Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay Singh on 11 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MR. SANDEEP GARG,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH),
NEW DELHI
F.I.R. No: 285/17
U/s 279/337 IPC & Section 146/196 of M.V. Act
P.S. Saket
State Vs. Sanjay Singh
Date of Institution of Case : 07.03.2018
Judgment Reserved on : 11.05.2018
Date of Judgment : 11.05.2018
JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 1174/18
(b) The date of commission of offence : 08.06.2017
(c)The name of complainant : Mast. Saddam,
: S/o Sh. Zahur,
: R/o Village Jalali, Mohallah,
: Abddul Fajal Road, Ward No. 03,
: Teh Koal, PS Harduaganj,
: Distt Aligarh, UP.
(d) The name, parentage, of accused : Sanjay Singh
: S/o Sh. Ranvir Singh,
: R/o H.No. F297, Ganga Vihar,
: Gali No. 5, Dayalpur, New Delhi.
Present Address : As above.
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 279/337 IPC &
: Section 146/196 of M.V. Act
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Acquitted
FIR No. 285/17, PS Saket State Vs. Sanjay Singh 1 of 7
(h) The date of such order : 11.05.2018
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 08.06.2017 at about 05:20 PM, at M.G. Road, Lado Sarai, near Haji Ali Jaan Masjid (towards AIIMS), New Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Saket, accused Sanjay Singh was driving a motorcycle bearing no. DL7SAR7995 without having a valid Insurance Policy, at a high speed and in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so, he struck against pedestrian Mast. Saddam, who was crossing the road as a result of which, the pedestrian sustained simple injuries on his person. Accused is thus alleged to have committed offences punishable U/s 279/337 IPC & Section 146/196 of M.V. Act.
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court and in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., copy of chargesheet and its annexures was supplied to the accused. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.03.2018, notice for commission of offences punishable U/s 279/337 IPC & 146/196 of M.V. Act in terms of section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined complainant / injured Mast. Saddam as PW01 and eye witness Sh. Gauri Shankar as PW 02 so far.
A brief scrutiny of the evidence : FIR No. 285/17, PS Saket State Vs. Sanjay Singh 2 of 7
4. PW01 complainant / injured Mast. Saddam deposed that in the year, 2017, he was working on the shop of Rocky Tailors, situated at Lado Sarai. On 08.06.2017 at around 5:20 PM, he was going towards Haji Ali Jaan Masjid from Lado Sarai by crossing the road in front of a Mosque. In the meantime, one motorcycle came from Gurgaon side at a high speed and hit him from behind. Due to the said impact, he fell down on road and sustained injuries in his head and various part of body. Blood was oozing from his head. The driver of the said motorcycle fled away from the spot alongwith the said motorcycle. He became unconscious and regained his conscious at AIIMS Trauma Center. Police officials met him in the hospital and he narrated the said facts to them. However, they did not record his statement. After medical treatment, he went to his native village. After some days, he returned to Delhi. He informed the police officials who came at his shop. He narrated the said facts to police officials who recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He cannot identify the driver / accused as he had not seen him properly at the spot. He did not see the registration number of the said motorcycle at the spot. He does not remember anything else.
5. PW01 was declared hostile and was crossexamined by ld. APP for the State. During his crossexamination, ld. APP pointed out towards accused Sanjay Singh to be the person who was driving the offending motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 7SAR 7995 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and while driving so, he hit him from behind to which, he stated that he had not seen accused / driver at the spot properly, so, he cannot identify him. He denied that he is intentionally not identifying the accused present in court. He cannot identify the said motorcycle as he had not seen its registration at the spot properly. He denied that he is intentionally not identifying the offending vehicle in court. Upon being shown and read over, statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C., MarkA from point A to FIR No. 285/17, PS Saket State Vs. Sanjay Singh 3 of 7 A1, he stated that he had not given any such statement to the police officials. He denied that he is intentionally not stating the true facts before the court. He denied that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of accused or that accused was driving the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. He denied that he was won over by the accused or that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW02 Sh. Gauri Shankar deposed that on 08.06.2017, he was present at Lado Sarai, Tpoint, where he was running a tea shop. On that day, in between 5:00 PM 6:00 PM, a boy was crossing the road in front of Haji Ali Mosque. In the meanwhile, one motorcycle was coming from Gurgaon side at a high speed and hit the said boy from behind. Due to the said impact, the said boy fell down on road and sustained injuries on head and various parts of his body. Blood was oozing from the head of said boy. The driver of the said motorcycle fled away from the spot alongwith motorcycle. The boy became unconscious. Somebody called the police at 100 number after which, the police came at the spot. He narrated the above said facts to them who recorded his statement. He cannot identify the driver / accused in court as he had not seen him properly at the spot. He did not see the registration number of the said motorcycle at the spot. He does not remember anything else.
7. PW02 was declared hostile and was crossexamined by ld. APP for the State. During his crossexamination, ld. APP pointed out towards accused Sanjay Singh to be the person who was driving the offending motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 7SAR 7995 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and while driving so, he hit the said boy from behind to which, he stated that he had not seen accused / driver at the spot properly, so, he cannot identify him. He denied that he is intentionally not identifying the FIR No. 285/17, PS Saket State Vs. Sanjay Singh 4 of 7 accused in court. He cannot identify the said motorcycle as he had not seen its registration number at the spot properly. He denied that he is intentionally not identifying the offending vehicle in court. Upon being shown and read over statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., MarkB from point A to A1, he stated that he had not given any such statement to the police officials. He denied that he is intentionally not stating the true facts before the court. He denied that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of accused or that accused was driving the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. He denied that he was won over by the accused or that he is deposing falsely.
8. The court has examined the record. Prosecution has proposed to examine 9 witnesses which includes complainant / injured Mast. Saddam who has been examined as PW01 and eyewitness Sh. Gauri Shankar who has been examined as PW02. The remaining witnesses proposed to be examined are formal and none of them is an eye witness to the incident. This fact has been fairly conceded by Ld. APP for the State.
9. Meaning of expression negligent act and rashness came up for discussion in the case titled as Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala, (SC) 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 605 and the Hon'ble Apex Court Held : (1) A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a reason able man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it A rash act is a negli gent act done precipitately.
FIR No. 285/17, PS Saket State Vs. Sanjay Singh 5 of 7 (2) Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law.
(3) Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
10. There is not even an iota of evidence on record to establish that the offending motorcycle was being driven by accused either rashly or negligently. Therefore, no liability U/s 279 IPC can be fastened upon him. Reference can be made to State of Rajasthan v. Joita (Rajasthan) 2002 Cri.L.J. 3514 and Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana, (P&H) 2000 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 571 and K. Nageshwara Rao v. State of A.P. 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 588.
11. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. (Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H)(DB) ,1997(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 662).
12. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving 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.
FIR No. 285/17, PS Saket State Vs. Sanjay Singh 6 of 7 Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. In Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (SC) 1990(3) S.C.C. 190, it was again held that in criminal cases burden is always is on prosecution and never shifts.
13. A perusal of statements of complainant / injured PW01 Mast. Saddam and sole eyewitness PW02 Sh. Gauri Shankar shows that they have deposed that they had not seen the accused / driver as well as registration number of the offending motorcycle at the spot. During their crossexamination by ld. APP, PW01 and PW02 have failed to identify the accused Sanjay Kumar to be the person who was driving the offending motorcycle on the day of incident. PW01 and PW02 have also stated that they cannot identify the offending motorcycle as they had not seen its registration number at the time of accident. Therefore, the court holds that prosecution has failed to discharge the onus of establishing guilt of the accused. In view of the depositions of complainant / injured PW01 Mast. Saddam and sole eyewitness PW02 Sh. Gauri Shankar, further continuation of trial will be a futile exercise. Accordingly, PE is closed. Since there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused, SA is dispensed with. Accused Sanjay Singh is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. He is directed to furnish bail bonds in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. forthwith. Original documents, if any, be returned to its rightful owner after SANDEE Digitally signed by SANDEEP GARG cancellation of endorsement, if any. DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SOUTH DISTRICT, 2.5.4.20=c0638bd0f6b2591ae536772d File be consigned to Record Room. 72e898dfdef5a6e0dfd0e0a8b83c0396 P GARG a011047f, ou=DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SOUTH DISTRICT,CID - 4281206, postalCode=110017, st=Delhi, cn=SANDEEP GARG Date: 2018.05.11 16:04:44 +05'30' Announced in the open (Sandeep Garg) Court on 11.05.2018 ACMM (South), New Delhi.
FIR No. 285/17, PS Saket State Vs. Sanjay Singh 7 of 7