Delhi District Court
State vs . Monti Sharma on 18 May, 2015
FIR no.504/10
PS Narela
U/s. 279/338 IPC
State Vs. Monti Sharma
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANDEEP GUPTA
METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 504/10
U/s.: 279/338 IPC
PS: Narela
State vs. Monti Sharma
Date of Institution of case:- 23.05.11
Date of Judgment reserved:- 18.05.15
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 18.05.15
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. : 02404R0142712011
Date of Commission of offence : 24.12.10
Name of the complainant : HC Rajbir Singh, No.497/OD, PS
Narela, Delhi.
Name and address of the accused : Monti Sharma, S/o. Sh. Satish
Sharma, R/o. H.No. D-50, J.J.
Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi-52.
Offence complained of : 279/338 IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Date of order : 18.05.15
Final Order : Acquitted
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
1. The accused Monti Sharma S/o Sh. Satish Sharma has been sent to face trial under Section 279/338 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) and u/s 3/181, 146/196 & 39/192 M.V.Act on the allegations that on 24.12.10 at about 1:15 p.m. at Sector A-6, Pocket-1, Chowk Narela, Singhu Border Road, Narela, Delhi, he was found driving a scooter bearing No. DL-8SP-0458 at a public road, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so in the said manner he hit his vehicle against Page no.1 of 7 FIR no.504/10 PS Narela U/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Monti Sharma one motorcycle bearing no. HR-10K-4375, as a result of which he caused grievous injuries on the person of Kehar Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Singh and on the aforesaid date, time and place he was driving the said scooter without licence, insurance as well as without registration certificate and on the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR bearing no. 504/10 was registered at Police station Narela and the accused has been charged with the offences under Section 279/338 IPC and u/s 3/181, 146/196 and 39/192 M.V. Act.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.
The copies of charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C for the offence U/s. 279/338 IPC and u/s 3/181, 146/196 and 39/192 M.V. Act was served upon the accused on 06.08.13, to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. It is a matter of record that accused Monti Sharma pleaded guilty to offences u/s 3/181, 146/196 and 39/192 M.V. Act vide separate statement for which he was sentenced separately. The issue before us pertains to commission of offence u/s 279/338 IPC.
4. In support of its version, the prosecution examined only two witnesses.
5. PW1 is Mahender Singh S/o Sh. Randhir Singh, R/o- House No. 144-A Gali No. 3, Gautam Colony, Narela, Delhi. He deposed that the incident occurred around 2-3 years ago but he did not remember the exact date, month and year. He further deposed that an accident had occurred on the road on piao chowk, near SRHC hospital Page no.2 of 7 FIR no.504/10 PS Narela U/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Monti Sharma near Kendriya Vidyalaya. He further deposed that on the day of accident he was sitting at the office of a property dealer near the place of accident and he saw the public persons were gathered. Thereafter, he went to the place where the crowded gathered and saw an injured person who belonged to his village Janti Kalan, Haryana. He further deposed that Injured Kehar Singh was known to him and was a school teacher. Thereafter, he alongwith the public persons took the injured to SRHC hospital. He further deposed that police persons were present in the hospital. He further deposed that Injured Kehar Singh was seriously injured and son of injured Kehar Singh was called at the hospital. Thereafter, injured kehar Singh was taken to the Saroj hospital. Thereafter, he went back to his house. He further deposed that after 4 days police recorded his statement. He further deposed that public persons had told him that two boys coming on a two wheeler scooter and hit against the motorcycle of injured Kehar Singh and therefore, the accident occurred. He further deposed that public persons also told him that injured Kehar Singh was talking on the mobile phone while standing his motorcycle. He further deposed that he had not seen the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross examine the witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross-examination by Ld APP for the state, he denied the suggestion that after the accident injured was taken to the SRHC hospital and he returned back at the spot and met Monti Sharma driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Scooter No. DL-8SP-0548. Attention of the witness was drawn towards accused Monti Sharma present in the court to whom the witness failed to identify and states that he had not seen the accused at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that being won over by the accused he was deliberately not telling the truth. He has not been cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite given Page no.3 of 7 FIR no.504/10 PS Narela U/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Monti Sharma opportunity.
6. PW2 is Deepak Kumar S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar, R/o VPO Janti Kala, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. He is the eye witness in the present case. He deposed that he did not remember the exact date, month and year of the accident but the incident occurred in the noon time at about 1:30 p.m. He further deposed that he was going to his house in a bus route No. 131, when he reached at Chowk near SRHC hospital, he saw the public persons were gathered there. He further deposed that on seeing them, he got down from the bus and went to the place where public persons gathered and saw Mahender Singh resident of his village was standing there. He further deposed that he also saw his Tau Ji namely Kehar Singh in injured condition lying on the road. He further deposed that he alongwith Mahender Singh took his uncle Kehar Singh to SRHC hospital. Thereafter, he called Narender S/o Sh. Kehar Singh and he handed over the motorcycle of Kehar Singh to his friend who took the same to his house. Thereafter, he came back to his house. He further deposed that after 2-3 days police recorded his statement. He deposed that he had not seen the accident and he had also not seen the accused at the time of accident. Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross examine the witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross examination by Ld. APP for the state, he denied the suggetion that on 24.12.2010, at about 1:15 p.m when he was present at the chowk near Sector A-6 pocket-01, Narela Singhu Border Road, he saw two boys coming on a scooter no. DL-8SP-0458 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle of his uncle Kehar Singh due to which he sustained injuries. He also denied the suggestion that he saw accused Monti Sharma was driving the aforesaid scooter and caused the accident. He further denied the suggestion that motorcycle was seized Page no.4 of 7 FIR no.504/10 PS Narela U/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Monti Sharma by police in his presence. He admitted that arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW2/B and PW2/C are bearing his signatures at point "A". He also denied the suggestion that accused Monti Sharma was arrested in his presence. Witness was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C mark 'A' and B' to which the witness denied having made any such statement before the police. He further deposed that he had signed on the documents without reading the same. He denied the suggestion that being won over by the accused he was deliberately not identifying the accused and that he had deposed falsely in order to save the accused. During his cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed that police had obtained his signatures on blank papers.
7. It is matter of record that the only eye witness Deepak Kumar to the alleged accident and public witness Mahender Singh had turned hostile in the present case and all other witnesses are formal in nature accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed on 12.11.2014.
8. Since, there is no incriminating evidence, which has come on record against the accused, statement of accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as the accused and perused the record.
10. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC. To prove a case U/s. 279/338 IPC against the accused, the prosecution has to prove the following facts:-
a) that the accused was driving a vehicle i.e scooter bearing Page no.5 of 7 FIR no.504/10 PS Narela U/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Monti Sharma registration no DL-8SP-0458;
b) that the accused was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
c) that while driving the said vehicle in the aforesaid manner, he hit his vehicle against one motorcycle bearing no. HR-10K-4375, as a result of which he caused grievous injuries on the person of Kehar Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Singh.
11. It is noteworthy that to convict the accused in the present case, testimony of eye witness/injured is very crucial to sustain the conviction of the accused. It is noteworthy that in the present there are two eye witnesses cited by the prosecution namely Deepak Kumar and injured Kehar Singh. However, injured Kehar Singh was reported to have expired on 07.01.2012 and therefore, his testimony could not come on record. As far as the other eye witness PW2 Sh. Deepak Kumar examined by the prosecution is concerned, he completely turned hostile and did not allege anything such as rash and negligent act upon the accused. This eye witness did not impute any rash or negligent driving upon the accused. This witness did not support the case of prosecution at all and completely exonerated the accused from the allegations levelled by the prosecution in the present case by saying that he had not seen the accident and he had also not seen the accused at the time of accident. Hence in nutshell, there is nothing incriminating/inculpatory in the evidence of the eye witness against the accused on record and there is no other eye witness witness examined by the prosecution in the present case. All other witnesses are formal in nature whose no amount of evidence can tantamount to conviction of the accused.
12. Therefore, after scanning the entire record, in the absence of any Page no.6 of 7 FIR no.504/10 PS Narela U/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Monti Sharma incriminating testimony of any eye witness on record against the accused, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the present case against the accused and hence, the accused Monti Sharma is hereby acquitted from offences u/s 279/338 IPC.
13. File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
(Sandeep Gupta) Announced in open court today Metropolitan Magistrate/Rohini/Delhi on 18th May, 2015.
Page no.7 of 7 FIR no.504/10 PS Narela U/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Monti Sharma FIR No. 504/10 U/s.: 279/338 IPC PS: Narela State vs. Monti Sharma 18.05.2015 Present : Ld. APP for the State. Accused on bail alongwith Ld. Counsel. Record perused.
At this stage, accused submits that he voluntarily wants to plead guilty for the offences u/s 3/181, 146/196 and 39/192 M.V. Act. Separate statement of the accused regarding his plea of guilt has been recorded today.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, convict is admonished for the offence u/s 3/181 M.V Act and 146/196 M.V Act and he is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence 39/192 M.V. Act, in default of payment of fine, 10 days simple imprisonment. Fine paid.
Vide separate judgment dictated to the steno in the open court, accused Monti Sharma is acquitted of the offence U/s 279/338 IPC and he has been sentenced for the offence u/s 3/181, 146/196 and 39/192 M.V. Act.
Accused is directed to furnish fresh bail bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount in terms of section 437 A of Cr.P.C. The same stands furnished and accepted.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(Sandeep Gupta) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi Page no.8 of 7