Delhi District Court
State vs Suraj on 4 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS COURT, NEW DELHI STATE VS. SURAJ FIR NO: 125/2009 P. S VASANT KUNJ NORTH U/s 279, 338 & 304-A IPC Crc No./47251/2016 JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 04.02.2010
Name of the complainant : Constable Satpal
Date of Commission of offence : 30.04.2009
Name of the accused : Suraj S/o. Sh. Surender, R/o. Rafiya
Bad Kalan, District Shahjahan Pur
Uttar Pradesh
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 18.08.2025
Final Order : Acquittal
Date of orders : 04.02.2026
Name of APP : Sh. Praveen
0
Digitally signed
by ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04
17:00:33 +0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1.Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused Suraj S/o Sh. Surender for having committed the offence punishable u/s 279, 338 & 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1861 (hereinafter referred as "IPC").
2.Briefly stated, as per the case of the prosecution, on 03.04.2009 at about 11:45 AM in front of Green gate, situated on the road going towards Rajokari village, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, the accused Suraj was driving one dumper bearing no. HR 38N 4563 in a rash and negligent manner. While driving the offending vehicle in such a manner, the accused hit against one motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 9SW 0870 being driven by one person namely Manoj Kumar. Due to the accident, the driver of the motorcycle Manoj Kumar and pillion rider Ms. Jaya fell down on the road. The offending vehicle crushed the pillion rider from the rear tyre. The driver of the motorcycle had sustained injuries while the pillion rider Jaya succumbed to her injuries.
3.After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out by PS Vasant Kunj North and a charge sheet was filed against the accused Suraj for the offence punishable u/s 279, 338 & 304-A IPC. Thereafter, cognisance was taken and notice was framed against the accused vide 1 order dated 22.11.2012 for the offence punishable u/s 279, 338 & 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4.In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined the following ten witnesses:
• Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop, the uncle of the deceased, deposed as PW-1;
• HC Harish Kumar, deposed as PW-2;
• Sh. T.U Siddiqui, the mechanical inspector, deposed as PW-3; • Sh. Lal Chand, superdar and registered owner of the motorcycle, deposed as PW-4;
• Retd. SI Hawa Singh, the investigating officer, deposed as PW-5; • ASI Satpal, the eye witness and complainant deposed as PW-6; • Sh. Manoj, the eye witness and victim, deposed as PW-7; • Dr. Keerthana KM, deposed as PW-8;
• Dr. Manish Kumath, deposed as PW-9; and • Sh. Virender Singh Yadav, deposed as PW-10.
5.PW-1 is the formal witness of the present case. He is the uncle of the deceased Jaya who identified her dead body in the hospital after the accident. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite the fact that opportunity was granted to him.
2
6.PW2 HC Harish Kumar is one of the police officials who reached at the spot after receiving the information about the accident. He was also involved in the investigation along with the investigating officer. In the examination in chief, he deposed that on 03.04.2009, ASI Hawa Singh had received a DD entry regarding an accident on road going towards Rajokari Village in front of the Green Farm House. Thereafter, he along with ASI Hawa Singh reached at the spot and found the offending vehicle bearing No. HR 38N 4563 parked at the spot and one girl was also found in an injured condition lying under the rear wheel of the said truck from conductor's side. He also found one motorcycle bearing no. DL 9SW 0870 lying on the road in an accidental condition.
7.He further stated that the girl had already expired. He also stated that he met Ct. Satpal at the spot who claimed himself to be eye-witness of the incident. He removed the dead body of the girl from the rear wheel of the offending vehicle and took the same to mortuary Safdarjung Hospital. He witnessed the seizure of the offending vehicle and motorcycle by the IO by seizure memo Ex.PW2/A and PW 2/B. He also witnessed seizure memo of RC of the offending vehicle and the driving licence of the accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D. He correctly identified the offending vehicle from the photographs Ex.P1 (colly). He was not cross- 3 examined by the accused despite the fact that opportunity was granted to him.
8.PW-3 T. U. Siddiqui is the mechanical inspector who conducted the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles involved in the accident. He deposed that on 04.04.2009, at the request of ASI Hawa Singh, he conducted the mechanical inspection of motorcycle bearing No. DL 7SW 0870 and TATA Dumper bearing No. HR 38N 4563. The mechanical inspection reports are Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel during which he stated that the damages occurred in the vehicles were due to the collision and not due to the falling of the vehicles.
9.PW-4 is the registered owner of the motorcycle involved in the accident. He is only a formal witness who got released the said motorcycle on superdari during the course of the investigation. He was not cross- examined by the accused despite the fact that opportunity was granted to him.
10.PW-5 SI Hawa Singh is the investigating officer of the present case. In the examination in chief, he deposed that on 03.04.2009, he alongwith Ct. Harish reached at the spot i.e. Rajokari Vilalge, side road in front of Green 4 Gate after receiving an information regarding an accident vide DD No. 17A Ex.PW5/A. He found one dumper bearing No. HR 38N 4563 and a motorcycle bearing No. DL 9SW 0870 in an accidental condition at the spot. He also found one girl at the spot. He also met Ct. Satpal at the spot. He also met the accused at the spot as he was the driver of the said dumper. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
11.He further stated that the dead body of the deceased was shifted to mortuary, Safdarjung Hospital. Another injured namely Manoj Kumar was shifted to hospital by PCR. He collected the MLC of injured Manoj Kumar. He recorded the statement of Ct. Satpal Ex.PW5/B on the basis of which he prepared tehrir Ex.PW5/C and got the present FIR registered. He prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Harish Ex.PW5/D. He seized both the vehicles involved in the accident. He also arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/E and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW5/F. He also seized your driving licence. He also got conducted mechanical inspection of both the vehicles on 04.04.2009. He also got conducted post mortem of deceased Jaya and her dead body was handed over to her relative after identification, vide memo Ex.PW1/A. The handing over memo is Ex.PW5/I. He correctly identified the offending vehicle through photographs.
5
12.PW-5 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the gate of Rajokari Airforce Station is situated in the opposite side of the place of incident. He further stated that he did not verify from the Constable or the person who was on duty at the time of the alleged incident. He also stated that he had not given notice to the public persons to give their statement. He also stated that he could not say as to whether CCTV camera was installed at the gate of Rajokari Airforce station or not. He admitted that the site plan Ex. PW-1/D did not contain the width of the green gate road. He further stated that he did not send any notice to the Incharge of Rajokari Airforce Station to allow the Constable or the responsible person to give their statements. He further stated that he did not obtain the copy of duty register of PS Vasant Kunj to verify the presence of Ct. Satpal.
13.PW-5 was re-examined by the Ld. APP for the State with the permission of the Court. He admitted that he had placed on record the departure entry Ex. PW-6/D1 of Ct. Satpal which duly verified the presence of Ct. Satpal at the spot. He admitted that there was no movement register prepared by the duty officer for the officials who used to be on beat patrolling duty.
14.PW-6 ASI Satpal is the complainant and eye witness of the preens case. In the examination in chief, he deposed that on 03.04.2009 at around 6 11:45 am, he was on patrolling duty at Rajokari Village area. At around 4:45 am, he was standing at the gate of Green Farm House which was opposite Airforce Station, Rajokari. He saw one truck/dumper bearing No. HR 38N 4563 which was coming from the side of NH 8 towards link road Rajokari Village and one bike bearing No. DL 9SW 0870 which was coming from the same side on its left. Two persons were riding on the bike. The rider was a boy and a girl was sitting behind him. Suddenly, the accused being the driver of the truck drove towards the left side and hit the said bike due to which the girl who was pillion rider came under the rear left tyre of the offending truck. The rider also fell down on the road and he was also dragged for some distance. He sustained injuries.
15. He further stated that the accused was driving the truck in a dangerous manner considering width of the road, traffic on the road and single road without a divider. He also stated that the speed of the truck was bit fast considering the width of the road. The girl passed away at the spot. Some person called at 100 number and after which PCR reached at the spot. He caught the accused as he had stopped his truck at some distance. The accused disclosed his name as Suraj. After some time, IO ASI Hawa Singh reached at the spot and after enquiry, he recorded his statement Ex.PW5/B. PW 6 witnessed the seizure of the offending vehicle and the 7 arrest of the accused. He correctly identified the accused in the court and the offending vehicle from the photographs.
16.PW-6 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he as on patrolling duty in Rajokari village. He also stated that he had made departure entry while leaving the police station. He further stated that he saw the entire accident with his own eyes as he was present at the spot. He also stated that position of vehicles involved in the accident was absit 10-15 feet away. He also stated that normal traffic was running on the said road.
17.He further stated in his cross-examination that the speed of the offending vehicle was around 50 km per hour. He also stated that he was alone on patrolling duty. He further stated that the width of the green gate was about 25-30 feet. He denied the suggestion that while taking turn or entering in the green gate, there was no need to slow down the speed of the vehicle. He voluntarily stated that there was enough space to take the turn. He further stated that he was present at the police booth which was situated at the entrance of the green gate. He was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C wherein this fact was not recorded. 8
18.PW-7 Manoj that on 03.04.2009 is the eye witness and victim of the present case. In the examination in chief, he deposed that he was going to Rajokari Village at the house of his sister from Balur and he was driving a motorcycle bearing No. DL 9SW 0870. His niece Jaya was the pillion rider. When they reached at Green Gate near Rajokari at 11:45 am, one truck / dumper bearing No. HR 38N 4563 came from behind (which was being driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner). He further stated that the accused hit the motorcycle from the right side and ran over the face of his niece. He also sustained injuries on his left leg, left hand and other parts of the body. The accused was apprehended by the public at the spot. He further stated that the accident happened due to the negligent driving of the accused.
19.PW-7 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember the width of the green gate. He admitted that at the site of green gate, there was a sharp curve and the vehicles generally used to keep slow at the time of the entry. He also admitted that the vehicle cannot enter in main gate at high speed. He denied the suggestion that his accident had happened at 11:30 in the night and he could not see the number plate due to the night. He did not remember whether statement of any other person was recorded by the 9 IO at the spot. He admitted that the passerby assembled due to the accused near the spot. He did not remember whether Airforce Station was in front of the accident site. He denied the suggestion that no such accident was caused by the truck bearing no. HR 38N 4563. He also stated that he did not see the driver. He could not confirm or deny whether Suraj was the driver of the said vehicle.
20.PW-8 Dr Keerthana K. M. produced on record photocopy of x-ray of injured Manoj Kumar dated 03.04.2009. Photocopy of X-ray report is Ex.PW8/A. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel. PW-9 Dr Manish Kumath proved on record the PM report 576/2009 of the deceased. The said PM report is Ex.PW9/A. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite the fact that opportunity was granted to him.
21.PW-10 is the paternal uncle of the deceased. He is also formal witness who identified the dead body of the deceased. He was not cross- examined by the accused despite the fact that opportunity was granted to him.
22.The accused had admitted the genuineness of the FIR, DD No. 17A dated 03.04.2009 and MLC No. 159087/2009, Ex. A-1 to A-3 u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Hence, formal proof of these documents was dispensed with. 10
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
23.After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, the prosecution evidence was closed on 05.03.2025. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") on 23.04.2025 wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to him which he denied and took a defence that he was falsely implicated in the present case.
24.The accused further stated that at the time of the accident, he was driving the offending vehicle at a slow speed and was not negligent at my driving. He further stated that he had to turn the vehicle inside green gate. He also gave horn and indicator to the motorcycle to stop. When the motorcyclist tried to stop his bike, the bike got slipped. Both the driver and pillion rider fell on the road. The pillion rider came under the rear wheel of his truck after falling down on the road. The accident did not happen due to his mistake. He also stated that he immediately stopped the vehicle when he realized the accident and he did not drag the motorcycle or the driver at any distance.
25.The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and final arguments were heard. 11
FINAL ARGUMENTS
26.During the final arguments, the Ld. APP submitted that the accident was caused by the accused himself. The eye witness of the incident i.e. PW-6 had completely supported the case of the prosecution. The accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident at a very fast speed i.e. in a rash and negligent manner and took a sharp turn. Thus, the accused was rash and negligent in his driving due to which one precious life was lost. Hence, the accused should be convicted in the present case.
27.Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts in the present case. It was argued that the complainant PW-6 himself was not present at the spot at the time of the accident. There are many contradictions between the testimonies of PW-6 and another eye witness PW-7. Even otherwise, the prosecution also failed to prove the fact that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident. Thus, benefit of doubt needs to be extended to the accused.
12
28.I have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. defence counsel and have perused the case file. Before, discussing the testimonies of PWs, it would be prudent to discuss the legal position involved in the present case.
LAW INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE
29.Section 279 of the IPC provides for the offence of rash driving or riding on a public way. It reads as under:
"Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any 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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
30.On bare reading of the above provision, it becomes clear that there are primarily three essential ingredients which constitute offence of rash driving on a public way.
a. Person must be driving or riding on a public way;
b. He must be driving in a rash or negligent manner;
c. Likely to endanger human life or cause hurt or injury to any person
31.Section 338 IPC provide for the offences of causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety of others. This provision is the 13 consequence of a rash or negligent act of driving on a public way punishable u/s 279 IPC.
338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others- Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
32.Section 304A IPC provides for the offence of causing death by negligence. Death must have been caused by rash or negligent act which must not amount to culpable homicide. It reads as under:
"Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with dine, or with both."
33.The doing of a rash or negligent act, which causes, grievous injury / death is the essence of section 338 / 304A IPC. There is a slight distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. 'Rashness' conveys the idea of recklessness or doing an act without due consideration and 'negligence' connotes want of proper care. A rash act, therefore, implies an act done by a person with recklessness or indifference to its consequences. The doer, being conscious of the mischievous or illegal consequences, does the act knowing that his act may bring some 14 undesirable or illegal results but without hoping or intending them to occur. A negligent act, on the other hand, refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient precautions or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or illegal consequences.
34.A perusal of the above discussed provisions makes it very clear that an act of rashness or negligence endangering the human life or personal safety is a common ingredient in all these offences. Now a question arises as to what would constitute a rash or negligent act. At this stage, reference may be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed in detail as to what constitute a rash or negligent act. It interalia held the following:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sens that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness 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."
35.Further, in the case of Braham Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 406, while discussing the legal position with respect to 15 an offence u/s 279/304A IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interalia held the following:
"Obviously the foundation in accusations under Section 279 IPC is not negligence. Similarly in Section 304 A the stress is on causing death by negligence or rashness. Therefore, for bringing in application of either Section 279 or 304 A it must be established that there was an element of rashness or negligence. Even if the prosecution version is accepted in toto, there was no evidence led to show that any negligence was involved."
36.Therefore, indifference to the consequences of one's act or absence of reasonable care and precaution is the most important ingredient constituting rashness or negligence. It should be noted that intention of the person acting rash or negligent act is immaterial. What is important is that he has not taken due care or has done the said act with indifference to the consequences.
37.Further, it should be noted that there should be direct link between the act or rashness or negligence and hurt/grievous hurt/death, as the case may be, suffered by the victim. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abdul Subhan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562 has discussed the ingredients which need to be established by the prosecution for convicting an accused u/s 279/304 A IPC. The Hon'ble Court has interalia held the following:
16
"As 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 regards the offence punishable under section 304A IPC, it was observed that the point to be established is that the act of the accused was responsible for the death and that such act of the accused must have been rash and negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under section 279 or section 304A, the commission of a rash or negligent act has to be proved."
38.The above-mentioned judgment sufficiently enlightens us that for establishing accusations u/s 304A IPC, prosecution is not only required to establish that the accused was rash or negligent while doing the said act or omitting to do any act, but it is additionally incumbent on prosecution to establish that the causa causans of death of deceased / or the proximate cause of death of deceased was the act of accused.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
39.The accused Suraj has been charged for the offence punishable u/s 279, 338 & 304-A IPC. After perusing the materials available on record, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Suraj in the present case beyond reasonable doubts for the reasons discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.
17
40.From the perusal of the record, it clearly appears that the prosecution has duly proved that the accident in the present case was caused by one dumper bearing no. HR 38N 4563 which was being driven by the accused at that time. In order to prove the fact that the accident happened by the said dumper, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of the eye witness/injured PW-1 and other police official witnesses. The factum of accident and the fact that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident was also not specifically disputed by the accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
41.However, in order to prove the culpability of the accused in the present case, the prosecution is also required to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accident was caused by the accused while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. After perusing the materials available on record, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused beyond reasonable doubts, for the reasons discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.
42.The term "rash and/or negligent driving" has already been discussed at length in the preceding part of this judgment. Indifference to the consequences of one's act or absence of reasonable care and precaution 18 is the most important ingredient constituting rashness or negligence. It should be noted that intention of the person acting rash or negligent act is immaterial. What is important is that he has not taken due care or has done the said act with indifference to the consequences.
43.A rash act is primarily an overhasty 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 recklessness 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.
44.In the case of Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the meaning of rash and negligent driving has interalia observed the following:
10. In order to examine the merit or otherwise of contentions (b) and (c) raised on behalf of the appellant, it is necessary for the Court to first and foremost examine (a) what is rash and negligent driving; and (b) whether it can be gathered from the attendant circumstances. Rash and negligent driving 19 has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to 'rash and negligent driving' within the meaning of the language of Section 279 IPC.XXXXX "12. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to "rash and negligent driving" within the meaning of the language of Section 279 IPC. That is why the legislature in its wisdom has used the words "manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life". The preliminary conditions, thus, are that (a) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven; (b) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and (c) such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated under Section 279 IPC is attracted."20
45.The aforesaid judgment enlightens that it may not be possible to prove the factum of rash and negligent act may not be construed in isolation. It may not be possible to prove the same through direct evidence. It has to be seen or examined in light of the attendant circumstances.
46.In order to establish the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of the complainant / eye witness PW-6. While the complainant PW-6 Ct. Satpal claimed that he was present at the spot at the time of the accident and he had seen the accident, however, there are doubts on his claim. Perusal of the testimony of another eye witness / injured PW-7 would show that he did not mention about the presence of any police official at the time of the accident.
47.Also, if PW-6 being a beat officer had seen the accident, he should have been the informant of the present case. However, as per the record, the information regarding the accident was given to Duty Officer, PS Vasant Kunj North by the PCR officials. It remained a mystery as to who informed the PCR about the incident. It was the PCR officials who had shifted the injured Manoj to the hospital. If PW-6 was present at the spot with police van and had seen the accident, then he would have immediately informed the police station about the accident and he should have immediately 21 shifted the injured to the hospital. He would not have waited for the PCR officials to reach at the spot so that they could shift the injured to the hospital and informed the police about the accident.
48.Further, there are certain material contradictions between the testimonies of PW-6 and the injured PW-7 which would raise doubts over PW-6. In his cross-examination, PW-6 had stated that the speed of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident was 50 km per hour. He also denied the suggestion that there was no need to slow down the speed of the vehicle while taking turn or entering the green gate. However, the injured PW-7 in his cross-examination had admitted that the vehicles could not enter in main gate at high speed as there was a sharp turn at the green gate. It would mean that the offending vehicle which was entering inside the green gate was not at a high speed at that time. These contradictions / circumstances would raise serious doubts over the claim of the PW-6 of being an eye witness of the present case.
49.Secondly, even if it is assumed that PW-6 had seen the accident, however, perusal of his testimony would show that he did not state anything about the rash and negligent driving by the accident except the fact that the speed of the offending vehicle was around 50 km per hour. He made a very subjective assessment about the rash and negligent 22 driving by stating that the accused was driving dangerously considering the sights of the road, traffic on the road and single road without divider. He did not explain his own statement any further. There are doubts over the claim of PW-6 about the high speed of the offending vehicle. He did not state as to whether the offending vehicle had taken sharp turn suddenly without giving any indicator or not. He did not depose anything about the manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at the time of the accident i.e. whether the same was being driven in a zig zag manner, whether the same was being driven in violation of traffic rules etc.
50.The other eye witness PW-7 did not explain in detail about the rash and negligent driving. In fact, he only made a bald statement in his testimony that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. He did not make any further statement.
51.Last but not the least, the investigating agency did not conduct a proper investigation in the present case. The investigating agency did not make any effort to collect any CCTV footage of the incident. It cannot be ignored that the accident happened opposite Airforce Station. It would be very difficult to believe that there was no CCTV footage installed near the place of the incident. Even the PCR officials were not examined. No 23 efforts were made to examine public person. The investigating agency did not even try to gather more incriminating evidence against the accused.
52.Hence, I find that while the accident was very unfortunate, however, there are insufficient materials on record to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I find that while there are grave suspicions against the accused in the present case, however, the prosecution has failed to prove his guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the present case and benefit of doubts needs to be extended to the accused. Thus, there are insufficient materials on record to convict the accused in the present case for the offence punishable u/s 279, 338 & 304-A IPC. Hence, the accused Suraj stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 279, 338 & 304-A IPC.
Digitally
signed by
ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR
Announced in the open court KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04
17:00:42
On 04.02.2026
+0530
(Animesh Kumar)
JMFC-02, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 24 pages and each page bears my signatures. ANIMESH by Digitally signed ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.02.04 17:00:46 +0530 (Animesh Kumar) JMFC-02, Patiala House Courts New Delhi 24