Delhi District Court
State vs Suraj on 1 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS Suraj
FIR No. : 426/2021
PS : Hauz Khas
U/s : 279/427 IPC
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. No. of the Case2.54 3418/2022
DLST020114732022
B. Date of Commission of offence 11.12.2021
C. Date of FIR 11.12.2021
D. Date of charge-sheet 18.05.2022
E. Name of the complainant Baljeet S/o Bhaleram
F. Name of the accused persons, their parentage Suraj S/o Sh. Ganga Ram, R/o S-265/023, Indra
and residence Gandhi Camp, Taimur Nagar, Delhi.
G. Offence complained of or proved 279/427 IPC
H. Date of framing of charges 25.05.2023
I. Date of commencement of evidence 07.08.2023
J. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
K. Date on which judgment is reserved 24.05.2024
L. Final Order Acquitted
M. Date of Judgment 01.06.2024
State Vs. Suraj FIR No. : 426/2021 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 279/427 IPC Page no.1 of 9
Brief facts of the present case
1. The case of the prosecution arises out of complaint dated 11.12.2021 of complainant Baljeet that on said date at around 11:10 am he was driving his bus no DL1PC9623 FROM Loknayak Puram Bakarwala TO Hauz Khas terminal and his bus route no was 765 and he was slowly taking his bus towards Sarvpriya bus stand for deboarding the passengers, suddenly the cluster bus bearing no DL1PC5371 route no 448 came and hit his bus. The bus driver disclosed his name ad Suraj. PCR call was made. On the basis of complaint, FIR was registered in the case Mechanical inspection of the said vehicle was conducted. Notice u/s 133 MV Act was given to owner of offending vehicle who replied that at the time of incident the offending vehicle was being driven by Suraj. Document sof offending bus DL1PC5371 were verified. . Statement of witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation charge- sheet was filed against accused. The cognizance was taken in the case file.
Framing of notice
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 25.05.2023 notice was framed against accused Suraj for the offence u/s 279/427 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Suraj FIR No. : 426/2021 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 279/427 IPC Page no.2 of 9
Prosecution Evidence
3. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined four witnesses. PW1 is SI Deepak, PW2 is Baljeet, PW3 is ASI Pawan Kumar and PW4 is MVI Arvinder Singh.
4. Since the accused had admitted the genuineness of copy FIR is Ex.A1, endorsement on rukka is Ex.A2, GD no. 46A dt. 11.12.2021 is Ex.A3, GD No. 34A dt. 12.12.2021 is Ex.A4 and certificate u/s 65B IEA is Ex.A5 (without admitting the content) as per section 294 CrPC, the witness DO HC Manoj was dropped from formal examination.
5. PW2 Baljeet had deposed in his testimony that on 11.12.2021 at about 11 pm he was driving DTC bus of route no. 765 bearing registration no. DL1PC9623, a cluster bus bearing no. DL1PC5371 had hit his bus from behind and his bus was pushed at some distance while he was getting the passengers deboarded from the bus. He had further deposed that he came to know about the cluster bus only when the collusion happened. Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the photographs of offending vehicle Ex.P1 (Colly) and photographs of accidental bus Ex.P2 (Colly).
6. PW1 SI Deepak had deposed in his testimony that on State Vs. Suraj FIR No. : 426/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 279/427 IPC Page no.3 of 9 11.12.2021 at about 11.15 pm a call was marked to him pertaining to an accident Opp. IIT Police colony, outer ring road Delhi. He had further deposed that he went to the spot where two buses were found in accidental condition. He had further deposed that one being a DTC bus which was hit by another bus being a cluster bus DL1IPC5371. He had further deposed that the buses were parked on a side. He had further deposed that driver of both the buses were brought to the PS where the driver of the DTC bus gave a written complaint. He had further deposed that he prepared the tehrir on the same vide Ex.PW1/A. He had further deposed that he handed over the same to DO and FIR was registered. He had further deposed that further investigation was marked to HC Pawan Kumar. He had further deposed that IO/HC Pawan Kumar seized the DTC Bus vide Ex.PW1/B and the cluster bus was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. He had further deposed that accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D. He had further deposed that disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide Ex.PW1/E. Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the photographs of offending vehicle Ex.P1 (Colly) and accidental bus Ex.P2 (Colly).
7. PW3 ASI Pawan Kumar had deposed in his testimony that on 11.12.2021 he was marked the present FIR for further investigation. He had further deposed that he went to the spot i.e Opposite, IIT Police Colony, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi where one orange cluster bus and one DTC bus were present in accidental State Vs. Suraj FIR No. : 426/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 279/427 IPC Page no.4 of 9 condition. He had further deposed that the DTC bus was hit by cluster bus from behind. He had further deposed that at the spot driver of DTC bus namely Baljeet and the driver of offending vehicle i.e. accused was present. He had further deposed that conductors of both the buses were also present. He had further deposed that he had seized the DTC bus vide Ex.PW1/B. He had further deposed that he had seized cluster bus vide Ex.PW1/C. He had further deposed that accused was arrested vide arrest Ex.PW1/D. He had further deposed that disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide Ex.PW1/E. He had further deposed that both the vehicles were deposited in the malkhana. He had further deposed that the mechanical inspection of both the buses was done vide Ex.PW3/A (colly) and he had verified documents of accused. He had further deposed that he had given the notice u/s 133 MV act to owner of cluster bus who informed him that the vehicle was driven by the accused. Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the photographs of offending vehicle Ex.P1 (Colly) and accidental bus Ex.P2 (Colly).
8. PW4 Arvinder Singh had deposed in his testimony that on 13.12.2021 he examined accidental vehicle of make TATA Marcopolo bus bearing no. DL1PC5371 and one Ashok Layland bus bearing no. DL1PC9623 and prepared MVI report Ex.PW3/A and ExPW4/A. State Vs. Suraj FIR No. : 426/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 279/427 IPC Page no.5 of 9 Statement of accused
9. The examination of accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he stated that he is innocent and is falsely implicated in case..
10. Accused did not lead defence evidence. Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
11. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused were heard and case file was perused.
12. It is argued on behalf of accused that no public witness is examined in the case. No witness had deposed that accused was driving rashly or negligently at the time of accident. Accused is falsely implicated in the present case.
13. Rashness or negligence are two different terms. In the case of 1953 All LJ 689 : (AIR 1954 All 186) it was held:
"Rashness and negligence are not the same things. Mere negligence cannot be construed to mean rashness. There are degrees of negligence and rashness, and, In order to amount to criminal rashness or criminal negligence, one must find that the rashness has been of such a degree as to amount to taking hazard knowingly that the hazard was of such a degree that Injury was most State Vs. Suraj FIR No. : 426/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 279/427 IPC Page no.6 of 9 likely to be occasioned thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk or doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences, criminal negligence is a gross and culpable neglect, that is to say, a failure to exercise that care and failure to take that precaution which, having regard to the circumstances. It was the imperative duty of the individual to take. Culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that mischievous consequences are likely to follow although the individual hopes, even though he hopes sincerely, that such consequences may not follow. The criminality lies in not taking the precautions to prevent the happening of the consequences in the hope that they may not happen. The law does not permit a man to be uncautious on a hope however earnest or honest that hope may be."
14. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.12.2021 at around 11:00 am, accused was driving the cluster bus bearing no DL1PC5371 route no 448 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the DTC bus bearing no DL1PC9623 due to which it was damaged. In this regard, complainant PW1 Baljeet had deposed that on 11.12.2021 while he was driving DTC bus route no 765 bearing registration no DL1PC9623, a cluster bus bearing no DL1PC5371 hit his bus from behind and his bus was pushed at some distance while he was getting the passengers deboarded from the bus. He had identified the accused as well as the offending vehicle Ex. P2. The identity of accused is not contradicted in the cross examination.
State Vs. Suraj FIR No. : 426/2021 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 279/427 IPC Page no.7 of 9
Thus, it is proved that accused was driving the offending cluster bus bearing no DL1PC5371 at the alleged incident.
15. Though complainant had identified the accused, however he had nowhere deposed that accused was driving the cluster bus at high speed or in rash or negligent manner. He merely stated that he came to know about the cluster bus only after the collusion happened. No other public witness is examined in the case who could deposed in what manner accused was driving cluster bus at the time of alleged incident. No passengers of cluster bus are examined regarding the negligence or rashness of accused. IO had not even interrogated them during investigation. In the absence of testimony of any public witness also , it cannot be said that accused was driving the offending Cluster bus 'rashly' or 'negligently'. Further there is also no evidence on record in the testimony of complainant PW1 Baljeet that accused had deliberately caused damaged to DTC bus. Thus, the offence of mischief is also not attracted in the present case.
16. It is well settled that in a criminal trial the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Any contradiction or iota of proof in favour of accused can completely dismantle the case of prosecution. In the present case there are no cogent material available on record to suggest that accused had caused damage to the DTC Bus bearing no State Vs. Suraj FIR No. : 426/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 279/427 IPC Page no.8 of 9 DL1PC9623 by driving the cluster bus bearing no DL1PC5371in a rash or negligent manner on the alleged date of incident. There is also no material available on record to show that accused had deliberately caused mischief by damaging the cluster bus.
Conclusion & Decision
17. In these circumstances and in view of the aforementioned discussion, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Suraj beyond reasonable doubts. Accused Suraj is accordingly acquitted for offence u/s 279/427 IPC.
Announced in the open court (VIJAYSHREE RATHORE) In Delhi on 01.06.2024 MM-06,SOUTH/SAKET DELHI State Vs. Suraj FIR No. : 426/2021 PS Hauz Khas U/s 279/427 IPC Page no.9 of 9