Delhi District Court
State vs Smt. Soniya on 28 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KARANBIR SINGH, JMFC-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. SONIYA
FIR NO. 99/2018
U/S 279/ 337 IPC/3/181 MV ACT
POLICE STATION TIMAR PUR
Date of institution of the case : 23.10.2018
Date of judgment reserved : 27.02.2025.
CNR : DLCT02-032815-2018
Cr. Case No. : 14037/2018
Date of commission of offence : 05.05.2018.
Name of the complainant : Dayachand
Name of accused and address : 1. Soniya w/o Mohit R/o Ward No.5, Gali
No.6, Gandhi Colony, Samalkha, Panipat,
Haryana.
Offence complained of : Section 279/ 337 IPC/3/181 MV ACT
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 28.03.2025.
Final order : ACQUITTAL
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 5th may 2018 at about 5:30 PM in front of Ambedkar University accused was found driving car bearing registration KARANBIR SINGH KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 1 / 16 Digitally signed by Digitally signed by KARANBIR KARANBIR SINGH SINGH Date: Date: 2025.03.28 2025.03.28 11:43:58 +0530 14:17:09 +0530 number HR60H6701 in rash and negligent manner and while driving the aforesaid vehicle on the wrong side of the road she hit against a motorcycle bearing registration number DL6 SAL3574 causing simple injury to the driver of the motorcycle namely Daya Chand. It is further the case of prosecution that she was driving the aforesaid car without driving license and hence she has committed an offence punishable under section 279/337 IPC and section 3/181/184 MV Act.
COURT PROCEEDINGS:
2. Investigation was completed and police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/337 IPC and 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act. . Cognizance was taken and accused was summoned. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of the accused.
NOTICE U/S 251 CR.P.C.:
3. After hearing arguments on point of service of notice, notice for the offence under Section 279/337 IPC and 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act was served upon the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The statement of accused under section 294 CRPC was recorded as per which she did not dispute genuineness and correctness of MLC No. 5084/18 Ex. AD1, X-Ray No. 5084/18 Ex. AD2.
Resultantly, vide separate statement of Ld. APP, witness namely Dr. Rakesh, Dr. Deepika and Dr. Kamal Dabbas were dropped from the list of witnesses.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION :
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses.
4.1 PW1 Gurdeep Singh is a mechanical expert who conducted the mechanical inspection of the motorcycle as well as the offending vehicle. He identified STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 2 / 16 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 11:44:04 +0530 the case property as Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2. His mechanical inspection report was Exhibited as Exhibit PW1/A and Exhibit PW1/B. 4.2 PW2 is WSI Sarita who was posted as HC at PS Timarpur on 3rd August 2018 and on that day she along with IO went to house number 2514, Third floor Parmanand colony, Mukherjee Nagar vide DD number 47B where IO made inquiry with the owner of the offending vehicle namely Mohit and with accused. Thereafter, IO served notice under section 41 A to the accused and she prepared conviction slip at the instructions of IO. She correctly identified the accused in the court. She was not cross examined by the defence despite opportunity.
4.3 PW3 HC Trilok was posted at PS Timarpur as duty officer on 11 th may 2018 and his duty hours were from 4:00 PM to 12 midnight. On that day at about 10:20 PM, Constable Lokender handed over the rukka to him sent by ASI Sanjeev Kumar on the basis of which he got registered FIR Exhibit PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. The FIR was registered through computer installed at PS Timarpur. The FIR was Exhibited as Exhibit PW3/A and the certificate under section 65B was Exhibited as Exhibit PW3/C. The endorsement made on rukka was Exhibited as Exhibit PW3/B. He also brought the Roznamcha Register for the period 22nd April 2018 till 7th may 2018 in which DD number 36A was registered. The same was Exhibited as Exhibit PW3/C (OSR).
4.4 PW4 Rajesh Kapoor deposed that on 5 th may 2018 he was coming back to his home from Azadpur along with his son when at about 5:30 PM he reached near Service Road Ambedkar University Gate and accident had already occurred between a car and a motorcycle. After seeing the crowd, he stopped and when he checked the injured it turned out to be his neighbour namely Daya Chand. The people who were available at the spot along with the owner of offending vehicle and the accused tried to remove the KARANBIR STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 3 / 16 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 11:44:12 +0530 injured in a car and he also accompanied them to the trauma centre. He handed over his motorcycle and keys to his son before leaving. The injured was admitted to the hospital. He could not say who caused the accident but accused as well as her husband was available at the spot. The witness correctly identified the accused in the court. His statement was recorded on 11th July 2018 at PS. Witness correctly identified the case property as well. He was not cross-examined by defence despite opportunity. .
4.5 PW5 HC Ashwani was posted as a MHC(M) PS Timarpur on 2 nd July 2022. He brought the summoned record i.e. register number 19 for the year 2018 in which ASI Sanjeev Kumar deposited the case property vide entry number 2747. On 15th May 2018, IO also deposited the case property that is car vide entry number 2752. The entries were taken on record and collectively Exhibited as Exhibit PW 5/A(OSR).
4.6 PW6 HC Lokendra Singh was posted at PS Timarpur as constable on 11 th may 2018. He along with IO went to the house of the injured where IO recorded the statement of injured person and prepared Tehrir and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. Thereafter he left for the PS and after reaching the PS, a FIR was registered. There after he left the PS for the spot and after reaching the spot he handed over the copy of FIR and original Tehrir to the IO. There after IO gave the copy of FIR to the injured person. Thereafter IO prepared the site plan in his presence after which he along with the IO came back to the PS. The accidental vehicle was in the PS and IO seized the same and prepared the Seizure Memo and deposited the same in Malkhana. The witness was cross examined by learned counsel for accused. He deposed that it is correct that the site plan does not bear his signature and that seizure memo of motorcycle also does not bear his signature. He denied the suggestion that the site plan which he mentioned in his deposition was not prepared in his presence or on 11 th may 2018. He denied the suggestion that in his statement the fact with regard to constable Sumit taking the Rukka to the police station and handing over the FIR to SI Neeraj STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 4 / 16 Kumar is mentioned. Further suggestions were given to him that his statement has been recorded by the IO only to fulfil the requirements of the police file and he denied the same. .
4.7 PW7- Umesh Yadav deposed that on 5th may 2018 he was working in the Tiger Force Security Company as a security guard. His duty hours were from 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM at the gate of Ambedkar University Gandhi Vihar. He deposed that the guard room was situated at about 20 metres from the gate inside the university and he was sitting at about 5:30 PM in the guardroom and he heard a noise of the collision. He came outside the gate and observed that there was a collision between a car and a motorcycle and there were a lot of people gathered at the spot. A boy and a girl were standing near the first car and he observed that one person was bleeding from the side of his head. He dialed 100 number call. The boy and the girl who were in the said car took the injured to the hospital in their own car. He did not see who was driving the said motorcycle and car. He further deposed that there was no CCTV camera installed at the university gate or nearby. He identified the accused and case property in the court. He was cross examined by learned counsel for accused. He deposed that it is correct that he does not know how the accident occurred. He further deposed that it is correct that the accused and her husband had taken the injured to the hospital the request of people who were standing there. He further deposed that it is correct that on the day of incident it was Saturday and, on that day, weekly market do take place at the road in front of the university.
4.8 PW 8 HC Naushad was posted as constable on 5th May 2018 and he was on emergency duty along with IO ASI Sanjeev Kumar on that day IO received DD number 36A regarding the accident. Thereafter he along with IO reached the spot i.e. Gandhi Vihar, in front of Ambedkar University. They found that motorcycle bearing registration number DL6S A L3574 and the injured was shifted to Trauma centre by the KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 5 / 16 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 11:44:16 +0530 driver of the offending vehicle. No eyewitness was found at the spot. IO left him at the spot to preserve the same and went to the trauma centre. After some time, IO came back at the spot. There after motorcycle was taken to the police station. He identified the case property correctly in the court. He was cross examined by the defence. He deposed that they reached at the spot at about 5:45 PM. The site plan was not prepared in his presence and the aforesaid motorcycle was found in accidental condition.
4.9 PW 9 Daya Chand was coming on his motorcycle from Narela after supplying some products at the CISF Narela to his house. At about 5:30 PM when he reached near the gate of Ambedkar University a Swift Desire coming from the wrong side at a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner hit his motorcycle. Due to the impact, he fell on the bonnet of the side car and thereafter he hit on the divider of the road. Accused Sonia was driving the car and her husband was driving along with her and they were learning how to drive the car. Lots of people gathered at the spot. Mohit and Sonia were taking the names of each other. Public persons were talking about shifting him to the hospital. There after he was shifted to the trauma centre by Sonia and Mohit. He became unconscious and he does not remember anything further. He identified the accused in the court and the case property correctly. Thereafter he was cross examined by Ld. APP for the state. He was cross examined by defence. He deposed that he was discharged from the Trauma Centre in conscious condition on the same day that is on 5th of May 2018 at about 4:00 to 5:00 PM. He was in a conscious condition when he was in the hospital but was not able to speak. Police officials met him at the hospital. He deposed that he recovered after 15 days and was able to speak properly. He further deposed in his cross examination that he did not go to the PS during the 15 days to lodge any complaint regarding the accident. He deposed that after recovery during these 15 days, he gave his statement to the police officials, however he does not remember the name of the police official who had recorded the statement at that time. He further submitted that he does not remember the name of the constable who went to the PS for KARANBIR STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 6 / 16 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 11:44:21 +0530 the registration of FIR. He further deposed in his cross examination that police official took him to the spot after five to six days after registration of FIR. Police officials had made inquiry from one side of the guards posted the gate of Ambedkar University. He deposed that police official took his signature on the site plan only once. He further deposed that police official had taken his signature on the FIR. He further deposed that it is correct that no site plan between the dates 15 th may 2018 to 18th may 2018 is on record. He deposed that he does not remember the exact date when he handed over the RC and driving licence to the police official. He deposed that one of his relatives namely Vijay pal came to meet him at the hospital he then improved his statement in the cross examination and stated that he was unconscious and he was told by the family members that Vijay pal came to meet him at the hospital. He submitted that Vijay pal was in Delhi Police at that time. He denied the suggestion that the site plan Exhibit PW9/B was not prepared or sketched at that point of time when he signed the same. He denied the suggestion that if he is coming from Narela in front of gate of Ambedkar University then he would be on the wrong side of the road. He further denied the suggestion that he was driving on the wrong side of the road at the time of accident in front of gate of Ambedkar University and that Mohit was driving his car on the right side of the road. He denied the suggestion that the present FIR was falsely registered against the accused Sonia in collusion with Vijay pal and IO of the case. He denied the suggestion that it was Mohit who was driving the car and not Sonia.
4.10 PW10 ASI Sanjeev Kumar deposed that on 5th May 2018 he was posted as a SI at PS Timarpur. On that day, he was on emergency duty along with constable Naushad when he received DD number 36A regarding the accident and thereafter he along with constable Naushad reached the spot where he found the motorcycle bearing registration number DL- 6S AL-3574 and it was moved to the side of the road by the public persons. Injured was already shifted to the Trauma Centre by the offending vehicle and the PCR caller. He left constable Naushad at the spot to preserve the same and he went to the KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 7 / 16 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 11:44:25 +0530 trauma centre. The injured was admitted there and he collected his MLC. No eyewitness was found at the hospital. Injured did not give his statement as he was under
treatment. There after he returned to the spot and shifted the said motorcycle to the PS. On 11th May 2018 regarding the investigation of the pending PCR call, he went to the house of complainant recorded his statement. In the meantime, Constable Lokenderalso reached there. He prepared Tehrir on the basis of which statement of complainant Exhibit PW 9 /A was recorded. Tehrir was Exhibited as Exhibit PW10/A. He handed over the said Tehrir to Constable Lokender at about 10:00 PM and he went to the PS for registration of FIR. He prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. He again prepared the site plan after scrutiny of charge sheet by the prosecution branch already Exhibit PW9/B. There after he served the notice under section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act to the registered owner namely Mohit Kumar and he gave his reply that he was driving the offending vehicle himself at the time of accident and his wife Sonia was also along with him. The notice-cum-reply is Exhibit PW10/B. Thereafter, Mohit along the offending vehicle, RC, Insurance and key came to the police station where in IO seized the aforesaid articles vide Seizure Memo Exhibit PW10/C, Exhibit PW10/D and Exhibit PW 10/E all bearing his signatures. Thereafter mechanical inspection of both vehicles was conducted and he collected the reports. Both vehicles were released on superdari and the superdarinamas are already Exhibited as Exhibit PW9/C and Exhibit PW10/F. There after he filed an application for TIP of Sonia and the same was granted but Sonia refused to undergo TIP. The TIP proceedings were Exhibited as Exhibit PW10/G. He collected the result on the MLC of injured and injury was found to be simple. He prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the court. He identified the case property as well as the accused in the court. He was asked certain leading questions by ld. APP for the State.
He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel. He deposed that he does not exactly remember on which date the injured was discharged from the hospital. He deposed that the fact of injured being taken to the hospital in offending vehicle came to his STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 8 / 16 knowledge at the place of accident on the day of incident. The PCR caller i.e. security guard from Ambedkar University had told the aforesaid fact to him. The complainant was telling his name but was not completely fit to make statement on the day of incident. A specific question was put to the witness that what does it mean that complainant was telling his name but was not completely fit to make this statement. IO replied that he was ready to record the statement of the complainant but the complainant denied to give the same. He deposed that it is correct that the name of constable Lokender as the person who had taken the original Tehrir copy of FIR at the spot is not mentioned in the FIR. There after ld. defence counsel asked a specific question as to what kind of objection was raised by the prosecution branch after which site plan was changed. He replied that the objection by the prosecution branch was with regard to the position of the roads shown in the earlier site plan. He deposed that he had shown the place of accident on the road in the earlier site plan. He further deposed that it is correct that there is no service road on the side of Main Rd mentioned in the site plan at which the accident occurred. He further deposed that it is correct that complainant had stated to him that he knew the boy and girl who were sitting in the offending car at the time of accident. He further deposed that it is correct that there is alteration in the date of Seizure memo of accidental motorcycle. He further deposed that he accidentally mentioned the date as 11 th May 2018 and later changed it to 12th May 2018. He admitted that the husband of Sonia namely Mohit Kumar cooperated with him in the investigation of the present case. There after certain suggestions were given to the I/O which were denied by him.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED :
5. At the stage of statement of accused under section 313 of CRPC, the accused denied each and every incriminating circumstance appearing against her. She stated that she and her husband also dialed at 100 number. She further stated that she is innocent and on the fateful day she along with her husband was going in there Maruti KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 9 / 16 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 11:44:29 +0530 Swift Car in normal speed and direction. When they reached near Ambedkar University, one person was coming on a motorcycle at high speed in the wrong direction. He was carrying some articles on his bike. There was a lot of sand on the road as the result of which his bike got disbalanced and fell on the road. At that time he was not wearing helmet. On humanitarian grounds we removed him to the hospital and stayed there for about 2 ½ hours. She also made a call at 100 number. We also informed the relative of injured. When relative of injured came in the hospital one policeman not on duty also came with them. He asked for a driving licence. My husband showed his driving licence to him and she was not having any valid driving licence. At that time, he demanded money from them failing which he threatened them to falsely implicate in the present case. She LED defence evidence andexamined her husband as a defence witness.
5.1 DW1 Mohit Kumar deposed that on 5 th May 2018 at about 5:00 PM he along with his wife were going from Gandhi Vihar to their hometown situated at Samalkha. When they reached in front of Ambedkar University, a person namely Dayachand came on the motorcycle from the wrong side and hit against their vehicle. He was driving his vehicle at the time of incident. He was carrying some boxes which were tied to the back of his motorcycle. There after they made a call at 100 number and shifted the injured to the trauma centre. They also informed the family members of the injured. They remained at the hospital for about 2-3 hours and in the meantime one relative of the injured namely Vijay Pal came to the hospital and inquired about driving licence from his wife. His wife told him that her husband was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and she does not have a driving licence. The relative also demanded rupees 2 to 2.5 lacs from them. Family members of Daya Chand also demanded money from them on various occasions.
5.2 The defence witness was cross examined by ld. APP for State. He deposed that he was residing at Gandhi Vihar at the time of accident but did not remember the complete address of the same. He deposed that before said accident took place at the KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 10 / 16 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 11:44:33 +0530 other side road of the Ambedkard University gate. There was a divider at the road of accident. He deposed that his wife made the call at 100 number from the spot from her mobile number. He deposed that he does not remember the detail of family members of Daya Chand whom he gave the information regarding the accident. He admitted that it is correct that the gate of Ambedkar University is on the road going towards the Nirankari ground. He admitted that it is correct that accident took place on the road going towards the Gandhi Vihar Rd. He submitted voluntarily that accident took place on Saturday and due to Saturday market only one road was in operation. He deposed that the sons of Dayachand namely Sonu and Monu demanded money from him.
6. The respective submissions of Sh. Deepak, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Manish Chhokar Ld. Counsel for the accused have been heard. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused.
7. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that State has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accident and death of the deceased was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that there are lot of contradictions in story of prosecution. I shall deal with his submissions one by one in later part of judgment.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
8. It was held in Niranjan Singh vs. The State (Delhi Administration) 1977 CriLJ 333 held that Rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable or 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 KARANBIR STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 11 / 16 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 11:44:38 +0530 circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. Thus the main criterion for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard to the obligation of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a risk indifference as to the harmful consequences resulting from it. In a case of this nature, the test is whether the prosecution has proved that :
(i) the accused was driving the vehicle in such a manner as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to some other person who might happen to be using the road or doing substantial damage to the property;
(ii) in driving the vehicle in that manner the accused did so without having given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or, having recognized that there was some risk involved, had nonetheless gone on to take it; and
(iii) the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of the death of the deceased.
In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution was under the obligation to prove the following essential ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 279//337 IPC:
a. Identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle.
b. That the alleged accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place.
c. The rash and negligent driving of the accused resulted in injury to complainant.
KARANBIR
SINGH
STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 12 / 16
Digitally signed
by KARANBIR
SINGH
Date: 2025.03.28
11:44:45 +0530
RE: IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED :
14. The prime witness who deposed about identity of accused being the driver of vehicle is PW-9. He deposed that accused Soniya was driving the vehicle and her husband was sitting alongside and they were learning how to drive a car. He also deposed that they were taking names of each other. Apart from him neither PW-7 nor PW-4 saw who was driving the vehicle. It is quite unbelievable that accused would learn how to drive a car at 5.30 PM and that too when Saturday weekly Market is taking place. A reasonable human being learns driving in the morning. In Delhi, 5.30 PM is peak traffic period as this time is the time when office people return back to their homes. It is not in consonance with conduct of reasonable human being that he or she will learn driving when one side of road is closed by Saturday Market. This fact has been deposed by PW-7. The statement of complainant is not corroborated. It becomes more crucial when it is noticed that accident took place on 05.05.2018 and FIR is registered on 11.05.2018. The delay in registration of FIR is not satisfactorily explained by complainant. He has himself deposed that he was discharged on the same day in conscious condition and his injury is also simple.
15. Further, in the FIR, it is mentioned that computerized copy of FIR is being sent through Constable Sumit from SI Neeraj. However, he is not examined as witness.
Further, IO has deposed that it is Constable Lokender who brought him registered FIR along with Tehrir. The same fact is deposed by PW-6. This is a major contradiction in prosecution story and I agree with ld. Defence counsel that there has been manipulation while registration of FIR. This manipulation coupled with delay of 6 days raises a doubt on prosecution story. The complainant has also admitted in his cross-examination that his relative Vijay Pal from Delhi Police visited him in Hospital. The possibility of falsely implicating accused cannot be ruled out since FIR is registered after delay. This also shakes credibility of deposition of complainant and thus, solely on the basis of his testimony, it cannot be said that identity of accused being driver has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This is more so when her husband has replied to notice under KARANBIR STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 13 / 16 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 11:44:49 +0530 section 133 of MV Act that he was driving the vehicle and he took same stand on oath in court. The same defence has been put to PWs in suggestions. The prosecution has not been able to shake the DW but on the other hand, as noted above, complainant's version is shady. Thus, based on testimonies of these witnesses, the court concludes that it is doubtful that it was accused who was driving the vehicle on fateful day. It might be possible that it was her husband who was driving the same.
RE: ALLEGED ACCIDENT IS THE RESULT OF RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING OF THE ACCUSED AT A PUBLIC PLACE.
16. The spot being a public place is beyond doubt. However, it was argued by ld counsel for accused that place of accident is itself doubtful as site plan has not been properly made and exhibited. Record shows that PW-4 deposed that when he reached near service road, Ambedkar Road, accident had already occurred. PW-6 deposed that IO prepared site plan in his presence. But the same does not bear his signatures. PW-7 sat inside guard room and cannot be a reliable witness for spot of accident. PW-9 has deposed that when he reached near the gate of Ambedkar University, a car came from wrong side and hit him. He also deposed that he hit the divider on the road. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he signed site plan only once but IO has deposed that site plan was changed after objections by prosecution. The site plan Ex. PW9/B shows the place of accident not near Ambedkar University gate as deposed by PW-9. It shows that accident took place on the other side of the road. PW-4 also deposed that he saw accident when he reached near service road. However, service road is far from place of accident as shown in site plan. PW-7 has deposed about Saturday weekly Market. The court can also take judicial notice that in Delhi, weekly markets take place in different localities on different days of the week. If such was the scenario, it is safe to presume that one part of the road might be blocked due to weekly market. Thus, if the deposition of witnesses is to be believed and accident is seen to be taken place in front of KARANBIR STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 14 / 16 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 11:44:54 +0530 Ambedkar University, then it is the complainant who will be on the wrong side since only 1 part of road was working. The site plan fails to establish the place of accident beyond reasonable doubt. It is not clear where did the IO show the place of accident in the first site plan. If he had only taken signatures of complainant once as deposed by complainant, then why did he not take his signatures on earlier site plan which he deposed that he made at instance of complainant since Ex. PW9/B bears signatures of complainant. In view of this discussion, the court holds that place of occurrence has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. There are glaring contradictions in prosecution version and the same points out the gaps in the story of prosecution. Ld. Counsel for accused also submitted that certificate under section 65-B of IEA, with respect to FIR is not valid. However, since the court has already pointed out above contradictions in prosecution version, the court need not go into details of admissibility of certificate.
17. Further, there is cutting on seizure memo Ex. PW10/H. It is not initialed by anyone. The said seizure memo has no witnesses and the explanation offered by IO in cross- examination, seen in the light of manipulations in site plan and FIR, cannot be relied upon. The cutting is also with different pen which shows it was done afterwards. The sequence of documents prepared by IO is not reliable. The court has already pointed out that place of occurrence is doubtful. Thus, who was coming from wrong side also becomes doubtful. Resultantly, rashness and negligence is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
18. There is one more aspect. Admittedly, statement of complainant was recorded on 11.05.2018 at his house. There is no DD entry showing the police officials leaving the PS. In this regard, as per the mandatory provision of the Punjab Police Rules, DD entry prior to departure and after arrival is required to be lodged in the dairy of the police station, by each police official. Rule 49, Chapter 22 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 is reproduced as under -
"22.49 - Matters to be entered in Register no. II - The following matters shall, amongst STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 15 / 16 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 11:44:59 +0530 others, be entered :- ... (c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station of elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on the arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal."
19. There is no entry to show any such visit. This assumes more significance as PW-2 has deposed that on 03.08.2018, she accompanied IO to house of accused vide DD NO. 47-B. it is noteworthy, that said DD no is also not produced on record and notice allegedly given to accused under section 41-A CrPC to accused is also not on record. Thus, if DD entry while visiting house of accused was made allegedly, no such deposition with respect to visit on 11.05.18 is there. If this is viewed in the context of manipulation in FIR and seizure memo, it shows that IO has not conducted investigation fairly as whether he recorded statement of complainant at PS or at his home becomes doubtful. In fact, there is cutting in endorsement ex. PW3/B in DD no. 65A and no explanation is forthcoming from prosecution regarding this cutting. The benefit of these lapses has to be given to accused.
20. Since court has already concluded that whether or not accused was driving the car is doubtful, the offence under section 3/181 MV Act also falls. Resultantly, accused stands acquitted for offence under section 279/337 IPC and Section 3/181 MV Act since prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This judgment consists of 17 pages and each and every page of this judgment is digitally signed by me.
Digitally signed
KARANBIR by KARANBIR
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.28
11:45:12 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Karanbir Singh)
COURT ON 28th DAY OF March,2025 JMFC-02, Central District Tis Hazari Courts/28.03.2025.
STATE VS. SONIYA FIR NO. 99/18 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 16 / 16