Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Narayan on 28 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05 SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
RISHABH KAPOOR
Date:
KAPOOR 2026.01.28
13:42:41
+0630
State Vs. : Ram Narayan
FIR No : 428/2007
U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 and
132/179 MV Act.
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Case No. : 931/23
2. Date of commission of offence :01.11.2007 and
27.09.2011
3. Date of institution of the case : 18.01.2008
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : Ram Naryan S/o Sh.
Vibhishan Mandal
6. Offense complained or n proved : U/s 279 and 174A IPC and Section 119/177 and 132/179 MV Act.
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 17.01.2026
9. Final order : Acquitted for offences u/s 279 IPC, 119/117 & 132/179 MV Act and Convicted for offence u/s 174A IPC
10. Date of final order : 28.01.2026 State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 1
1. The accused Ram Narayan is facing trial for offences u/s 279 and 174A IPC and Section 119/177 and 132/179 MV Act. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 01.11.2007 at around 5:00 PM at CRPF Camp Red Light, Outer Ring Road, Vikas Puri, Delhi when the team of traffic officials comprising SI Sanjeev, HC Babu Lal and Ct. Harpal were performing the traffic regulation duties, then at about 5:00 PM, the accused allegedly came on his Truck no. DL-1GB-2319 from the side of District Center and the said truck was being driven by accused at high speed and in rash or negligent manner. Thereafter, accused was signaled by HC Babu Lal to stop the truck but he failed to obey the said command and rather jumped the red light. Allegedly, the accused was chased down by SI Sanjay on his motorcycle after about 300 meters i.e. at place near DTC Bus stand at Chaudhary Bhupender Singh Nagar. The matter was informed to the police vide PCR call made by SI Sanjay and thereafter, on the basis of statement of HC Babu Lal, the criminal law was into motion after registration of case FIR for offences u/s 279 IPC and 119/177 and 132/179 MV Act. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the alleged offences.
2. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offences was taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court and the accused failed to appear before the Court despite issuance of multiple processes against him, due to which the coercive processes were also issued against him and he was eventually declared as an absconder vide order dated 17.09.2011. Thereafter, the accused was subsequently apprehended on 24.08.2022 and was admitted to bail vide order dated 25.08.2022 in the present case. The State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 2 matter proceeded further against accused and on the basis of material available on record, charges for offences u/s 279 & 174A IPC and 119/177 and 132/179 MV Act were framed and put to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined five witnesses in all.
4. Thereafter, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused. The accused did not lead evidence in his defense.
5. Ld. Addl. PP for State has contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts with the help of coherent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the alleged offences.
6. Per contra, Ld. Defense Counsel has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the police. It has also been argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle in question in rash or negligent manner or that he has committed any violations of the prescribed rules under MV Act. It has further been argued that exist serious doubts in the prosecution story and hence, accused is liable to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 3
7. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the prose- cution and defense and have also gone through the case record carefully.
8. Prior to delving into the merits of the contentions ad- vanced on behalf of parties, let us briefly discuss the testi- monies of the material prosecution witnesses.
(i). PW-1 Retired HC Babu Lal deposed that on 01.11.2007, he along with SI Sanjeev and Ct. Harpal was a traffic-regulation duties at CRPF Camp Red Light, Outer Ring Road, Vikas Puri, Delhi and at about 5:00 PM, one truck no. DL-1GB-2319 came from the side of District Center, Janak Puri in rash and negli-
gent manner and he was signaled to stop but the driver of the truck jumped the red light. He further deposed that SI Sanjay who was standing with his motorcycle at the crossing of red light chased the offending vehicle and same was stopped after about a distance of 300 meters near DTC Bus Stand and there- after, SI Sanjay turned off the truck and made inquiry from its driver. He further deposed that in the meantime, he also reached the spot and got to know that the name of driver of the truck was Ram Narayan. He further deposed that thereafter, he made a written complaint Ex. PW 1/A to SI Sanjay and SI San- jay also prepared site plan at his instance. He further deposed that SI Sanjay and Ct. Harpal took the driver of the offending vehicle in the pit and thereafter he came to the spot for handling the traffic. He identified accused as the driver of the alleged of- fending vehicle. During his cross-examination, he stated that there were many public persons present at the spot at the time State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 4 of incident and IO had asked them to join the investigation. He could not state if any notice was given by the IO to public per- sons or not. He stated that due to the incident, no injury was suffered by anyone. He stated that the speed of offending vehi- cle was around 60-70 kmph but could not state whether the same was loaded or not. He stated that he had seen the offend- ing vehicle jumping over the red light when same was at a dis- tance of 150-200 meters. He denied that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case.
(ii). PW-2 HC Harpal was the other traffic police official who was present with SI Sanjay Kumar and Ct. Babu Lal when the alleged incident took place. He also deposed on same lines as that of PW-2 and thus, his entire testimony is not being reproduced so as to avoid repetition. Through him, the seizure memo of the vehicle was exhibited as Ex. PW 2/A and the seizure memo of driving license of accused, cylinder slips of 306 cylinders, permit and fitness of the truck as Ex. PW 2/B. He identified the seized documents as Ex. PW 2/P1 (Colly). The arrest memo and personal search memo of accused were also exhibited as Ex. PW 2/C and Ex. PW 2/D vide the testimony of this witness. He also identified the alleged offending vehicle in photographs Ex. PW 2/P2 and Ex. PW 2/P3. During his cross- examination, he stated that the accused had jumped the red light but he could not state about the speed at which the vehicle was being driven by the accused. He denied that the accused did not commit any offence or that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
(iii). PW-3 Inspector Sanjay Kumar was the ZO/Incharge of the police team comprising HC Babu Lal and Ct. Harpal when the State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 5 alleged incident took place. His testimony is also similar to that of PW-1 and PW-2 and hence, same is also not being reproduced to avoid any repetition. During his cross- examination, he stated that he had not taken any photographs or video recording of the incident or the vehicle at the spot. He stated that the speed of the offending vehicle was more than 50 Kmph. He stated that no complaint was made by any person regarding negligent driving by accused. He could not state whether any public persons were examined as witness by the IO. He stated that the notices were not served on any public persons by IO in his presence. He denied that the vehicle was not being driven by the accused in rash or negligent manner or that he was falsely implicated in the present case.
(iv). PW-4 SI Vijender Singh was the IO in the present case. He stated that on receiving the information of incident vide DD no. 25 A, he went to the spot along with HC Sunil and from there he came to know that the traffic police officials had taken the driver of the offending truck along with the truck to PS Vikas Puri. He further deposed that thereafter he returned to police station and there Ct. Harpal produced truck bearing no. DL- 1GB-2319 along with its driver. He further deposed that HC Babu Lal also handed over written complaint to him, on the basis of which he prepared rukka Ex. PW 4/A and got registered the FIR. He further deposed that thereafter, he seized the offending truck and its documents and also arrested the accused and conducted his personal search. He further deposed that he also prepared punchnama of vehicle Ex. PW 4/B as well as site plan Ex. PW 4/C. He also identified the accused as the driver of the alleged offending truck and also identified the truck in photographs Ex. PW 2/P2 and Ex. PW 2/P3. During his cross-examination, he could not state about the State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 6 name of the public persons who informed him that the accused and his truck was taken to PS by the traffic police officials. He denied that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of traffic police officials.
(v). PW-5 HC Prahlad was the MHCM who deposed that as per Entry no. 2962 dated 01.11.2007 in Register no. 19, the case property was deposited in the Malkhana by IO/HC Vijender.
9. The accused has not disputed the factum of registration of FIR, endorsement on rukka, DD no. 25 A dated 01.01.2007 and the factum of he being declared as an absconder vide order dated 17.09.2011 and his consequent apprehension on 24.08.2022 vide his statement u/s 294 Cr. PC. and pursuant thereto, the formal witnesses with respect to the above- mentioned documents were dropped from the list of witnesses.
10. Having discussed the evidences on record, now let us advert ourselves to the merits of the present case. The accused has been indicted for offences u/s 279/174A IPC and Section 119/177 and 132/179 MV Act. The allegations against accused are to the extent that on 01.11.2007 at around 5:00 PM at CRPF Camp Red Light, Outer Ring Road, Vikas Puri, Delhi accused was driving truck no. DL-1GB-2319 in a high speed and rash or negligent manner. It is also in the allegations that the accused acted in contravention of the traffic driving regulations by jumping over the red light and also failed to stop the vehicle despite being signaled by the traffic police officials. It is also in the allegations that during the course of proceedings of the present case, the accused intentionally and deliberately avoided to appear before the Court despite issuance of multiple State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 7 processes including proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC due to which he was declared as an absconder vide order dated 17.09.2011.
11. In so far as the liability of accused for offences u/s 279 IPC and Section 119/177 and Section 132/179 MV Act is concerned, it is pertinent to discuss the position of law with respect to a Section 279 IPC which is as under;
It is a settled law that Section 279 IPC punishes the act of a person driving or riding a vehicle on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. In the case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133(2006) DLT 562, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while discussing about the ingredients of section 279 has 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 observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under Section 279 or Section 304A, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved".
12. Further, what would constitute rash and negligent act has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh de- cided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:-
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with reckless-
State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 8 ness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
10. Besides this, it has also been upheld in various decisions that evidence of high speed simpliciter, is not ipso facto proof of rashness or negligence.
13. In the case of Rajiv Netra Panigrahi Vs. State of Orrisa decided on 20.07.1990, Hon'ble Orrisa High Court observed the following:-
"It is no doubt true, as contended on behalf of the peti- tioner and as supported by authorities, that high speed in driv- ing of a vehicle does not by itself amount to rash and negligent driving. If the accused driver was driving the vehicle on the highway and had negotiated the distance safely, it could not have been said that he was driving rashly or negligently be- cause of the high speed."
In the case of Kishore Chand Joshi Vs. State decided on 12.11.2018 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed:-
"17. A witness can depose as to the manner of driving or speed at which the vehicle was being driven but not render an opinion on "rash and negligence". High speed by itself may not in each case be sufficient to hold that a driver is rash or negli- gent. Speed alone is not the criterion for deciding the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver."
State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 9 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan (Supra), also observed that: "The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court make it more than clear that a mere allegation of high speed would not tantamount to rashness or negligence. In the present case also, I find that apart from the allegation that the truck was being driven at a very high speed there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner acted in a manner which could be re- garded as rash or negligent."
14. Further in Abdul Subhan (Supra), the decision of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish 1998 SCC (CRI) 1508 was also dis- cussed in which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-
"3. Both the trial court and the appellate court held the re- spondent guilty for offences under Section 337, 338 and 304A IPC after recording a finding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed". No specific finding has been recorded either by the trial court or by the first appellate court to the effect that the respondent was driving the truck either negligently or rashly. After holding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed", both the courts pressed into aid the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor to hold the respondent guilty.
4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness"
by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what is meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything es- sential to the establishment of the charge against an accused State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 10 always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitor".
15. Besides, the ingredients mentioned above, the identity of the accused as driver of the vehicle must also be established separately by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused.
16. As the accused has also been indicted for offences u/s 119/177 and 132/179 MV Act and the evidences led by prose- cution qua such offences is also common which has been led to establish commission of offence u/s 279 IPC, thus the evi- dences concerning the liability of accused with respect to the of- fences u/s 279 IPC and Section 119/177 and 132/179 MV Act are being appreciated together.
17. In the present case, it is note-worthy to point out the fact that in order to establish the guilt of accused for alleged of- fences u/s 279 IPC and Section 119/177 and 132/179 MV Act, the prosecution is primarily relying upon the testimony of PW- 1 Retired HC Babu Lal, PW-2 HC Harpal and PW-3 Inspector Sanjay Kumar. PW-1 Retired HC Babu Lal has been cited as complainant in the present case and during the course of his deposition, he has simply stated that the truck bearing no. DL- 1GB-2319 was being driven by accused in rash and negligent State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 11 manner and when same was signaled by him to stop, the ac- cused failed to do so and rather tried running away by jumping the red light. PW-1 has also stated that after some distance from the red light, the accused was chased down by SI Sanjay Kumar and the PCR Call was made. Similar are the versions of PW-2 HC Babu Lal and PW-3 Inspector Sanjay Kumar. The accused has not disputed the fact that the aforesaid truck was being driven by him at the time when he was stopped by the team of traffic police officials comprising PW-1, PW-2 and PW3 and rather the defense of accused is that he was not driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner nor he disobeyed any direc- tions of the traffic police officials by not stopping the vehicle when he was signaled to do so. The aforesaid admission made by accused coupled with the identification of accused as the driver of the aforesaid truck as made by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 in their testimonies, the fact that the truck no. DL-1GB-2319 was being driven by accused on the given date, time and place stands duly proved by the prosecution.
18. Now what remains to be seen is that whether the accused failed to stop the vehicle when he was signaled by the team of traffic officials comprising PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 or that he rather started driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner and also jumped over the red light so as to flee away from the spot. The careful perusal of testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 would reflect that the testimonies of all the above-named wit- nesses are completely silent about the manner in which the ac- cused was driving the vehicle at the time of incident so as to constitute rash or negligent act of driving of the vehicle. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have simply stated that the offending vehicle was driven at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner. It State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 12 is a settled position in law that mere high speed driving of vehi- cle is not sufficient to attract provisions of section 279 IPC as the said offence pre-supposes the requirement of establishing the fact that the offender was driving the vehicle in an over hasty way either by taking due precautions to avert the incident or with in difference towards the consequences of his such hasty act. However, in the present case no such facts have been established by the prosecution and merely on the basis of bald statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that the vehicle was allegedly driven by accused at a high speed and in careless manner without the detailed description of the same, the exis- tence of any rash or negligent act on the part of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle cannot be presumed.
19. Pertinently, there is nothing in the testimony of PW-1, PW- 2 and PW-3 suggesting that the accused has violated the pre- scribed speed limit norms by driving the vehicle at an excessive speed. The prosecution has not led any evidences to show as to what was the prescribed speed limit fixed for the vehicles to be plied on the road where the incident took place and without proof of such primary facts by the prosecution and merely on the basis of the bald statements made by the prosecution wit- nesses that the vehicle was being driven by accused at an ex- cessive speed, it cannot be presumed that the so called act of accused in driving the vehicle at an excessive speed constitute a rash or negligent act on his part. Further, all the above- named witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 as well as IO (PW-4) had conceded the fact that the time when incident took place, several public persons were present at the spot. PW-4 was even informed by some public persons about the fact that the accused was taken to police station by one of the traffic po-
State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 13 lice officials but still no efforts seem to be made by him to asso- ciate any such public person during the course of investigation of the case.
20. In view of the fact that accused has raised the specific de- fense that he has been falsely implicated by the traffic police of- ficials i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 without any fault on his part, there arises a requirement of seeking the corroboration of the version so narrated by all the above-named witnesses with some independent evidences in the present case but as stated earlier no such independent evidences for giving corroboration to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were led in the present case. The prosecuting agency could not explain the reasons due to which IO has not proceeded to record state- ments of any public persons who were present at the spot or even not make attempts to join them in investigation by serving upon them with any notices, due to which reasonable doubts have arisen on the prosecution story and thus the benefit of same has to be given to the accused.
21. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the evidences which have come on record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to es- tablish beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place, accused was driving vehicle no. DL-1GB-2319 in rash or negligent manner or that when he was signaled by the traffic officials to stop the vehicle, he not only disobeyed such directions but rather tried to flee away from the spot by jumping the red light, thus the accused deserves to be ac- quitted for the offences u/s 279 IPC and Section 119/177 and Section 132/179 MV Act. The accused is accordingly acquitted for the said offences.
State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 14
22. In so far as the question of liability of accused for offence u/s 174A IPC is concerned, it is a matter of record that during the course of proceedings of present case, the accused was declared as absconder vide order dated 17.09.2011. Further, during the course of proceedings u/s 294 Cr. PC dated 28.10.2025, the accused has not raised any dispute regarding the fact that he was declared as an absconder on 17.09.2011. The accused has also not explained during his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC. about the reasons or the circumstances due to which he failed to appear before the Court despite proclamation proceedings u/s 82 Cr. PC.
23. Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence of 174A IPC against accused. Whereas, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the accused did not deliberately avoid the processes of this Court and he was not duly served with the notices of the Court and therefore, allegations qua offence u/s 174A are not made out against the accused.
24. In my considered opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove the offence u/s 174A against the accused. As far as the argument of Ld. Counsel is concerned, the same is not sustainable as the section 82 (3) Cr.PC. declares the order of proclamation as a conclusive piece of evidence and therefore, once an accused is declared proclaimed offender, the process issued against him is presumed to have been duly executed.
State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 15
25. Thus, in view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to prove its case u/s 174A IPC and therefore, accused is hereby convicted of offence u/s 174A IPC.
26. Let the convict be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on 28.01.2026.
(Rishabh Kapoor) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 (South-West)/Dwarka/28.01.2026 State Vs.: Ram Narayan FIR No : 428/2007 U/s : 279 & 174A IPC and Section 119/177 & 132/179 MV Act. P.S. : Vikas Puri 16