Delhi District Court
State vs Reetu Chaudhary on 29 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. KRITIKA JAIN, JMFC-03, SOUTH WEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Cr. Case No. 30023/2018
STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary
FIR No. 667/2018
PS (Bindapur)
State Vs. Reetu Chaudhary
(a) CNR No. DLSW02-041972-2018
(b) The name of complainant Smt. Kanij Fatima
(c) The name of accused Reetu Chaudhary S/o Sh.
Jyotish Chaudhary
(d) The offence complained of 279/337 IPC & 3/181 M. V. Act
(e) The plea of the accused Not guilty
(f) The final order Conviction
(g) Ld. APP for the State Sh. Manish Kaushik
(h) Date of institution 31.10.2018
(i) The date of judgment 29.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused Reetu Chaudhary, wherein, it is stated that on 03.08.2018 at about 05:00 PM, at Chowk, Allahabad Bank, Matiala, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi accused was driving Tractor Eicher 241 Red & White without valid driving license, rashly and negligently in such a manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so, the aforesaid vehicle hit against one Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 1of 18 STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary FIR No. 667/2018 PS BINDAPUR girl, namely, Muskan and simple hurt on the person of Muskan and thereby committed an offence U/s 279/337 IPC & 3/181 M. V. Act.
2. On the aforesaid complaint, FIR under Sections 279/337 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) & 3/181 M.V. Act against accused was registered and investigation was conducted by IO ASI Suresh Kumar.
3. During the course of the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded.
After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet in Court under sections 279/337 IPC & 3/181 M.V. Act against the accused.
4. After taking cognizance on 31.10.2018, notice U/s 279/337 IPC & 3/181 M.V. Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be on trial. Thereafter, vide order dt. 08.01.2024, accused admitted the FIR no. 667/2018 without contents, DD no. 48A & 69A both dated 03.08.2018, MLC No. 07480/2018 of injured Muskan, X-ray no. 8296/2018 and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle. Same are Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6 respectively and with this, concerned witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses.
5. Case was subsequently fixed for prosecution evidence. To prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.
6. PW-1 Smt. Kanij Fatima had deposed that she was residing at above mentioned address alongwith her family. On 03.08.2018 at about 05:00 PM, she alongwith her daughter was returning hom from market and when they reached near the roundabout of Allahabad Bank, Matiala, accused came on a tractor trolley and hit her daughter and ran over the leg of her daughter Muskan. Accused was driving his tractor in a very high speed. Accused was apprehended by public persons and his name was revealed as Reetu Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 2of 18 STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary FIR No. 667/2018 PS BINDAPUR Chaudhary. She made PCR call and police officials reached at the spot and her daughter was taken to DDU Hospital where he was medically treated. Accused was arrested by the police officials and his tractor was taken into police possession. She complained to police is Ex.PW1/A. The seizure memo of aforesaid tractor trolley and the arrest memo of accused bears her signature at point A respectively. Thereafter, four photographs of the offending vehicle were shown to the witness and the same were Ex.P-1 (colly). Thereafter, witness has pointed out towards the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. After seeing, the photographs of offending vehicle, witness identified the offending vehicle. Police official prepared site plan of place of accident at her instance Ex.PW1/B and bearing her signature at point A. Police official seized the offending vehicle, i.e., red white and yellow color tractor trolley in her presence vide memo Ex.PW1/C and bearing her signature at point A. Police official arrested the accused Reetu Chaudhary at her instances vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and bearing her signature at point A. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. LAC.
7. PW-2 Muskan had deposed that she was residing at the abovesaid address alongwith her family and she was a student. On 03.08.2018, at about 05:00 PM, she alongwith her mother Kanij Fatima were returning to out home from market (bazar of Matiala) on foot and when they reached at chowk of Allahabad Bank, Matiala, one red and white color pulsar tractor came from out behind and it's driver was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner & climbed its front right side tyre of tractor on her left leg and she received injuries. She fell down. She alongwith her mother went to DDU hospital through PCR van where she got her treatment. Her mother narrated Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 3of 18 STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary FIR No. 667/2018 PS BINDAPUR about the tractor trolly and it's driver to the police official. Police official recorded her statement. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. Thereafter, 04 photographs of the offending vehicle already Ex.P-1 (colly) were shown to the witness and after seeing, witness correctly identified the offending vehicle. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. LAC.
8. PW-3 Sh. Gurvachan had deposed that he was residing at abovesaid address.
He was the owner of the offending vehicle Eicher 241. On 03.08.2018, accused Reetu Chaudhary was driving the offending vehicle. During that time, he employed his tractor in Matiala at construction materials stock. On the next day of incident, accused Reetu Chaudhary called him and informed him that the present incident had happened by the offending vehicle. Thereafter, he went to PS after receiving notice U/s 133 MV Act which is Ex.PW3/A, bearing his signature at point A. He gave reply to the said notice which is Ex.PW3/B bearing his signature at point A. He submitted the copy of insurance documents of the offending vehicle to the IO. He also filed an application of Superdarinama which is Ex.PW3/C bearing his signature at point A and the tractor was released to him after the order. Panchnama of the offending vehicle is Ex.PW3/D bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, witness saw the photographs of offending vehicle Ex.P-1 (colly) and after seeing the same, witness has correctly identified the said vehicle. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. LADC.
9. PW-4 HC Sushil Kumar had deposed that in the year 2018, he was posted at PS as Ct. and on 03.08.2018, he was on emergency duty alongwith ASI Suresh Kumar. Thereafter, IO received an emergency call and after receiving the same, they both reached at the spot, i.e., near Allahabad Bank, Matiala, Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 4of 18 STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary FIR No. 667/2018 PS BINDAPUR New Delhi wherein, they did not find any vehicle and injured. On inquiry, they found that injured had already gone to the DDU Hospital. Thereafter, IO received DD no. 69A and went to DDU Hospital wherein, IO received the MLC and met with injured. Mother of injured told us that her daughter would give her statement later on. Thereafter, they went to the house of the complainant wherein, the complainant produced the offending vehicle and the accused Reetu Chaudhary. IO recorded her statement already Ex.PW1/A on the basis of which IO prepared the Ruka and the same was handed over for registration of FIR. He went to PS and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR alongwith original Rukka to the IO. Thereafter, IO seized the tractor trolly vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point B. IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo already Ex.PW1/D bearing his signature at point B. IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW4/A bearing his signature at point A and released the accused on Pabandinama. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. Thereafter, witness was shown photographs of offending vehicle already Ex.P-1 (colly) and after seeing the same, witness had correctly identified the said vehicle. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. LADC.
10. PW-5 Sh. Daya Ram had deposed that he had brought the case file MACT no.
833/2018 case titled as Muskan Vs. Reetu Chaudhary. The said case had been decided on dated 12.12.2022 and the Hon'ble Court had consigned to the record room. Same is Ex.P-1 (colly)(OSR). The said witness was cross- examined by Ld. LAC.
Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 5of 18
STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary
FIR No. 667/2018
PS BINDAPUR
11. PW-6 SI Suresh Kumar had deposed that he was posted at PS Bindapur as ASI. On 03.08.2018, upon receipt of DD no. 48A about the accident, he reached at the spot, i.e., Allahabad Bank, Matiala Delhi. However, neither any person nor any vehicle was found there. Upon enquiry, he came to know that injured had already been shifted to the hospital vide DD no. 69A. He reached to DDU hospital and collected the MLC of injured Muskan. Further, he met with injured's mother, namely, Kanij Fatima who stated that she would give her statement after reaching at her residence. Thereafter, he reached at the residence of complainant where complainant produced the offending vehicle tractor trolly and accused Reetu Chaudhary before him. He seized the offending vehicle, i.e., Tractor Trolly vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point C. He recorded statement of Kanij Fatima already Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point B. He prepared Ex.PW6/A bearing his signature at point A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Sushil. He prepared site plan of place of accident at the instance of complainant already Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point B. He served notice to the owner of the offending vehicle U/s 133 M.V. Act already Ex.PW3/A on which he replied that accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Same is already Ex.PW3/B. He interrogated the accused vide disclosure statement already Ex.PW4/A bearing his signature at point B. He arrested the accused vide memo already Ex.PW1/D bearing his signature at point C. He released the accused as the offences were bailable in nature vide bailbonds Ex.PW6/B bearing his signature at point A and B. He conducted mechanical inspection of offending vehicle vide report already Ex.A6. He placed on record the documents of the offending vehicle Ex.P2 (colly). He placed on record all the medical records of injured. After conclusion of Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 6of 18 STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary FIR No. 667/2018 PS BINDAPUR investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the Hon'ble Court. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. Thereafter, photographs of offending vehicle already Ex.P1 were shown to the witness. After seeing, witness correctly identified the offending vehicle.
Statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC
12. On culmination of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence led by the prosecution and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Accused stated that he does not wish to lead DE.
13. To prove its case, the prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had done the offences he is charged with. In the instant matter, accused has been charged under Sections 279/337 IPC & 3/181 M.V. Act.
14. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments in the present case were heard. I have heard the submissions addressed by the Learned APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
15. Ld. APP has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
16. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that there are major discrepancies in the statement of the material witness. It is further stated that victim has not received grievous injury and neither it has been proved that accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner. No CCTV footage has been placed on record with regard to the incident. Further, failed to provide Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 7of 18 STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary FIR No. 667/2018 PS BINDAPUR the time of medical examination of the PW-2. It is also stated by the Ld. Counsel for accused that no public witness of the incident has been examined by the prosecution despite the fact that the incident occurred on the public road. It is further averred that there are no CCTV footage neither the tractor was recovered from the spot. At the end, he submitted that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted of the alleged offence.
Legal provision
17. To prove the charge against the accused persons under Section 279/337 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following mentioned ingredients as mentioned below:
1. Section 279 IPC provides that "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".
2. Section 337 IPC provides that "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 six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both".
18. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution was under the obligation to prove the following essential ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 279/337 IPC & 3/181 M.V. Act:
Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 8of 18
STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary
FIR No. 667/2018
PS BINDAPUR
a. Identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle.
b. That the alleged accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place.
c. The rash and negligent driving of the accused resulted in injuries to victims and the death of a child.
Analysis of law, Evidence and Facts
19. Material witness in regard to identity of accused is PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. Accused is identified by the eye witnesses PW1 and PW-2 to be the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of incident. PW-3 is the owner of the vehicle who has stated that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident. PW-3 has stated that his tractor was employed in the Matiala area for construction material stock. Their testimony in this regard goes unchallenged and unrebutted as even no suggestion was given to this witness that the accused was not driving the offending vehicle which has caused the accident. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, there is no denial by the accused that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Thus, it stands to prove that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle which caused the accident.
20. It has come in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 that on 03.08.2018 at around 05:00 PM, accused was driving the tractor at high speed.
21. This being the legal position, it is to be seen whether the testimony of this witness finds corroboration from other witnesses. PW-2 has Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 9of 18 STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary FIR No. 667/2018 PS BINDAPUR categorically stated that one red & white colour pulsar tractor came from their behind and its driver in rash and negligent manner had climbed its front right side tyre of tractor on her left leg and she received injuries.
22. The law regarding injured witnesses is by now well settled. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.
23. Hon'ble Apex Court held in Balu Sudamkhalde and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra Crl. Appeal No. 1910 of 2010 decided on 29.03.2023 where it was observed as under:
"26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind."
a) The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 10of 18
STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary
FIR No. 667/2018
PS BINDAPUR
c) The evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
d) The evidence of the injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
24. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 11of 18 STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary FIR No. 667/2018 PS BINDAPUR case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.
25. The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
26. In Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras, 1957 AIR 614 the Hon'ble Supreme Court says:
"11. In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, has categorically laid it down that "no particular number witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact". The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out in Sarkar's Law of Evidence 9th Edn., at pp. 1100 and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 12of 18 STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary FIR No. 667/2018 PS BINDAPUR in Section 134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted".
27. Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in thepresence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 13of 18
STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary
FIR No. 667/2018
PS BINDAPUR
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
28. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.
Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 14of 18
STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary
FIR No. 667/2018
PS BINDAPUR
29. In the present case, the fact that there are one injured and one eye witness who gave clear, consistent and convincing testimonies as regards the role of the accused in the offence, same is more than sufficient to bring home guilt of the accused.
30. It was held in Niranjan Singh Vs. The State (Delhi Administration) 1977 CriLJ 333 held that Rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable or 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 circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. Thus the main criterion for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard to the obligation of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a risk indifference as to the harmful consequences resulting from it. In a case of this nature, the test is whether the prosecution has proved that :
(i) the accused was driving the vehicle in such a manner as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to some other person who might happen to be using the road or doing substantial damage to the property;
Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 15of 18
STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary
FIR No. 667/2018
PS BINDAPUR
(ii) in driving the vehicle in that manner the accused did so without having given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or, having recognized that there was some risk involved, had nonetheless gone on to take it; and
(iii) the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of the death of the deceased.
31. It stands proved from MLCs of PW Muskan has received simple injury.
32. Accused has pleaded his false implication in this case. However, this plea does not inspire confidence in view of the ample evidence available on record. Moreover, he is not alleging any enmity, ill-will or grudge against any of the prosecution witness for which they will falsely implicate him in this case.
33. Thus, it stands proved that accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and injury received is the direct cause of the act of the accused. Further the ocular evidence find corroboration from medical evidence. Medical evidence comprised in the MLC, is also consistent and points conclusively towards guilt of the accused.
34. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naresh and Ors.: (2011) 4 SCC 324, it was observed:-
"30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 16of 18 STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary FIR No. 667/2018 PS BINDAPUR occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected inThe court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence."
35. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.' Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. [Vide State Vs. Saravanan, (2008) 17 SCC 587, Arumugam Vs. State, (2008) 15 SCC 590; Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 11 SCC 334 and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657.] its entirety.
36. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest pronouncement reported as Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra Crl. Appeal No. 739 of 2017 decided on 14.07.2022 where it was observed as under:-
Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 17of 18
STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary
FIR No. 667/2018
PS BINDAPUR
"Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole."
37. Result of aforesaid discussion is that, it stands proved that it was the accused who was driving offending tractor in a rash and negligent manner on the fateful day and time resulting in simple injuries to PW2 as such offence u/s 279/337 IPC stands proved. Accordingly, offence under section 279/337 IPC is made out against the accused. Accused Reetu Chaudhary is, therefore, convicted of the offence under section 279/337 IPC and with regard to the offence U/s 3/181 M.V. Act, prosecution has not lead evidence in support. Therefore, in the absence of any proof, accused acquitted U/s 3/181 M.V. Act.
Digitally
signed by
KRITIKA
KRITIKA JAIN
Announced in the Open Court JAIN Date:
2026.01.29
On 29.01.2026
16:49:57
+0530
Kritika Jain
JMFC-03
South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, 29.01.2026 Certified that this judgment contains 18 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally
signed by
KRITIKA
KRITIKA JAIN
JAIN Date:
2026.01.29
16:50:04
+0530
Kritika Jain
JMFC-03
South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, 29.01.2026 Cr. Case No. 30023/2018 Page No. 18of 18 STATE Vs. Reetu Chaudhary FIR No. 667/2018 PS BINDAPUR