Delhi District Court
That The Accident Actually Took Place vs State on 18 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Anil Kumar @ Vikas
FIR No. 1144/06
PS Paschim Vihar
U/s 279/337 IPC & 181 MV Act
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 2408/2/08
Date of Institution : 26.03.2008
Date of Commission of Offence : 24.10.2006
Name of the complainant : Smt. Asha
W/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o Juggi No.123, Watertank no.2
Udyog Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi
Name & address of the accused : Anil Kumar @ VIkas
S/o Badri Parshad
R/o G-120, Ganga Vihar,
Gokal puri,
Delhi
Offence complained of : 279/337 IPC & 181 MV Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquittal
Date of reserve for judgment : 02.06.2015
Date of announcing of judgment : 18.06.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case u/s 279/337 IPC & 181 MV Act.
State v. Anil @ VIkas U/s 279/337 IPC & 181 MV Act 1/9 FIR No. 1144/06 PS Paschim Vihar
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 24.10.2006 at about 8.15 pm at Rohtak Road near Petrol Pump, Peera Garhi, Delhi, the accused Anil Kumar @ Vikas was found driving a TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RJ-0869 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. While driving the said TSR in the said manner he struck against the complainant Smt. Asha and her companion Smt. Gauri Bai when they were crossing the road and caused simple injuries to them. Also, the accused was found to be driving the said TSR without a valid driving license.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C for offence under Section 279/337 IPC & 181 MV Act was framed against him by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 21.11.2011 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has cited seven witnesses but examined only two witnesses i.e (1) Smt. Gauri Bai, and (2) Smt. Asha.
5. PW-1 Smt. Gauri Bail has deposed that on 24.10.2006 she and her neighbour Smt. Asha were returning to their house from their job. When they reached near the Petrol Pump, Rohtak Road and were crossing the road, one TSR came in a very high speed and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit them. Due to this, she and Asha fell on the road and sustained injuries. The State v. Anil @ VIkas U/s 279/337 IPC & 181 MV Act 2/9 FIR No. 1144/06 PS Paschim Vihar witness deposed that they were taken to the SGM hospital by the PCR van. She identified the accused as the person who was driving the said TSR. The accused had not disputed the identity of the TSR. Photographs of the TSR are Ex.P1 and P2.
6. In the cross examination, the witness denied that the accused was driving the said TSR at normal speed. She denied the suggestion that the accused was not responsible for the accident in question and that they themselves were responsible for the injuries sustained by them. However, she admitted that the accused had taken them to the hospital for treatment.
7. PW-2 Smt. Asha deposed that she was working in Chappal Factory at Peera Garhi Village. She has corroborated the testimony of PW-1. She identified her complaint lodged at PS Paschim Vihar as Ex.PW2/A bearing her left thumb impression at point A. She deposed that the site plan was prepared at her instance and the TSR driver was arrested on her identification. She identified the accused as the driver of the said TSR.
8. In the cross examination, the witness denied the suggestion that the accused was driving the said TSR at normal speed. She denied the suggestion that the accused was not responsible for the accident in question and that they themselves were responsible for the injuries sustained by them. However, she admitted that the accused had taken them to the hospital for treatment.
9. Vide his separate statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, as made on 19.09.2014, the State v. Anil @ VIkas U/s 279/337 IPC & 181 MV Act 3/9 FIR No. 1144/06 PS Paschim Vihar accused had admitted the genuineness of MLC bearing no.16418/06 and 16452/06, the present FIR, the seizure memo, his arrest memo, his personal search memo and the Mechanical inspection report of the TSR. However, he denied the contents of the same. In view of the said statement, the names of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 was dropped from the list of witnesses.
10. Thereafter, the PE was closed by the order of the court on 10.07.2014. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. He admitted that the accident in question had taken place by his TSR but he has been falsely implicated. He stated that the truth is that the said two ladies were talking to each other. Metro construction was going on and metal sheets were affixed on the road. Footpath was very high and the ladies stepped on the road without looking. He stated that he himself had taken them to the hospital for first aid.
11. I have heard the brief submissions made by the accused himself and the submissions made by Ld APP for state and carefully perused the documents on record.
12. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:-
1. That the accident actually took place.
2. That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
3. That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
State v. Anil @ VIkas U/s 279/337 IPC & 181 MV Act 4/9 FIR No. 1144/06 PS Paschim Vihar
13. Before proceeding further, let us discuss the meaning of the expressions "rash" and "negligent". The words "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
14. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1972 SC 685 as under :
"Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and 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 circumstance out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted............Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case."
State v. Anil @ VIkas U/s 279/337 IPC & 181 MV Act 5/9 FIR No. 1144/06 PS Paschim Vihar
15. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefits of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reason doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
16. In the case at hand, the factum of accident and the fact that the accused was driving the TSR in question on the alleged date, time and place has not been disputed by the accused. His only defence is that he was not driving in a rash and negligent manner and that the ladies had crossed the road without even looking right and left. Hence the only question to be decided by the court is whether the accused was driving the said TSR in a rash and negligent manner and the injuries to PW-1 and PW-2 were a result of his rash and negligent driving.
17. The star witnesses of the prosecution are PW-1 and PW-2. Both of them have testified that the accused was driving in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and struck them due to which they sustained injuries.
18. It was observed by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in the case titled as "Vinod Kumar v. State" 2012(1) RCR (criminal) 567 as follows, State v. Anil @ VIkas U/s 279/337 IPC & 181 MV Act 6/9 FIR No. 1144/06 PS Paschim Vihar "No evidence or any other material was placed on record by the prosecution to show the manner in which the Petitioner was driving the said vehicle to prove the rashness and negligence of the Petitioner. No photographs of the spot or the bus have been taken. PW-10, the alleged eye witness to the incident has also not deposed anything in regard to the accident or manner in which the vehicle was being driven by the Petitioner, except making a bald statement that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner which does not prove the guilt of the Petitioner. There is no evidence placed on record to show the speed of the vehicle or the manner in which it was being driven to show rashness and negligence on the part of the Petitioner, especially when the area was a crowded one."
19. In case titled as "Abdul Subhan vs State, NCT of Delhi" 2007 Cr.L.J1089, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that, "In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused 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".
20. In the case at hand, there are no photographs of the spot where the accident State v. Anil @ VIkas U/s 279/337 IPC & 181 MV Act 7/9 FIR No. 1144/06 PS Paschim Vihar had taken place. The site plan prepared by the IO is merely a perfunctory one. It has not been shown in the site plan that whether PW-1 and PW-2 were crossing the road at the Zebra Crossing or not. Both PW-1 and PW-2 have only made bald statement that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner. This is itself is not sufficient to prove the rashness and negligence on part of the accused. The mechanical inspection report of the TSR which has been admitted by the accused is also silent about the speed of the TSR. There is no evidence to prove that the accused was driving the TSR in a rash and negligent manner.
21. Also, the defence of the accused appears to be probable that the complainant themselves were at fault as they were not crossing the road from the Zebra crossing.
22. Neither the IO nor any other police officer was produced for examination by the prosecution. There is no report from the concerned authority to verify that the accused did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident.
23. In view of the above discussion, court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused was driving the TSR in a rash and negligent manner and that the injuries was caused to the complainant and her companion due to the rashness and negligence on part of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was not having a valid driving license on the date of accident. Hence, accused Anil @ State v. Anil @ VIkas U/s 279/337 IPC & 181 MV Act 8/9 FIR No. 1144/06 PS Paschim Vihar Vikas is entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Anil @ Vikas stands acquitted.
24. Accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-
with one surety of like amount.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.06.2015.
(SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/THC/18.06.2015 State v. Anil @ VIkas U/s 279/337 IPC & 181 MV Act 9/9 FIR No. 1144/06 PS Paschim Vihar