramveer Singh Gill before him and
stated that the above-said car had hit the said rickshaw and
he came to know that the injured had been taken to
Hedgewar Hospital, through PCR. He again said private
vehicle and then again said PCR Van. He further deposed
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 8 of 21
that he left Ct. Pawan at the spot to look out for the vehicle
and accused at the spot and thereafter, he went to Hedgewar
Hospital alongwith Ct. Ashish, where he received MLC No
1980/17 of Unknown person from Doctor, who had declared
victim as brought dead. He further deposed that he got the
dead body preserved at Subji Mandi through Ct. Ashish and
thereafter, he came back at the spot and recorded statement
of ASI Naveen Ex. PW 1/A. He further deposed that he
prepared Rukka on the basis of the said complaint Ex. PW
3/A and the same was handed over to Ct. Pawan for
registration the FIR and he left for PS. He further deposed
that thereafter, he seized the said vehicle and rickshaw vide
seizure memo Ex. PW 1/B and Ex. PW 1/C respectively and
also seized RC of the said car vide seizure memo Ex. PW
1/D. He further deposed that at about 9:30 am, Ct. Pawan
came at the spot and he handed over copy of registered FIR
and original Rukka and in the meanwhile the owner of the
said offending vehicle came at the spot but he did not
remember the name of the owner of the offending vehicle.
He further deposed that he gave notice u/s 133 MV Act to
the owner of the said vehicle Ex.PW3/B and the owner gave
reply upon the said notice. He further deposed that he
prepared site plan at the instance of ASI Naveen Ex.PW3/C.
He further deposed that he arrested accused at the instance
of ASI Naveen vide arrest memo and personal search memo
Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F and he released accused on
Police Bail as the offences were bailable. He further
deposed that thereafter, he went to the PS along with the
case property and deposited the same in Malkhana. He
further deposed that he gave information of accident to
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 9 of 21
MACT Cell and thereafter, he was transferred and he
handed over the case file to MHCR.
PW3 duly identified the Accused, who was present in the
court on the date of his examination.
He also identified 6 photographs of the offending vehicle
and rickshaw in accidental condition, which were exhibited
as Ex. P-1 to P-6 (colly.).
He was also shown 4 photographs of the above-said
rickshaw and 6 photographs of above-said car and he
correctly identified the above-said car and rickshaw shown
in the said photographs. Photographs of rickshaw were
exhibited as Ex. P- 7 to P-10 (colly.) the photographs of
above-said car were exhibited as Ex. P-11 to ex. P-16
(colly.).
At that stage Ld. APP for the State had sought permission to
put leading questions regarding the Registration number of
the offending vehicle.
PW3 deposed that "It is wrong to suggest that the offending
vehicle No. was DL 8CX 7657."
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused
6.4 PW-4, Retd. SI Narayan Dev deposed that on 16.06.2017 he
was posted at CMVAI Cell as ASI and he was handed over
the investigation and case file by ASI Vinod in the present
case. He further deposed that he recorded statement U/s 161
CrPC of ASI Vinod and discharged him from the
investigation. He further deposed that on 17.06.2017, he got
PM of the deceased conducted at Sabji Mandi Mortuary, Ex.
PW 4/A and thereafter he handed over the dead body of the
deceased to his relatives and he prepared dead body
identification memo. He further deposed that he gave notice
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 10 of 21
U/s 158 CrPC to the owner of the vehicle Ex. PW 4/B, on
which it was found that the vehicle was not insured and he
also receive a reply to the same Ex. PW 4/C. He further
deposed that thereafter, he added Section 146/196 MV Act
in the present case. He further deposed that he recorded
statement of ASI Tejpal, who reached on the spot of incident
on 28.06.2017. He further deposed that the accidental
rickshaw was released on superdari and ASI Vinod had
handed over to him the photographs that were taken of the
alleged vehicle and rickshaw. He further deposed that
thereafter, he completed the investigation, prepared the
charge sheet and submitted before the court.
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the
accused.
6.5 PW-5, Retired SI Deshpal Singh deposed that in the
intervening night of 14-15, June 2017 he was on duty in
PCR unit and on that day he was in-charge of PCR Van
Romeo-42, from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. He further
deposed that they were on duty in the morning from 06:00
AM to 08:00 AM at Arjun Nagar picket for checking the
vehicle. He further deposed that he was along with Ct.
Vikash (driver of the PCR van) and at around 06:40 AM one
unknown person of the public came and told them that near
the Nala one accident had taken place so thereafter they
reached near the Nala on road no. 57, where one passenger
rickshaw and one car bearing no. DL 8CX 7651 of Silver
color make Micra in accidental condition was present. He
further deposed that the injured was already taken to
hospital before he reached and he handed over the custody
of spot to ASI Naveen. He further deposed that he made a
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 11 of 21
PCR call and thereafter he left the spot. He further deposed
that ASI Naveen recorded his statement on 28.06.2017.
He also identified 6 photographs of the offending vehicle
and rickshaw in accidental condition, Ex. P-1 to P-6 (colly.).
He was also shown 4 photographs of the above-said
rickshaw and 6 photographs of above-said car and he
correctly identified the above-said car, Ex. P-11 to ex. P-16
(colly.) and rickshaw Ex. P- 7 to P-10 (colly).
At that stage Ld. APP for the State had sought permission to
cross examine the witness as he was not supporting the case
of prosecution and had turned hostile completely on the
facts of the present case.
He deposed that "It is wrong to suggest that my statement
was recorded by ASI Narayan Dev It is wrong to suggest
that I am deliberately not deposing the correct and complete
facts as I have been won over by the accused or has
obtained gratification from him outside the court to settle
the present case."
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the
accused.
6.6 PW-6, HC Pawan deposed that on 15.06.2017 he was posted
at PS Jagatpuri as Ct. and he was joined in the investigation
by ASI Vinod Kumar, who received DD no. 06A regarding
accident and they both went to road no. 57, near bus stand
Radhey Puri, Delhi. He further deposed that there they met
ASI Naveen Tyagi and Ct. Ashish and one accidental car
and one accidental rickshaw at the spot. He further deposed
that ASI Naveen Tyagi had produced the accused to ASI
Vinod and ASI Vinod had arrested him vide memo Ex.
PW1/E, personally searched him vide memo Ex. PW1/F and
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 12 of 21
thereafter he was released on bail since the offence was
bailable. He further deposed that ASI Vinod had prepared a
site plan and he seized the car vide memo Ex. PW1/B and
also the rickshaw vide memo PW1/C and he also seized RC
of the car and DL of the accused vide memo Ex. PW1/D
and his statement was recorded by ASI Vinod Kumar.
He failed to identify the Accused, who was present in court
on the day of his examination stating that the incident was
more than 6 years old and he could not recall the face of the
accused.
At that stage attention of the witness was drawn towards
some photographs Ex. P1-P6 colly and Ex. P7-P10 and Ex.
P11 to P16, and he identified the same.
At that stage Ld. APP had sought permission to cross
examine the witness as he was not identifying the accused
person.
At that stage attention of witness was drawn towards the
accused and he was asked about the same to which he
deposed that
"I cannot say with surety as to whether he is the accused
not. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not
identifying the accused. It is correct that I am not able to
identify the accused due to lapse of time."
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the
accused.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. All
incriminating material, brought on record, was put to the
accused in response to which he denied the allegations made
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 13 of 21
against him and claimed himself to be innocent and pleaded that
he has been falsely implicated in this case.
8. Accused did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence and
the same was closed and the matter was listed for final
arguments.
9. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld.
defence counsel. I have also perused the case file carefully.
10. As already mentioned, the accused has been facing trial for
the commission of offences punishable u/s 279 and 304A IPC
and Section 146/196 of MV Act. To invite the wrath of law in
Section 279 IPC and Section 304A IPC, the following essential
ingredients must be there:
(a) driving of a vehicle;
(b) such driving must be so rash or negligent as to endanger
human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other
person;
(c) by doing such rash or negligent act, not amounting to
culpable homicide, death of any person is caused.
11. Perusal of these provisions makes it clear that offence under
section 279 and 304-A IPC will be made out when death is a
direct consequence of a rash or negligent act. Rashness conveys
the idea of recklessness or doing an act without due
consideration whereas negligence connotes want of proper care.
A rash act implies an act done by a person with recklessness or
with indifference to its consequences, the doer being conscious
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 14 of 21
of the mischievous or illegal consequences does the act
knowing that his act may bring some undesirable or illegal
results but without hoping or intending them to occur. A
negligent act, on the other hand, refers to an act done by a
person without taking sufficient precautions or reasonable
precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or illegal
consequences.
12. Now let us see whether the prosecution has been able to
prove the above-mentioned ingredients, beyond reasonable
doubt.
13. It is not in dispute that the accused was driving car bearing
number DL-8CX-7657 make Micra of silver colour at the time
when the alleged incident took place.
14. The essential ingredient which is required to be proved was
that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in such a rash
or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or to be likely
to cause hurt or injury to any other person. It is pertinent to note
here that the act complained of need not be a rash and negligent
one; but it need be either a rash or negligent.
15. Now when PW1 ASI Naveen Tyagi was examined in chief,
he deposed that he was patrolling in the area along with Ct.
Ashish on 15.06.2017 from 05:00 AM to 09:30 AM, and at
about 06:40 AM they reached at road no. 57 near, Radhey Puri
bus stop and in the meantime, one car bearing no. DL8CS- 7657
of silver colour came from the side of Shahdara and driver of
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 15 of 21
said car was driving it at a high speed and one rickshaw was
going ahead of his car and near the above-said bus stop, the said
car hit against the above-said rickshaw from its back side. Now,
when he was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused,
he deposed that the incident in question was prior to the time
when they reached at the spot and that he had not seen the
incident happening. He also stated that the incident did not take
place in his presence. Also, he deposed that he had not seen
whether the above-said car was going at a fast speed or not and
that he reached the spot after happening of the present incident.
Also, during his re-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he
deposed that he got the sight of the offending car and rickshaw
after collision had taken place.
So, clearly PW1 has not supported the case of prosecution. He
has deposed that incident in question was prior to the time when
he reached at the spot and that he had not seen the incident
happening.
16. PW2 HC Ashish deposed that he was on patrolling duty with
ASI Naveen Tyagi from 5AM to 9:30AM and at 6:40 AM, when
they went near Radhey Puri bus stop, one car came from behind
and it hit the rickshaw on the road from the side. He also
deposed that the rickshaw turned down and the rickshaw rider
got injured and the car driver also stopped the car. During his
cross-examination, he deposed that he could not say from which
direction the car was hit as he was not present on the spot at the
time of the incident.
So, clearly, PW2 HC Ashish neither witnessed the incident in
question nor he saw the accused driving the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner.
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 16 of 21
17. Also, when PW3 ASI Vinod Kumar was cross-examined, he
deposed that he did not make any effort to collect any CCTV
footage from the metro station or any CCTV cameras installed
nearest to the spot of the incident. So, admittedly, no effort,
whatsoever, was made by the IO to collect vital evidence in the
present case.
He also deposed that he reached the spot of the incident at
around 7 AM but no public person was present at the spot as it
was early morning.
Pertinently, the incident in question is of 15.06.2017 at about
06:40 AM near Radhey Puri bus stop, road no. 57, Jagatpuri,
Delhi. It is hard to believe that during peak summer and when
the place of incident was a thickly habituated place, then no
public persons would be available at that time. In light of the
same, the story set up by the prosecution is rendered doubtful.
18. It is trite law that the expression "fast speed" or "high speed"
is a relative term and merely driving the vehicle at "fast speed"
by itself may not tantamount to "rashness" and "negligence".
Reference in this regard may be had to the decision of the
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 8 SCC
493 , the relevant part of which reads as under:
"4. 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". "High speed" is a relative
term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record
material to establish as to what it meant by "high
speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case.
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 17 of 21
In a criminal trial, the burden of providing
everything essential to the establishment of the
charge against an accused always rests on the
prosecution and there is a presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused until the
contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be
presumed, subject of course to some statutory
exceptions. There is no such statutory exception
pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any
material on the record, no presumption of
"rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by
invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is
evidence to show that immediately before the truck
turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not
explained as to whether the jerk was because of the
uneven road or mechanical failure. The Motor
Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had
submitted his report. That report is not
forthcoming from the record and the Inspector was
not examined for reasons best known to the
prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna
in the prosecution case.
5. There being no evidence on the record to
establish "negligence" or "rashness" in driving the
truck on the part of the respondent, it cannot be
said that the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the respondent is a perverse view. To us it appears that the view of the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is a reasonably possible view. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged."
19. In Kishore Chand Joshi v. State (3 (2018) 172 DRJ 586), it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that:
"15. The prosecution has relied on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 as the two eye-witnesses. PW-1 in his testimony has not stated as to whether the vehicle was being driven in a fast manner or what was the manner in which the vehicle was FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 18 of 21 being driven. PW-2 in his testimony has stated that the vehicle was being driven by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner.
16. PW-2 has given his opinion about the manner of driving. Rash and negligent manner is an opinion which may vary from person to person depending on the perception of an individual. What may be "rash and negligent" for one may not be "rash and negligent" for another. For one person, driving at a speed of 80 may be high speed and rash and negligent and for another it may not be.
17. A witness can depose as to the manner of driving or speed at which the vehicle was being driven but not render an opinion on "rash and negligent". High speed by itself may not in each case be sufficient to hold that a driver is rash or negligent. Speed alone is not the criterion for deciding the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver.
18. In the present case, PW-1 in his testimony has not stated anything as to how the vehicle was being driven. There is no mention as to whether the vehicle was being driven at a high speed or in a manner which may be construed as "rash and negligent" by the Court. PW-2 also has given his perception that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. No skid marks or tyre marks have been obtained of the spot to indicate that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed."
20. In the present case, none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed the manner in which the vehicle was being driven. There is no mention as to whether the vehicle was being driven in a manner which may be construed as "rash and negligent". Moreover, the other inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, mainly PW1 ASI Naveen Tyagi and PW2 HC Ashish, that have been highlighted above, also create aspersions as to whether the accused was FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 19 of 21 driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Their depositions cannot be said to be credible and benefit accordingly, must ensure to the accused. Pertinently, as already mentioned above, there are no public witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution. There is an absolute dearth of evidence regarding rashness or negligence in the manner in which the accused was driving the vehicle as the deposition of public witnesses qua said fact is absent. The evidence in this case is too scanty and inconsistent to fasten the accused with criminal negligence. Some credible and reliable evidence is indispensably needed to presume that the victim was behaving prudently while the accused acted negligently while driving the offending vehicle. Such further evidence is lacking in this case. Needless to say, that the burden to prove the guilt of accused is on prosecution and this general burden never shifts. Therefore, the court is disabled from concluding that the accused was driving his vehicle rashly or negligently.
21. Now, coming to the offence u/s 146/196 MV Act, it is alleged that accused was driving the vehicle without any valid insurance. It is pertinent to mention here that when notice u/s 146/196 of MV Act was given to accused Baljinder Singh (owner of the vehicle), he pleaded guilty and did not claim trial and vide order dated 26.05.2018, he was convicted by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Moreover, no witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to prove that the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of the incident.
FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 20 of 21
22. In view of the above discussion, accused Paramveer Singh Gill stands acquitted for the offence u/s 279/304A IPC and 146/196 M.V. Act in FIR no. 152/2017, PS Jagatpuri.
23. Case property, if any, shall be disposed of as per rules, after expiration of period of appeal and as per law. Case file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. 14.11.2024.
(Aayushi Saxena) JMFC-05/SHD, Karkardooma Courts/Delhi/ 14.11.2024 This judgment consists of 21 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Aayushi Saxena) JMFC-05/SHD, Karkardooma Courts/Delhi/ 14.11.2024 FIR No. 152/2017 PS Jagatpuri State Vs. Paramveer Singh Gill Page no. 21 of 21