Delhi District Court
State vs . Moti Nagar 1/8 on 4 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Karam Veer Singh
FIR No. 750/2014
PS Moti Nagar
U/s 279/304-A IPC
JUDGMENT
Sr. No. of the case : 612/2/14
Unique case ID No. : 02401R0590682014
Date of Institution : 22.11.2014
Date of Commission of Offence : 07.08.2014
Name of the complainant : ASI Mahabir Singh
Name & address of the accused : Karam Veer Singh
S/o Devender Singh
R/o Village Nagal, PS Choporli
District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh
Offence complained of : U/s 279/304-A IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 04.09.2015
Date of announcing of judgment : 04.09.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section FIR No. 750/2014 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 1/8 279/304-A IPC.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 07.08.2014 at about 06:40 AM opposite Kalra Hospital, Nazafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, Delhi, the accused Karam Veer Singh was driving vehicle (bus) bearing registration no.DL-1PC-4842 of route no. 813 in a rash and negligent manner. While driving the said vehicle in such a manner, he hit against a boy namely Dilip and caused his death. FIR
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 750/2014 under section 279/304-A IPC was lodged at Police Station Moti Nagar.
CHARGE
4. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 279/304-A IPC was framed against accused Karam Veer Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 12.01.2015.
6. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 14 witnesses of which PW Master Niranjan Kumar is the eye witness of the accident. PW Rakesh Menon is also a public witness, however, who made a call to the police on 100 number. Remaining are formal as well as police witnesses and none of them is the witness of the incident. Thus the relevant witness to prove rashness and negligence on the part of the accused are PW Master Niranjan Kumar and PW Rakesh Menon.
FIR No. 750/2014 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 2/8
7. Prosecution has examined only two witnesses i.e (1) Master Niranjan Kumar and (2) Rakesh Menon.
8. PW1 Master Niranjan Kumar, (aged about 9 years) could not tell date or month, however, it is stated by him that an year ago one of his friend namely Dilip met with an accident. It is stated that on that day he was with Dilip, Mohd. Zubair and one more boy namely Chotta. That boy Chotta was snatching a Omni tube of cycle from Dilip, to save that tube Dilip started to run away. At that time a bus hit Dilip. The bus was coming straight on the road at a fast speed. However, it hit Dilip by taking a slight swing. Dilip received injuries due to the impact on his waist. Dilip was taken to Acharya Bikshu Hospital. It is stated by this witness that he cannot identify the driver of the bus as he (driver) had run away from the spot. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State after taking permission from the Court. During cross-examination by Ld. APP, this witness failed to identify the accused as driver of the offending vehicle despite being specifically pointed by the Ld APP. However, it is voluntarily stated by this witness that he (accused) was the conductor in that bus. He denied the suggestion that accused was driving the vehicle in a zigzag manner, he voluntarily stated that he was driving straight, however, he had took a swing at the time of hitting Dilip. He accepted his name/signature on the arrest memo Ex.PW1/A at point A. He denied the suggestion that accused present in the Court was arrested at the PS and he identified him as driver of the bus in the PS. He accepted his name/signature at point A of site plan Ex.PW1/B, it is stated by him that the site plan was not prepared in his presence. During cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, it is stated by this witness that the driver of the bus had applied brake, FIR No. 750/2014 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 3/8 only after running over the victim.
9. PW2 Sh. Rakesh Menon stated that in the month of October, 2014 he was working at Call Centre, Moti Nagar. It is stated that at about 07:30 AM he boarded bus route no.813 from Moti Nagar for going towards Dwarka. When bus reached near Kirti Nagar metro station, the bus immediately stopped and he got down from the bus and saw that one boy was lying on the road in injured condition. It is stated by him that he asked the public persons to help but nobody came forward and he made a call to the police on 100 number by his mobile phone bearing no. 9654634756. It is stated that PCR van came at the spot and the injured was taken to the hospital. It is stated that his statement was recorded by the police later on. During cross-examination, it is stated by this witness that he cannot say that the accident was caused by the bus in which he was traveling. He could not recall whether he had signed any document at the spot after coming of PCR. He could not recall whether the police official prepared any site plan or not at his instance. It is stated by him that he was called by the police at the police station and they obtained his signatures on certain papers and he had gone through the contents of those documents.
10.PW1 Master Niranjan Kumar, who is a minor of 9 years old, is the only eye witness of the accident in the present case, however, he failed to identify the accused as the offender. Despite cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, his testimony remained unrebutted, in fact in his cross-examination by Ld. APP, this witness failed to identify the accused as driver of the offending vehicle despite being specifically pointed by the Ld. APP. It is also stated by this witness that deceased, who was also a boy of 13 years, was running on the road away from FIR No. 750/2014 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 4/8 his friend namely Chotta, who was trying to snatch his omni cycle tube (tube with which the boys play). Thus, from the testimony of this witness, it is apparent that the deceased boy was playing/running on a main road i.e. Main Nazafgarh Road at about 04:00 PM i.e. at the peak hour, thus it is apparent that the act of the victim himself was rash and negligent. It is also to be noted that the accident had taken place just a few meters ahead of a bus stand, thus it is probable that the bus was not at a fast speed at the spot of accident. All these facts considered together show that the alleged driver of the offending bus was not driving in rash and negligent manner. Further, the only eye witness Master Niranjan Kumar has failed to identify the accused, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the present case was a result of an act of accused and that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing no.DL-1PC-4842 which was being driven by the accused Karam Veer Singh in a rash and negligent manner. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences U/s 279/304-A IPC. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs". reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "In case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". Hence vide a separate order, PE was closed.
11.In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT FIR No. 750/2014 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 5/8 1856 the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression.
Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts.
12.It has been held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
13.In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C FIR No. 750/2014 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 6/8 qua offences u/s 279/304-A IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused. Recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is also dispensed with.
Final Order
14.The essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 Indian Penal Code are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. For an offence under Section 304-A, the act of accused must be rash and negligent, which should be responsible for the death which does not amount to culpable homicide.
15.The prosecution in the present case has failed to prove how the act of the accused was rash or negligent to bring the same under the purview of Sections 279/304-A Indian Penal Code. In the present case deceased, who was also a boy of 13 years, was running on the road away from his friend namely Chotta, who was trying to snatch his omni cycle tube (tube with which the boys play). Thus, it is apparent that the deceased boy was playing/running on a main road i.e. Main Nazafgarh Road at about 04:00 PM i.e. at the peak hour which shows that the act of the victim himself was rash and negligent. It is also to be noted that the accident had taken place just a few meters ahead of a bus stand, thus it is improbable that the bus was at a fast speed at the spot of accident. Further, the only eye witness Master Niranjan Kumar has turned hostile, hence, it can never be proved that the accident in question was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the accused which is an essential ingredient for offence U/s 279/304-A IPC. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the FIR No. 750/2014 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 7/8 court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under s.258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Karam Veer Singh qua offences u/s 279/304-A IPC and hereby releases the accused Karam Veer Singh under sections 279/304-A IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal as the material witness i.e. Master Niranjan Kumar has been examined.
16. Accused has furnished fresh bail/surety bond in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The same has been accepted.
17. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 04.09.2015 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 8 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 750/2014 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 8/8