Delhi District Court
State vs Sitaram on 23 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT020083582015
FIR No. 437/2013
CIS No. 298992/2016
PS: Darya Ganj
State Vs. Sita Ram
U/s: 279/338 IPC and 3/181 & 22(i)/177 MV Act
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 298992/2016
(b) Date of offence 16.12.2013
(c) Complainant Ms. Mehzaaz Qadir
(d) Accused Sitaram S/o Sh. Gyan Chand, R/o H.
No. 19, Village Ghondli, Krishna
Nagar, Delhi.
(e) Offence u/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 &
22(i)/177 MV Act
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of Institution 18.02.2015
(i) Date when judgment was Not reserved
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 23.01.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present case arises out of an alleged road traffic accident that occurred on 16.12.2013 at about 06:50 PM near Delite Cinema, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Darya Ganj. It is alleged that the accused, Sita Ram, was driving a TSR (three- wheeler) bearing registration number DL-1RN-5391 in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and public safety, and caused grievous hurt to a pedestrian, namely Ms. Mehnaz Qadir.
FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj
State v. Sita Ram Page No. 1 of 15
RAJ Digitally signed
by RAJ KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.23
SINGH 16:36:32 +0530
2. It is further alleged that on the aforesaid date, time, and place, the accused did not possess a valid driving licence or the requisite commercial badge to drive the TSR, thereby committing offences punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act (i.e. under Sections 3/181 & 22(i)/177 MV Act).
3. As per the prosecution story, on 16.12.2013, around 6:45-6:50 PM, the accused, while driving TSR no. DL-1RN-5391, struck Ms. Mehnaz Qadir, causing injuries described as grievous. The TSR allegedly turned turtle after hitting the pedestrian, and the public gathered at the spot. The accused is stated to have driven the TSR in such a manner so as to endanger public safety (offence under Section 279 IPC) and cause grievous hurt (offence under Section 338 IPC). Additionally, the accused was allegedly driving without a valid driving licence and badge (offences under Section 3/181 & 22(i)/177 MV Act).
4. Pursuant to DD No. 26A dated 16.12.2013 regarding an accident near Delite Cinema, police officials reached LNJP Hospital, where the injured was admitted. The Investigating Officer (IO) collected the MLC of the injured (later identified as Ms. Mehnaz Qadir) as well as the MLC of the TSR driver (accused Sita Ram). The victim was declared unfit for statement at that time.
5. The investigation led the police to the spot where TSR no. DL-1RN-5391 was found parked on the side of the road. A few public persons were examined; however, no direct eyewitness was immediately available to confirm the manner of the accident.
FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj
State v. Sita Ram Page No. 2 of 15
RAJ Digitally signed
by RAJ KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.23
SINGH 16:36:38 +0530
Based on the preliminary facts, rukka was prepared, and FIR No. 437/14 was registered under Sections 279/338 IPC & 3/181, 22(i)/177 MV Act.
6. The vehicle in question was seized, its mechanical inspection was conducted, and statements of the accused, owner, and certain witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, the IO filed the charge-sheet before this Court, alleging commission of the aforesaid offences by accused Sita Ram.
7. After filing of chargesheet accused was summoned, compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was made and After hearing both sides, notice was framed against the accused, Sita Ram, for allegedly driving TSR No. DL-1RN-5391 in a rash and negligent manner on 16.12.2013, near Delite Cinema, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, causing grievous injury to a pedestrian, Ms. Mehnaz Qadir, and driving without a valid license or badge. The offenses were punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC and Sections 3/181 and 22(i)/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. During the course of trial, the genuineness of certain documents was admitted by the accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C., specifically:
i) FIR No. 437/14 (Ex. A-1),
ii) DD No. 26A (Ex. A-2),
iii) MLC of injured (Ex. A-3) and the opinion on nature of
injuries (Ex. A-3/1), along with related X-ray reports FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj State v. Sita Ram Page No. 3 of 15 RAJ Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.23 SINGH 16:36:44 +0530 (Ex. A-4 & A-5),
iv) Photographs of the TSR (Ex. A-6 colly) &
v) Copy of order of superdari dated 30.01.2014 along with superdarinama 8.1 Accordingly, the concerned formal witnesses (DO/Doctors) were not examined to prove the above, as their testimonies stood admitted.
9. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of its case.
10. PW1 - Ahmed Ali deposed that on 16.12.2013, at about 6:45 p.m., near Delite Cinema, Asaf Ali Road, he heard a collision sound and then noticed TSR bearing No. DL-1RN-5391 turned turtle on the road after striking against a girl who was crossing on foot. He, along with some public persons, lifted the TSR back to normal position. The girl sustained injuries, and the police arrived. He identified the driver present at the spot as Sita Ram (the accused in court).
10.1 The witness was cross examined by Ld.APP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. PW-1 denied stating earlier that the accused was driving at a high speed or in a rash/negligent manner, clarifying he did not observe the TSR before impact. He was confronted with portions of his prior statement to the police (Mark X). He refuted the suggestion that he had stated about rash driving or that he gave his mobile number to the accused.
FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj
State v. Sita Ram Page No. 4 of 15
RAJ Digitally signed
by RAJ KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.23
SINGH 16:36:50 +0530
10.2 In his Cross-examination by Defence, he maintained that he was present at the spot, waiting to cross the road. He rejected suggestions of animosity with the accused. He did not provide any direct testimony on the speed or manner of driving, beyond noticing the aftermath of the collision.
11. PW2 - Shahzada Khurram deposed that at about 6:45 p.m. on 16.12.2013, while passing near Delite Cinema, he saw an injured girl lying on the road. He, along with Ct. Amit, took her to LNJP Hospital in a TSR. He did not witness the actual accident or see TSR No. DL-1RN-5391 at the moment of collision.
11.1 In his Cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he denied having told the police (in statement Mark Y) that TSR No. DL-1RN-5391 was involved and standing nearby. He was confronted with his statement (Mark Y) where it was recorded that he had seen the TSR. He denied or claimed lapse of memory.
11.2 In his Cross-examination by Defence, he accepted that he arrived after the accident and only helped in shifting the injured to hospital and he had no knowledge of who was driving or how the accident occurred.
12. PW3 - Banarsi Dass (Registered Owner of the TSR) Confirmed that he is the registered owner of TSR No. DL-1RN-5391 and had purchased it from Arjun Auto. He had FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj State v. Sita Ram Page No. 5 of 15 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date:
SINGH 2025.01.23 16:36:55 +0530 engaged the accused, Sita Ram, to ply the TSR. On the date of the incident (16.12.2013), the TSR was in the possession of accused Sita Ram. He deposed to having taken the TSR on superdari (Ex. PW3/A) and having replied to the notice u/s 133 MV Act (Ex. PW3/B). He also identified the seizure memo of original documents (Ex. PW3/C).
12.1 The witness was not cross examined, despite opportunity being given.
13. PW4 - Surya Kumar Jha (Parking Attendant) deposed that he was working in the parking opposite Delite Cinema in December 2013. He heard repeated horn from an auto/TSR coming from Turkman Gate side. A girl was crossing the road with earphones plugged in and did not heed the horn. The TSR driver applied emergency brakes, yet the vehicle hit her leg, and she sustained injuries. He, along with others, lifted the TSR.
Critically, he stated that the accident was not the fault of the TSR driver because the girl was inattentive. He also asserted that the accused present in court (Sita Ram) was not the one driving the TSR that day.
13.1 In his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he denied that the accused Sita Ram was the driver and denied that the TSR was being driven rashly. He further denied having been won over by the accused.
13.2 In his Cross-examination by Defence he reiterated that the FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj State v. Sita Ram Page No. 6 of 15 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.23 SINGH 16:37:01 +0530 driver was not at fault, and that the victim was wearing earphones and did not respond to the repeated horn. He affirmed again that the person driving that TSR was not the accused in the courtroom.
14. PW5 - ASI Amit (then Constable Amit) deposed that on 16.12.2013, he was on beat duty near Delite Cinema when he came to know about an accident across the road. He rushed there and found a girl lying injured. He helped in admitting her to LNJP Hospital. He saw TSR No. DL-1RN-5391 parked at the side of the road. He did not witness the accident himself. He merely assisted in post-accident procedures. He identified his signature on the site plan prepared by the IO (Ex. PW5/A) and seizure memo of TSR (Ex. PW5/B).
14.1 In his Cross-examination by Defence he confirmed he had not seen how the collision occurred or who was driving. He only arrived after the accident.
15. PW6 - HC Jaipal Singh deposed that he accompanied SI/IO Praveen Badsara (PW7) to LNJP Hospital on receiving information of an accident, collected MLCs of the injured and accused driver (Sita Ram), but the injured was found unfit for statement initially. Then they proceeded to the spot, met Ct. Amit (PW5) and one Shahzada Khurram (PW2). The TSR No. DL-1RN-5391 was seized from the spot. He went back to the hospital with the IO. Later, the accused was found in Orthopaedic Department. The IO noted his details, and the TSR was taken to FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj State v. Sita Ram Page No. 7 of 15 Digitally signed by RAJ RAJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.23 SINGH 16:37:06 +0530 PS and deposited in Malkhana.
15.1 In his cross-examination by Defence, he did not see any direct eyewitness of the accident at the spot. No CCTV footage was checked in his presence. He maintained he had not witnessed the collision.
16. PW7 - Inspector Parveen Badsara (IO) deposed that on 16.12.2013, he was posted as SI at PS Darya Ganj. He received DD No. 26A about an accident near Delite Cinema and reached at LNJP Hospital along with Ct. Jaipal (PW6) where, they found the victim unfit for statement. PW7 seized her personal bag containing her Aadhar Card, establishing her identity as Ms.Mehnaz Qadir. PW7 again reached the spot, saw TSR no.DL-1RN-5391 parked by the road. PW5 (Ct. Amit) and PW2 (Shahzada Khurram) were there, but neither had witnessed the accident. On the basis of the facts, he prepared the rukka, got the FIR registered, and seized the TSR. Later, at LNJP Hospital, the accused was found in the Orthopaedic Department. The IO collected details, also served notice under Section 133 MV Act on the TSR owner (PW3). On mechanical inspection, it was found the TSR was functional. The accused produced a driving licence which, according to the IO, lacked the commercial endorsement. He accordingly invoked Sections 3/181 & 22(i)/177 MV Act. He stated that no direct eyewitness was available to fully confirm the manner of driving. The victim was also unable/unwilling to give any statement for a significant period; ultimately, she was never produced before the Court.
FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj State v. Sita Ram Page No. 8 of 15 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.23 SINGH 16:37:12 +0530
16.1 In his cross-examination by Defence, he confirmed that no conclusive eyewitness (beyond PW4, later found) pinned rashness on the accused. PW7 admitted that the victim, once she recovered, declined to identify the accused as the driver; nor did she see the driver's face at the time. PW7 denied planting any false evidence.
17. PW1 (Ahmed Ali) identified the accused but offered no testimony on the actual manner or speed of driving. He only saw the TSR post-impact and identified the accused. However, his observations regarding rashness or speed are inconclusive since he himself admitted noticing the vehicle only after hearing the collision sound. PW4, who provided the most detailed account of the accident itself, emphatically stated it was the victim's inattentiveness (due to earphones) that led to the collision and that the driver was not at fault. He further asserted that Sita Ram was not the same person who was driving the offending TSR. PW4 (Surya Jha) claimed to be an eyewitness but maintained that the person driving the TSR was not the accused present in court, attributing the accident largely to the victim's own negligence (earphones plugged in, ignoring horns).PW2, PW5, PW6 arrived post-accident and did not see who drove the vehicle or how it was being driven. PW3 (owner) stated that the TSR was ordinarily in the possession of Sita Ram but was not present at the actual scene of collision. The crucial contradiction between PW1 (who identified the accused) and PW4 (who insists the accused was not driving) remains unresolved. The prosecution FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj State v. Sita Ram Page No. 9 of 15 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.23 SINGH 16:37:17 +0530 has not reconciled or clarified this discrepancy.
18. Despite repeated summons, the injured, Ms. Mehnaz Qadir, never appeared. She was eventually dropped as a witness on 09.05.2023. Her version of events, which would have been crucial, is thus absent from the record.
19. Section 279 IPC and Section 338 IPC both require proof of rashness or negligence. No prosecution witness (except PW4, who actually partially witnessed the accident) testified unequivocally that the accused was driving in a rash or negligent manner.
20. PW4, who gave the most detailed account of the accident, clearly stated that the driver honked multiple times and applied emergency brakes, implying lack of rashness or negligence on the part of the TSR driver. He also added that the victim's inattention caused the accident.
21. PW1's testimony does not establish the manner of driving before the accident; he only helped lift the overturned TSR and saw the driver after the collision. The MLC and X-Ray reports confirm the victim suffered grievous injuries. However, establishing grievous hurt under Section 338 IPC also requires proof that the hurt was caused by an act endangering life or personal safety, done rashly or negligently. This link remains unsubstantiated in the prosecution evidence.
FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj
State v. Sita Ram Page No. 10 of 15
RAJ Digitally signed by
RAJ KUMAR SINGH
KUMAR Date: 2025.01.23
SINGH 16:37:22 +0530
22. The victim, Ms. Mehnaz Qadir, was never produced as a witness in court, despite being the person best placed to describe how the accident happened. Her direct evidence is missing.
23. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The substance of the incriminating material was put to him.
23.1 The accused denied having driven the TSR in a rash or negligent manner and claimed innocence, stating that a false implication has been made. He took the stance that there was no sensible basis for his prosecution and that the victim's non- examination undermined the entire case. He chose not to lead any defence evidence.
24. Learned APP for the State argued that the documentary evidence (seizure memos, mechanical inspection reports) and the testimonies collectively point to the accused's involvement. He urged that the accused was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, and the accident causing grievous hurt should be attributed to his negligent driving. Additionally, the IO's findings confirm that the accused was not duly licensed to drive a commercial vehicle.
25. Learned Defence Counsel strongly contended that the prosecution failed to prove any rash or negligent act beyond reasonable doubt. The only so-called eyewitness (PW4) specifically exculpated the driver and did not identify the accused FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj State v. Sita Ram Page No. 11 of 15 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ KUMAR SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.01.23 16:37:27 +0530 as the offending driver. PW1's version on speed/negligence is inconclusive. Moreover, the injured did not testify, leaving a major gap in the prosecution's case. It was therefore submitted that the accused deserved an acquittal for offences under Sections 279/338 IPC. However, the accused did not effectively dispute the finding that he lacked a valid commercial licence.
26. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of the entire material on record, this Court makes the following findings:
26.1 To prove an offence under Section 279 IPC, the prosecution must show that the accused drove the vehicle in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life. Similarly, Section 338 IPC requires proof of causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety, done rashly or negligently.
26.2 PW1 did not observe the TSR prior to impact; he merely helped lift it afterward and could not specify the manner of driving. PW4, the parking attendant who ostensibly witnessed the accident, specifically exonerated the TSR driver from negligence, further maintaining that the person driving was not the accused.
PW2, PW5, and PW6 did not see the actual occurrence. Crucially, the injured/victim herself did not appear despite repeated summons and was eventually dropped. This leaves a major gap in the prosecution's chain of evidence regarding how the accident took place and who was at fault.
FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj State v. Sita Ram Page No. 12 of 15 Digitally signed by RAJ RAJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.23 SINGH 16:37:32 +0530
27. In the absence of direct, consistent evidence establishing rashness/negligence, the essential ingredients of Sections 279 and 338 IPC remain unproved beyond reasonable doubt.
28. Accordingly, the accused Sita Ram is entitled to acquittal for offences under Sections 279/338 IPC.
29. The prosecution alleged that the accused did not possess an appropriate driving licence/endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle (TSR). Traditionally, it was believed that a separate transport endorsement on the licence was required for plying a transport vehicle such as a TSR.
30. Ratio in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 841/2018), The Hon'ble Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) in the aforementioned case clarified that for a "light motor vehicle," there is no separate requirement of endorsement to drive such a vehicle even if it is used for commercial purposes.
31. Thus, if an accused holds a valid driving licence for a light motor vehicle, he would not be rendered 'unlicensed' solely because he lacks a specific "transport" endorsement--provided the vehicle in question falls under the "light motor vehicle"
category as to its unladen or gross weight.
32. A TSR (three-wheeler/auto-rickshaw) ordinarily comes under the ambit of "light motor vehicle" (unless proved FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj State v. Sita Ram Page No. 13 of 15 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ KUMAR SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.01.23 16:37:38 +0530 otherwise by its weight specifications, which the prosecution has not established).
33. The prosecution led no evidence to show that the accused's licence was invalid altogether. Nor is there any specific proof, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, that a missing "transport" endorsement alone constitutes a punishable offence under Section 3/181 MV Act.
34. Hence, in view of M/s Bajaj Alliance (supra), the accused cannot be held guilty merely because his licence allegedly lacked a separate transport endorsement.
35. Furthermore, the prosecution has also failed to lead any substantive evidence concerning Rule 22(i) of the Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules, except a bare mention in the charge-sheet. No witness or document conclusively proved a violation of the said rule.
36. In the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronouncement, and absent any clear evidence that the accused did not hold a valid LMV licence at all, the accused is also entitled to acquittal under these provisions.
37. Insofar as the offences under Sections 279/338 IPC are concerned: The prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of rashness or negligence. The evidence on record is contradictory or inconclusive regarding the manner of driving, FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj State v. Sita Ram Page No. 14 of 15 RAJ Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date: 2025.01.23 SINGH 16:37:45 +0530 and the victim did not testify. Hence, the accused Sita Ram is hereby acquitted of offences under Sections 279 IPC and 338 IPC.
38. Insofar as the offences under Sections 3/181 & 22(i)/177 MV Act are concerned: In view of the Constitution Bench decision in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors., the absence of a separate commercial endorsement on a driving licence does not per se make the licence invalid for driving a light motor vehicle (which category includes the TSR). Additionally, there is no evidence on record proving any breach of Rule 22(i). The accused is thus also acquitted of offences under Sections 3/181 & 22(i)/177 MV Act.
39. For the reasons discussed above, accused Sita Ram stands acquitted of all charges leveled against him under Sections 279/338 IPC and 3/181 & 22(i)/177 MV Act.
RAJ Digitally signed
by RAJ KUMAR
Announced in open court KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.23
on 23.01.2025 SINGH 16:37:51 +0530
(DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/23.01.2025 Note: This judgment contains Fifteen (15) pages and having my signature on each page. RAJ Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.23 SINGH 16:37:57 +0530 (DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/23.01.2025 FIR No. 437/2013 PS:Darya Ganj State v. Sita Ram Page No. 15 of 15