Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak on 12 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI,
JMFC-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. DEEPAK
FIR No. 418/17
PS: V K NORTH
U/S: 279/337 IPC
CNR No. : DLND02-000869-2018
Date of commission of offence : 26.11.2016
Date of institution of the case : 18.01.2018
Name of the complainant : Sh. Gourav Malhotra
S/o Sh. Surender Malhotra
R/o H.No. 2292, 2nd Floor,
Raja Park, Rani Bagh,
New Delhi.
Name of accused and address : Deepak
S/o Sh. Bijender
R/o Village & PO Mandothi
PS Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 279/337 IPC
Representation of State : Asst. Public Prosecutor
Sh. Prashant Chaudhary.
Plea of Accused : Plead not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 12.08.2024
FIR No. 418/17 Page No. 1/6
State Vs. Deepak
PS. V K North
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.11.2016 at about 2:30 AM in front of Star Hotel, NH-8. Mahipalpur towards Gurgaon, New Delhi, accused was driving the offending vehicle bearing no. HR-55-T-1311 (i.e. Car Chevrolet Enjoy) in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner accused hit against one crane due to which passengers namely Gaurav (i.e. complainant) received simple injuries.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 18.01.2018. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused and charge was framed against the accused for offences punishable U/s 279/337 IPC on 21.02.2019 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution examined one witness.
(3.1) Sh. Narender Singh was examined as PW-1 who deposed that 02.01.2018 he had received a notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. for providing the documents who produced vehicle HR 55T-1311 for scrapping, legal license for the scraping dealership. He deposed that after receiving the same, he had given his statement to the police in which he had stated that aforesaid vehicle was not purchased by him nor he had put his signature or any receipt which were shown by the police officials. He deposed that he had also mentioned to the police that he FIR No. 418/17 Page No. 2/6 State Vs. Deepak PS. V K North does not know any person namely Deepak nor he had any connection with aforesaid car. He deposed that he had never received the aforesaid Car for scrap and thereafter his statement was recorded by the police. PW-1 was shown one receipt dated 10.05.2017 (Ex.PW1/A) and witness stated that this slip was shown to him by the police but he never put his signature on the same. PW-1 was shown one carbon copy of notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/B) and witness stated that the said notice was given to him by the police and he correctly identified his signature at point A. PW-1 was cross-examined as nil despite opportunity given.
(3.2) Sh. Deepak Kumar was examined as PW-2 who deposed that he was authorized person from the company namely The Sunworld Travels. He deposed that the vehicle bearing No. HR-55T- 1311 related to the company. He deposed that on 25/26.11.2016, accused Deepak, S/o Sh. Vijender Singh, R/o Panna, Jhajjhar, Haryana was driving the above said vehicle. He deposed that on 18.11.2017, he had produced the authority letter along with some other documents to IO Ex.PW2/A (colly). He deposed that IO had taken the said document in his possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B bearing my signature at point A. During cross-examination on behalf of accused, he deposed that the vehicle was not mechanically fit for run, therefore, they scrapped the said vehicle.
4. To prove its case, prosecution has not examined any eye FIR No. 418/17 Page No. 3/6 State Vs. Deepak PS. V K North witness, complainant or even police witness till date. Despite summons served to complainant Gourav Malhotra through DCP concerned, complainant did not appear. It is worth mentioning that PW Gourav Malhotra has remained absent despite service of summons through IO/SHO & DCP concerned on various occasion. Since the matter was more than 06 years old and already many opportunities were granted. Therefore, no further opportunity was granted to examine the complainant and he was dropped from list of witnesses after closing right of prosecution to examine complainant. It is worth noting that the only eyewitness and material witness in the present case was the complainant himself. However, the same was not examined by the prosecution as the presence could not secured by the prosecution. The identity of the accused is of paramount importance and no person can be indicted for criminal liability, unless his identity is established beyond any shadow of doubt. In the present case, the sole eyewitness of the case is not present to substantiate the prosecution version. Also, the IOs who have done investigation in the present case has already expired and thus they were also dropped. This is a case where neither the complainant/eye witness is present nor the witness who has done the investigation.
5. In the absence of any incriminating evidence against accused due to complainant not turning for evidence, the prosecution could never hope to prove the allegations levelled against the accused. Remaining witnesses in the present case were official witnesses, whose testimony even if taken together would also be insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused and without the allegation FIR No. 418/17 Page No. 4/6 State Vs. Deepak PS. V K North that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
6. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused. The present case pertains to an FIR of the year 2017 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that the prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused persons would tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P.Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its power available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right to speedy trial of the accused. Similar, observations were made in Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharastra AIR 2008 SC 3057.
7. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Anr . 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
8. Keeping in mind the aforementioned reasons and the above case laws, recording of any further PE in the present case would be waste of judicial time, money and resources and will also cause unnecessary oppression of the accused who has anyhow faced the ordeal of trail in the present case for last 07 years. Hence, PE was closed and by order of even date, recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was also dispensed with as nothing incriminating came FIR No. 418/17 Page No. 5/6 State Vs. Deepak PS. V K North on record or can come on record against the accused in the present case.
9. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not discharge the onus proving the ingredients of offence and thus, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.
10. In view of the above discussion, since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, namely, accused Deepak is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 279/337 IPC.
11. File be consigned to record room.
12. Bail bonds U/s 437-A CrPC furnished and accepted.
Note :This judgment contains 06 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH undersigned. BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2024.08.12 22:32:05 +0530 Announced in the open court (Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi) on 12th August, 2024 JMFC-02/ PHC/ New Delhi FIR No. 418/17 Page No. 6/6 State Vs. Deepak PS. V K North