Delhi District Court
State vs . Rakesh Kumar Singh on 21 December, 2013
Page 1 of 9
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI BAGHA: MM, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh
FIR No. : 326/2008
P.S. : Tilak Marg
U/Sec. : 279/338 IPC
JUDGMENT :
a) Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution : 138A/2 & 03.08.2009
b) Date of commission of offence : 10.10.2008
c) Name of the complainant : State through Mahendra Singh
d) Name of the accused : Rakesh Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Suraj Bax Singh R/o 803, Tower8, NRI City near Pari Chowk, Greater Noida, U.P.
e) Nature of offence complained of : U/Sec.279/338 IPC
f) Plea of the accused person : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquitted
h) Date of order : 21.12.2013 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. In brief the accused Rakesh Kumar Singh is facing trial for offences punishable U/Sec.279/338 IPC on the allegations that on 10.10.2008 at about 4.20 p.m. near Red Light, Bhagwan Dass Road Tilak Marg crossing, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Tilak Marg, he was driving a Fiat Palio car bearing no.UP32 AM8486 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so, he had hit against a motorcycle bearing no.DL1SN2265 from right side due to which the right leg of motorcyclist State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh FIR No. 326/08 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 2 of 9 Mahendra Singh got fractured and thus he caused grievous injuries on the person of motorcyclist/complainant Mahendra Singh.
2. After completion of investigation, Chargesheet was filed. After supplying the copies to the accused U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., notice U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused on 21.12.2010 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279/338 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution had cited 12 witnesses, out of which only 5 witnesses were examined.
4. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 16.05.2012 wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. He said that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further said that he was standing on the red light and when it turned to green signal, he moved his car to the right towards India Gate and suddenly his car was hit by motorcycle from the left. He said that he was not at fault, rather he had picked up the bike as the injured was lying under the motorcycle. However, he opted for not leading any evidence in his defence.
5. I have heard the final arguments from Ld. APP Sh. Honey Goel and Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Praveen Kumar and perused the record.
6. Let us first examine the evidence led by the prosecution. The first witness of the prosecution i.e. PW1 is H.Ct. Pramod Singh who deposed that on 10.10.2008 he was posted as Constable at P.S. Tilak Marg and on receipt of DD No.9A, he State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh FIR No. 326/08 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 3 of 9 alongwith ASI Karan Singh reached at the spot i.e. Bhagwan Dass Tilak Marg Crossing where one Fiat Car bearing registration no.UP32AM8486 and one motorcycle bearing no.DL1SN2265 were lying in accidental condition. He further deposed that they came to know that the driver of the motorcycle was got injured and was taken to RML Hospital by the PCR Van whereas the driver of the car i.e. the accused was present on the spot. He further deposed that after leaving him on the spot, ASI Karan Singh went to RML Hospital and obtained the MLC of the injured and after recording statement of the injured, he came back to the spot and got the case registered through him. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, the Fiat car and the motorcycle were seized by ASI Karan Singh vide seizure memos Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that the RC of the vehicle of accused, Insurance documents and his Driving Licence were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/E. During his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 deposed that he had got the call at about 4.30 p.m. for DD No.9A and he had reached at the spot within 5 minutes and the I.O. had sent him to the Police Station for registration of FIR at about 6.15 p.m. and he had returned to the spot at about 7.00 p.m.
7. PW2 is Deen Dayal, Record Clerk from RML Hospital, who deposed that MLC Ex.PW2/A was prepared and signed by Dr. Aakanksha and opinion at point A regarding nature of injury being grievous was given by Dr. Deepak and that both the doctors had left the services of the hospital and their whereabouts were not known to the hospital. However, he deposed that he had seen both the doctors State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh FIR No. 326/08 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 4 of 9 writing and signing during official course of his duties.
8. PW3 is H.Ct. Hashim Baig who deposed that on 10.10.2008 he was posted as Head Constable at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day he was on duty at Bhagwan Dass Tilak Marg Crossing and at about 4.20 p.m. he had witnessed that one car bearing No.UP32AM8486, being driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner at a very high speed and one motorcycle bearing No.DL1SN2265 and due to the impact, the motorcyclist fell down and got injured who was shifted to RML Hospital by the PCR Van. He further deposed that he had joined the investigation with the I.O. who had arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/E. During his crossexamination by the accused, the PW3 denied the suggestion that the accused was driving his car properly or that the motorcyclist was at fault who had hit his car from left side when he was taking right turn. He deposed that he was at a distance of about 10 meters from the site and that he could not tell about the speed of the offending vehicle. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was taking turn from Bhagwan Dass Road towards Tilak Marg (India Gate).
9. PW4 is H.Ct. Laxmi Narain who deposed that on 10.10.2008 he was posted as Duty Officer at P.S. Tilak Marg from 5.00 p.m. onwards and on that day he had registered FIR No.326/2008 i.e. Ex.PW4/A on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Pramod and made his endorsement Ex.PW4/B on the rukka.
10. PW5 is S. Mehto, Medical Record Officer from RML Hospital, who deposed that the XRay report Ex.PW5/A was prepared and signed by Dr. Deepak Kumar Bora State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh FIR No. 326/08 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 5 of 9 who had left the services of the hospital and his whereabouts were not known. However, he deposed that he could identify the signatures of Dr. Deepak Kumar Bora at point B on Ex.PW5/A as he had seen him writing and signing during his official course of duties.
11. The counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution has remained unsuccessful to prove its case against the accused as neither the injured/complainant nor the I.O. has been examined. He has submitted that the accused had not caused any accident rather the same was caused by the complainant himself who had hit the car of the accused from left side while negligently taking turn towards his right for going to Tilak Marg.
12. The accused has been booked in this case U/Sec.279/338 IPC. In order to prove offences U/Sec.279/338 IPC, there must be rash or negligent driving by the accused and the grievous hurt must have been caused by the rash or negligent act of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused was driving his vehicle i.e. the Fiat Palio Car bearing no.UP32 AM8486 in rash or negligent manner and while driving so, he had hit against one motorcycle bearing no. DL1SN2265 and caused grievous injury on the person of the motorcyclist Mahendra Singh. But the prosecution has failed to examine the material witness i.e. the injured/complainant Mahendra Singh. The prosecution has examined only one eyewitness i.e. PW3 H.Ct. Hashim Baig. All other witnesses are either formal witnesses or witnesses of investigation. The PW3 has deposed that on 10.10.2008 he was on duty at Bhagwan Dass Road Tilak Marg crossing and at about 4.20 p.m. he had seen accused driving one car State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh FIR No. 326/08 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 6 of 9 bearing no.UP32AM8486 in a rash and negligent manner at very high speed and due to the impact the motorcyclist of motorcycle bearing no.DL1SN2265 fell down and received injuries. The PW3 has neither categorically stated that the accused had caused accident nor he has explained the manner in which the accident took place nor he has specified the speed of the vehicle of the accused. It is well settled law that the rashness or negligence cannot be presumed against the driver. The prosecution must prove the rash or negligent driving of the accused as well as the direct nexus between the injuries caused and rash or negligent driving of the accused for holding him guilty U/Sec.279/338 IPC. The PW3 has deposed that the accused was driving at a very high speed. But it is settled law that mere high/fast speed in itself is not the conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused. It has been held in Tukaram Sitaram Gore Vs. State, 1971 Cri.L.J. 767 that the high speed of the motor vehicle does not by itself prove rashness or negligence of the driver. It has been further held that there can be no presumption of negligence from the mere fact that a man is knocked down by the motorist. There must be evidence of rashness or negligence. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is the prosecution which has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the accused. There can be no burden on an accused to prove that he was not driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. It is for the prosecution to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt and the ingredients necessary to show that a particular offence was committed must be made out by the evidence adduced in prosecution. There is no initial burden on the accused to prove his innocence. Certainly there is no State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh FIR No. 326/08 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 7 of 9 presumption that a man drove a lorry in a rash or negligent manner, merely because there was an accident. The only eyewitness examined in the present case i.e. PW3 could not tell about the exact speed of the car of the accused. During his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he said that he could not tell the speed at which the offending vehicle was running. He has simply stated that it was at a very high speed. But it is difficult to presume a very high speed while looking into the set of circumstances of the case. As per the site plan the accident had occurred in the middle of the crossing of the red light of Bhagwan Dass Road Tilak Marg. The vehicles had just started moving after the traffic signal turned green from red which means that the vehicles were in stationary condition before they started moving and thus it is difficult to accept that the vehicle of the accused caught a very high speed within a few seconds only. In the present case the manner of driving of the accused has also not been explained by the PW3 as to how he was rash or negligent in his driving. The mere use of words like 'high/fast speed' or 'rash or negligent driving' does not fulfill the requirements of proving the case. The rash or negligent driving must be proved by leading cogent evidence. General evidence is not sufficient to hold accused guilty. Since there is no cogent evidence about the rash or negligent driving of the accused, so he could not be held guilty for the accident or the injury. Hence it is clear from the material on record that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accident was caused due to the rash or negligent driving of the accused. Therefore he could also not be held liable for the injuries caused to the injured Mahendra Singh. Hence he is acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec.279/338 IPC. His Bail Bond is cancelled. His surety is State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh FIR No. 326/08 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 8 of 9 discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the surety, if any, be cancelled.
13. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in open
Court on 21.12.2013) (Navita Kumari)
MM, New Delhi
State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh
FIR No. 326/08
P.S. Tilak Marg
Page 9 of 9
State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh
FIR No. 326/08
U/Sec. 279/338 IPC
P.S. Tilak Marg
21.12.2013
Present : Substitute APP for state.
Accused with counsel Sh. Parveen Kumar.
Vide separate judgment the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec.279/338 IPC. His bail bond is cancelled. His surety is discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the surety, if any, be cancelled. Fresh Bail Bond is furnished by accused U/Sec.437A Cr.P.C. which shall be valid for six months from today.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Navita Kumari) MM/ND/21.12.13 State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh FIR No. 326/08 P.S. Tilak Marg