Delhi District Court
State vs . Prakash on 10 December, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MS EKTA GAUBA MM (CENTRAL-06): DELHI
State Vs. Prakash
FIR No. 166/01
U/s 279/337 IPC
PS I.P. Estate
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of case : 363/2/01/10 2. Date of commission of offence : 07.04.2001 3. Name of complainant : Sandeep Kumar Pandey 4. Name, parentage and : Prakash S/o Kallu R/o A-24, address of accused Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi 5. Offence complained of : 279/337 IPC 6. Plea of accused. : Pleaded Not Guilty 7. Final order : Convicted. 8. Date of such order : 10.12.2010 BREIF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:-
1. Accused has been forwarded by SHO of the Police Station I.P. Estate to face trial U/s 279/337 IPC.
2. In a nut shell, the prosecution story is that on 07.04.2001 at about 4 am in the night when PW Sandeep Kumar Pandey was driving his TSR bearing no. DLIRF-0164 and reached opposite I.P. Depot on the correct side and was going towards Okhla then from the wrong side one truck dumper driven by the driver accused Prakash in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came and put break on his vehicle as a result his truck turnturtile and came and hit the TSR and as a result the TSR got damaged and PW Sandeep Kumar Pandey suffered injuries on his head, hand and legs. PW State Vs Prakash 1 Sandeep Kumar Pandey stated that the name of the accused driver was known to be Prakash later on. PW Sandeep Kumar Pandey stated that this accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the accused while driving the truck dumper no. DLIGB-4780. On this complaint, FIR was registered, accused was arrested and after completion of remaining investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.
3. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused free of cost u/s 207 Cr PC.
4. Finding a prima facie case against the accused u/s 279/337 IPC, notice was served upon the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined following ten witnesses :-
PW1 H.C. Charanjit Singh; PW2 Ct. Mukesh; PW3 T.U. Siddiqui, Mechanical Inspector; PW4 S.I. Jagbir Singh; PW5 H.C. Rajender Singh; PW6 Dr. Chaman Prakash and he proved the MLC Ex. PW6/A; PW7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey complainant cum eye witness cum injured; PW8 Amarjeet Singh; PW9 S.I. Krishan Kumar Investigating Officer; PW10 ASI Nan Singh.
6. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr PC was recorded separately in which accused denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated and he was driving the vehicle diligently and when TSR came near his truck, his truck was already been overturned and the State Vs Prakash 2 TSR driver suddenly applied break as a result of which TSR was overturned due to high speed and sustained injury. Accused stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
7. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for accused and also gone through the case file carefully and thoroughly.
8. Prosecution examined its formal witnesses like PW 1 H.C. Charanjit Singh and he stated that in the intervening night of 6-7 April 2001, he was on duty in crane and on that day at about 5 am, he received the wireless call regarding turnturtile of a truck at Ring Road ITO opposite I.P. Estate and after receiving the call he went at the spot and there was traffic jam and one truck no. DL1GB-4780 loaded with mud was found turnturtile in middle road and near the truck one another TSR no. DLIRF-0164 was also present in damaged condition. Prosecution also examined PW5 H.C. Rajender Singh and he proved that on the basis of Rukka he got the case registered vide FIR No. 166/01 and copy of the same is Ex. PW5/A. Prosecution also examined PW10 ASI Nan Singh and he proved that on 20.04.2001 he obtained the nature of injuries on the MLC of injured Sandeep Kumar Pandey which is already Ex. PW6/A and thereafter he prepared the challan and filed it in the court through SHO.
9. PW 2 Ct. Mukesh was examined by the prosecution and he proved that he took the Rukka to the Police Station and got registered the case vide FIR No. 166/01 and returned back at the spot. PW2 Ct. Mukesh Kumar proved the seizure memo of the offending truck vide Ex. PW2/A and seizure memo of the TSR vide Ex. PW2/B bearing his signatures at point A and the State Vs Prakash 3 accused was arrested by the IO in his presence by personal search memo of accused vide Ex. PW2/E. Prosecution also examined PW3 T.U. Siddiqui Mechanical Inspector and he proved that he conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending truck and its report is Ex. PW3/A as well as the TSR and its report is Ex. PW3/B and he stated that both the vehicles have been found not fit for the road test after accident. Prosecution examined PW9 SI Krishan Kumar Investigating Officer. PW9 SI Krishan Kumar stated that in the intervening night of 6-7 April 2001 at about 4 am on receiving the call he reached at the spot and he inspected the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. PW9/B at the instance of complainant. PW9 SI Krishan Kumar stated that he took into possession both the vehicles vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B. PW9 S.I. Krishan Kumar stated that he arrested the accused and took his personal search vide memo Ex. PW2/E and he also proved the remaining investigation conducted by him.
10. Prosecution examined PW6 Dr. Chaman Prakash CMO and he stated that he has seen the MLC of patient Sandeep and the MLC was prepared by Dr. Vijay Kumar who has now left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. PW6 Dr. Chaman Prakash stated that he can identify the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Vijay Kumar as Dr. Vijay Kumar had worked under him. PW6 Dr. Chaman Prakash also proved the MLC Ex. PW6/A bearing signatures of Dr. Vijay Kumar. Prosecution also examined PW8 Amarjeet Singh member of society which is owner of the truck and he stated that on the day of accident accused Prakash present in the court correctly identified was driving the said vehicle as he was the only driver on the said vehicle on behalf of the said society and he also proved the seven State Vs Prakash 4 photographs Ex. PW4/1 to 7 and their negatives Ex. P3 collectively.
11. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined its most crucial witness PW7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey, complainant cum eye witness cum injured. PW7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey stated that on 07.04.2001 he was going to Okhla on the TSR driven by him bearing no. 0164 and when he reached near ITO Flyover in the meantime one dumper came from wrong side and applied the break immediately and he also applied the break and due to that dumper turned down and sand fell over his TSR due to which he sustained injury. PW7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey stated that accused present in the court was driver of the said dumper. PW7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey stated that accident had taken place due to fault of the dumper driver/ accused. PW7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey stated that the number of dumper was DLIGB-4780.
12. Prosecution also examined PW4 SI Jagbir Singh eye witness. PW4 SI Jagbir Singh stated that on 07.04.2001 at about 4 am when he was present in front of IP Depot along with one another PCR Van 0-5, he saw that one truck bearing no. DLIGB-4780 came there from south side towards Rajghat and the truck was driven by the accused present in the court today in a rash and negligent manner and as the truck reached at the red light I.P. Depot near a cut he suddenly took a wrong turn towards incoming road and in between the said turning the truck turned down and he heard the noise, the bursting of the tyre. PW4 S.I. Jagbir Singh stated that in that situation truck dragged on the road for 15-20 yards and then the truck collided with TSR No. DLIRF-1064. PW4 S.I. Jagbir Singh stated that due to the hit of the truck TSR was badly broken and driver sustained injuries and he took out State Vs Prakash 5 the injured from the TSR and sent him to the JPN Hospital. PW4 Jagbir Singh stated that accused driver was caught hold by them there and then and handed over to the I.O. at the spot. Ld. APP for the State contended that prosecution was able to prove its case and the accused should be convicted.
13. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the accused contended that accused has been falsely implicated. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that accused was driving the truck no. DLIGB-4780 at the time of accident but neither accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner nor accused was plying his vehicle in the wrong lane or wrong side. Ld. counsel for the accused also contended that accused was driving his vehicle diligently and when the TSR no. DLIRF-0164 came near his truck, his truck was already been overturned and the TSR driver suddenly applied breaks as a result of which TSR was overturned due to the high speed and sustained injuries. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that prosecution has not examined any independent witness. Ld. Counsel for the accused contended that all these facts throws doubt on the prosecution story and the accused should be entitled to the benefit of doubt and accused should be acquitted.
14. The essential ingredient for offence u/s 279/337 IPC is that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving. In order to prove this fact prosecution examined PW7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey complainant cum eye witness cum injured. PW7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey stated that when he reached under the ITO flyover in the meantime one dumper came from wrong side and applied the break immediately. PW7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey also stated that accident had taken place due to the fault of the State Vs Prakash 6 dumper driver or accused. Prosecution also examined PW4 S.I. Jagbir Singh eye witness. PW4 S.I. Jagbir Singh stated that on 07.04.2001 at about 4 am he saw that the one truck no. DLIGB-4780 came there from South side towards Rajghat and the truck was driven by the accused present in the court in a rash and negligent manner and as the truck reached at the red light I.P. Depot near a cut he suddenly took a wrong turn towards incoming road and in between the said turning, the truck turned down and they heard the noise of the bursting of tyre. PW4 S.I. Jagbir Singh stated that in that situation the truck dragged on the road for 15-20 yards and then the truck collided with the TSR no. DLIRF-1064. Thus the essential ingredient for offence u/s 279/337 IPC that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving is proved by the prosecution.
15. Another essential ingredient for offence u/s 337 IPC is that hurt was caused to the injured. To prove it, prosecution examined PW7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey and he stated that on 07.04.2001 when he was driving his TSR and he reached ITO Flyover in the meantime one dumper came from wrong side and applied break immediately. PW 7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey stated that he also applied the break and due to that dumper turned down and sand fell over his TSR due to which he sustained injury. Prosecution also examined PW4 S.I. Jagbir Singh. PW4 Jagbir Singh Stated that due to hit of the truck the TSR was badly broken and his driver sustained injury. Prosecution also examined PW10 ASI Nan Singh. PW10 ASI Nan Singh stated that on 20.04.2001 he obtained the nature of injury on the MLC of injured Sandeep which is already exhibited as Ex. PW6/A. Prosecution to prove the nature of injuries also examined PW6 Dr. Chaman Prakash. PW6 Dr. Chaman Prakash proved the MLC Ex. PW6/A of patient Sandeep which State Vs Prakash 7 bears the signatures of Dr. Vijay Kumar. PW6 Dr. Chaman Prakash stated that he can identify the signature and handwriting of Dr. Vijay Kumar as Dr. Vijay Kumar had worked under him. Also, the perusal of MLC Ex. PW6/A of injured Sandeep shows the nature of injuries as simple. Thus, the prosecution was able to prove that hurt was caused to the injured.
16. Another essential ingredient for offence u/s 279/337 IPC that accident was caused by accused only. To prove it, prosecution examined PW7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey complainant cum eye witness cum injured. PW7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey stated that accused present in the court is the driver of the said dumper and the accident had taken place due to the fault of the dumper driver/ accused. PW7 Sandeep Kumar Pandey also stated that police arrested the accused in his presence by personal search memo of the accused vide Ex. PW2/E. Prosecution also examined PW4 S.I. Jagbir Singh eye witness. PW4 S.I. Jagbir Singh stated that on 07.04.2001 at about 4 am he saw that one truck bearing no. DLIGB-4780 came there from South side towards Rajghat and the truck was driven by the accused present in the court today in a rash and negligent manner. PW4 S.I. Jagbir Singh also stated that the accused driver was caught hold by them there and then and handed over to the I.O. at the spot. Prosecution also examined PW8 Amarjeet Singh one of the member of the society which is the owner of the vehicle. PW8 Amarjeet Singh stated that on the day of accident accused Prakash present today in the court correctly identified was driving the vehicle bearing no. DLIGB-4780 as he was the only driver on the said vehicle on behalf of the said society. Thus the presence of accused on the offending vehicle was proved by the prosecution by examining PW8 Amarjeet Singh. Prosecution also examined PW9 S.I. Krishan Kumar State Vs Prakash 8 Investigating Officer and he proved that he arrested the accused at the instance of complainant Sandeep Kumar Pandey and took the personal search memo of the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/E. Prosecution also examined PW2 Ct. Mukesh and he proved that accused was arrested by the I.O. on the spot in his presence vide personal search memo of accused Ex. PW2/E. Also, personal search memo of accused vide Ex. PW2/E shows that accused was arrested on the date of incident. Also, both the witnesses Ct. Mukesh and Sandeep Kumar Pandey who were witnesses to the personal search memo Ex. PW2/E by which accused was arrested, have been examined by the prosecution. Also, no motive on the part of the witnesses has been shown by the accused to falsely implicate the accused. Thus essential ingredient for offence u/s 279/337 IPC that accident was caused by accused only is fully proved by the prosecution.
17. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances I am of the considered view that testimony of PWs is clear, convincing and reliable and no material has come on record which falsify their evidence. Also, all the essential ingredients of offence u/s 279/337 IPC have been fully established. I am of the considered view that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is accordingly convicted for the offence U/s 279/337 IPC. Let Accused be heard separately on the point of sentence on 13.12.2010.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
TODAY i.e. ON 10.12.2010 (EKTA GAUBA)
MM-06, Central/Delhi/10.12.2010
State Vs Prakash 9