Delhi District Court
State vs . Sant Ram on 1 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State vs. Sant Ram
FIR No.64/09
PS Paschim Vihar
U/s 279/304-A IPC
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 1531/2/2010
Date of Institution : 22.09.2009
Date of Commission of Offence : 21.12.2009
Name of the complainant : ASI Madan Lal
PS Paschim Vihar
Name & address of the accused : Sant Ram
S/o Narayan Singh
R/o 104 Village Holambi Kalan,
Narela, Delhi
Offence complained of : 279/304A IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 22.09.2015
Date of announcing of judgment : 01.10.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case under Section 279/304-A Indian Penal Code,1860.
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 21.12.2009, the complainant Sardar Maan Singh alongwith his friend Ranjeet Singh(deceased) State v. Sant Ram U/s 279/304A IPC 1/12 FIR No. 64/09 PS Paschim Vihar was going towards his house on a Scooter having registration No. DL-4SBE- 8574. Ranjeet Singh was driving the Scooter while Sardar Maan Singh was riding pillion. At about 9.50 pm, they reached at Peeragarhi Fly over, in front of Liquor shop. One DTC bus bearing registration no. DL-1PB-6490 was parked on a side. The scooter got struck with the said bus due to which the scooter rider Ranjeet Singh received injuries. He was taken to the hospital where he was declared to be dead. It has been alleged that the accused Sant Ram, who was the driver of the said DTC bus had parked the bus in a rash and negligent manner and by this rash and negligent act of his, the accident in question had taken place resulting in the death of scooter rider Ranjeet Singh. Thus the accused is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 279/304-A Indian Penal Code,1860. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Copy of chargesheet and other documents were supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Notice under Section 251 Criminal Procedure Code was served upon the accused for offence Section 279/304-A Indian Penal Code vide order dated 20.11.2010, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses i.e (1) Sardar Maan Singh (2) Shyam Lal (3) Dharamvir (4) Jai Singh (5) Mechanical Inspector J. S. Pawar (6) SI Madan Lal and (7) Ct.
State v. Sant Ram U/s 279/304A IPC 2/12
FIR No. 64/09 PS Paschim Vihar
Ravinder Singh.
5. PW-1 Sardar Maan Singh deposed that on 21.12.2009 he alongwith Ranjeet Singh were working as beldar in a Flood Control Department. They had left their office on two wheeler scooter bearing no. DL-4SBE-8574 for their house at about 9.20 pm. The deceased Ranjeet Singh was riding the scooter while the witness was riding pillion. At about 9.50 pm, they reached at Peeragarhi Fly over going towards Vikaspuri. One DTC bus bearing no. DL-1PB-6490 was parked on the road without any indication, flag, leaves behind it nor was there any stones or indication put behind the bus. As a result, the deceased struck the bus from behind. The scooter was rammed into the bus and got stuck beneath the bus. Deceased received severe injuries and the witness took him to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital where he was declared brought dead. The witness deposed that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the DTC bus driver as he had parked the bus without any indication or signal.
6. In the cross examination, he stated that he could not recall whether the bus was being driven by the accused at the time of accident or not. He denied the suggestion that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent act of the accused.
7. PW-2 Shyam Lal and PW-3 Dharamvir are the brother and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively. Both the witnesses had identified the dead body of State v. Sant Ram U/s 279/304A IPC 3/12 FIR No. 64/09 PS Paschim Vihar Ranjeet in the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital vide their statement Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/A respectively.
8. PW-4 HC Jai Singh recorded the present FIR on basis of the rukka brought by Ct. Ravinder and sent by IO ASI Madan. Copy of FIR is Ex.PW4/A and the endorsement on rukka is Ex.PW4/B.
9. PW-5 Mechanical Inspector J. S. Pawar had conducted the mechanical inspection of three vehicles i.e DTC Bus bearing no. DL-1PB-6490, one recovery van bearing DTC No. DL-1GB-5644 and one Scooter bearing no. DL- 4SBE-8574, on the request of IO ASI Madan Lal. The detailed mechanical inspection reports are Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C respectively.
10. PW-6 SI Madan Lal deposed that on 21.02.2009, on receiving DD no.39 he alongwith Ct. Ravinder had reached Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. There one person namely Ranjeet Singh was found to have been brought dead vide MLC no.1889/09 with alleged history of road traffic accident. He collected the MLC and found that the deceased was brought by one Man Singh. He searched for the said Maan Singh but in vain. Thereafter he went to the spot where HC Om Prakash and Ct. Rajbir had come vide DD no.38. One DTC Bus bearing no. DL-1PB-6490, one recovery van bearing no. DL-1GB-5622 and one scooter bearing no. DL-4SBE-8574 were found at the spot. The witness prepared the rukka Ex.PW6/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Ravinder. He got the spot of accident and the vehicles photographed. He prepared site plan State v. Sant Ram U/s 279/304A IPC 4/12 FIR No. 64/09 PS Paschim Vihar Ex.PW6/B. In the meantime, eye witness Man Singh came at the spot and told him that he had seen the accident. The witness recorded his statement and got him medically examined. The vehicles were seized vide memo Ex.PW6/C, Ex.PW6/D and Ex.PW6/E. All three vehicles were deposited in malkhana PS Paschim Vihar. The witness moved applications for mechanical inspection of all three vehicles and same are Ex.PW6/F, Ex.PW6/G and Ex.PW6/H. He also got the postmortem of the deceased conducted and collected the postmortem report. He filed the challan in the court after completing the investigation. The photographs of the place of accident are Ex.P1 to P25 and the vehicles are shown in the photographs Ex.P26 to P28.
11. In cross examination, he admitted that the DTC bus bearing no. DL-1PB-6490 was towed with recovery van bearing No. DL-1GB-5622. He stated that the back light of the bus was not blinking nor any leaves, flag, stones or any other identification was put behind the bus. He could not tell whether the DTC bus was out of order nor could he tell whether the bus was controlled by the recovery van.
12. PW-7 Ct. Ravinder Singh deposed on the same lines as PW-6. In the cross examination, he also admitted that the DTC bus was tied with the recovery van. He could not recall whether any symbol was put at the back side of the DTC bus to show that the said bus was standing in an accidental condition.
13. Accused had admitted the genuineness of mechanical inspection report of State v. Sant Ram U/s 279/304A IPC 5/12 FIR No. 64/09 PS Paschim Vihar vehicle bearing No. DL-4SBE-8574 and DL-1GB-5622, MLC No.1910/09, PM report no. 161/09 and DD no.38 under Section 294 Cr.P.C. However, he denied the contents thereof.
14. The prosecution evidence was closed on 12.02.2015. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. The accused has stated that the bus was being carried away by recovery van and was in a moving condition. The accused denied that he was at fault. He stated that the back light of the bus were also turned on and he had placed a branch of tree to indicate that the bus had broken down. He also stated that it was the scooterist who was riding in a rash and negligent manner and was drunk at that time.
15. I have heard the submissions made by the Learned APP for state and Learned Counsel for accused and carefully perused the evidence and the documents on record. Learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the bus of the accused had broken down and was being towed away by the recovery van. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is a duty slip on record which shows that the recovery van bearing no. DL-1GB-5622 had performed duty on 21.02.2009 from 3.00 pm to 11.30 pm.
16. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution that too beyond any reasonable State v. Sant Ram U/s 279/304A IPC 6/12 FIR No. 64/09 PS Paschim Vihar doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:-
1. That the accident actually took place.
2. That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
3. That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
17. Before proceeding further, let us discuss the meaning of the expressions "rash"
and "negligent". These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
18. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1972 SC 685 as under :
"Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstance out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted............Culpable negligence lies in the failure to State v. Sant Ram U/s 279/304A IPC 7/12 FIR No. 64/09 PS Paschim Vihar exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case".
19. In the case at hand, PW-1, who is the sole eye witness has supported the story of the prosecution. However, from a bare perusal of the photographs on record i.e Ex.P1 to P25, it is clear that the bus bearing no. DL-1PB-6490 had broken down and was being towed away by the recovery van. It can be clearly seen that the bus was attached with the recovery van. Moreover, it appears from the said photographs that the bus was standing on the extreme left side of the road. Hence, it is not the case that the accused had left the broken down bus unattended in middle of the road. From the photographs, it can be easily inferred that the bus was broken down and being towed away. Also, the place of accident appears to be a well lit area. Hence, from the overall appreciation of evidence it appears that it was the scooterist who was riding in a rash and negligent manner and not the bus driver.
20. It was observed by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in the case titled as "Vinod Kumar v. State" 2012(1) RCR (criminal) 567 as follows, "No evidence or any other material was placed on record by the prosecution to show the manner in which the Petitioner was driving the said vehicle to prove the rashness and negligence of the Petitioner. No photographs of the spot or the State v. Sant Ram U/s 279/304A IPC 8/12 FIR No. 64/09 PS Paschim Vihar bus have been taken. PW1-0 the alleged eye witness to the incident has also not deposed anything in regard to the accident or manner in which the vehicle was being driven by the Petitioner, except making a bald statement that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner which does not prove the guilt of the Petitioner. There is no evidence placed on record to show the speed of the vehicle or the manner in which it was being driven to show rashness and negligence on the part of the Petitioner, especially when the area was a crowded one."
21. This court draws support to its findings by relying upon the case titled as "Abdul Subhan vs State (NCT of Delhi)" 2006 (4) LRC 472 (Del), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as below:-
"11. ..As observed in "Badri Prasad" (Supra) the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent 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 regard, the offence punishable under Section 304-A 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 State v. Sant Ram U/s 279/304A IPC 9/12 FIR No. 64/09 PS Paschim Vihar 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 304-A IPC, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved. The only distinction being that in Section 279, rash and negligent act relates to the manner of driving or riding on a public way while the offence under Section 304-A extends to any rash and negligent act falling short of culpable homicide. As correctly observed by the learned judge, the rashness or negligence which needs to be established is something more than a mere error of judgment. There is also a distinction between rashness and negligence in that, rashness conveys the idea of doing a reckless act without considering any of its consequences whereas negligence connotes want of proper care. The case in Badri Prasad (Supra) was one, where, akin to the facts of the present case, apart from a bare statement made by a witness that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed, there was no attempt made to establish that there was rash and/or negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle.
State v. Sant Ram U/s 279/304A IPC 10/12
FIR No. 64/09 PS Paschim Vihar
22. Further, it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
23. In the case at hand, the only evidence on record against the accused is the testimony of PW-1. This witness has made only a bald statement that the accused had parked the bus in a rash and negligent manner. There is no substantive piece of evidence against the accused on record. On the contrary, it appears from the photographs Ex. P-1 to P-25 that the bus was being towed away by the recovery van. The bus was clearly being controlled by the recovery van and not by the accused.
24. In view of the above discussion and in light of above-mentioned case laws, the court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove that it was the accused who had parked the bus bearing no. DL-1PB-6490 in a rash and negligent manner and that the death of the deceased scooterist Ranjeet Singh was a result of rash and negligent act of the accused. Thus he is entitled to be State v. Sant Ram U/s 279/304A IPC 11/12 FIR No. 64/09 PS Paschim Vihar acquitted. Accordingly, accused Sant Ram S/o Sh. Narayan Singh is acquitted under Section 279/304-A Indian Penal Code.
25. As per Section 437 A Cr.P.C, the accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON
1st October 2015
(SAUMYA CHAUHAN)
MM-07 (West), THC, Delhi
State v. Sant Ram U/s 279/304A IPC 12/12
FIR No. 64/09 PS Paschim Vihar