Delhi District Court
State vs . Amit on 4 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MM08 (CENTRAL)/ TIS HAZARI
COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Amit
FIR No. 60/2006
PS : Hauz Qazi
U/s 279/304A IPC & 115/194, 66/192 A MV Act.
CNR No. DLCT020005232006
Date of Institution : 14.08.2006
Date of reserving of order : 04.06.2018
Date of Judgment : 04.07.2018
J U D G M E N T
1. Serial No. of the case : 294833/16
2. Name of the Complainant : Md. Laiq
3. Date of incident : 13.02.2006
4. Name of accused person :
Amit @ Amit Kumar S/o Atvir Singh
R/o Village Ajnara, PS Sikarpur,
District Bulandshahar, U. P.
5. Offence complained of : U/s 279/304A IPC
& 115/194, 66/192 A
MV Act.
6. Offence for which charge
has been framed : As above
7. Plea of accused : Not guilty
8. Final Order : Convicted
FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 1 of 25
PS Hauz Qazi
Present: Sh. Santosh Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh.D.K. Ahlawat, Ld. Counsel for the
accused.
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1.Mr. Amit, the accused herein, has been charged for committing offences punishable under Section 279/304A, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and Sections 3/181, 115/194 and Section 66/192 A, the Motor Vehicles Act .
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.02.2006, at about 7:45 p.m., complainant Md. Laiq, alongwith his son Md. Danish, was present near Nukkar Faras Khana. At the said date and time, the accused had been driving a milk tanker bearing registration number UP13D5372 and he was coming from the side of Hauz Qazi in fast speed in "no entry" zone. All of a sudden, he had turned the vehicle and hit the complainant and his son. His son was taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead. On the basis of complaint made by the complainant, the abovementioned FIR was registered. The accused was also found not having a valid permit of the vehicle. He was also found driving the vehicle in "no entry" zone.
FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 2 of 25PS Hauz Qazi
3. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Section 279/304A, Indian Penal Code & 115/194, 66/192 A MV Act.
4. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor and summons were issued to the accused. Accused appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, notice for the offences punishable under Section 279/304A IPC and Section 3/181, 115/194, 66/192A, the Motor Vehicles Act, was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
6. PW1 Sh. Md. Laiq is the complainant. He has deposed that on 13.02.2006, he alongwith his son Md. Danish was going to his school Ludlow Castle. When they reached near nukkar Faras Khana, one milk tanker bearing no. UP13D5376 of Shazi Dairy, driven by the accused, came from the side of Hauz Qazi at fast speed in "no entry zone". The accused negligently all of a sudden turned the FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 3 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi vehicle and hit them. Due to that his son fell down and sustained injury and become unconscious. They stopped the vehicle. Many public persons gathered at the spot. Accused brought down from the vehicle. He took his son to the Irwin hospital, where his son was declared brought dead. Police reached in the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. He has further deposed that he had shown the place of incident to the spot. Police prepared the site plan at his instance. Police seized the tanker vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. Police also arrested the accused in his presence vide memo Ex.PW1/C and conducted the personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/D. Police also seized DL of the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/E. Police also seized the RC of the offending vehicle vide memo Ex.PW1/F. He had identified the dead body of his son in mortuary vide memo Ex.PW1/G and received the dead body of his son vide memo Ex.PW1/H.
7. PW2 Smt. Nuzahat is stated to be an eye witness. She has deposed that on 13.02.2006 at about 7:45 p.m. (sic), when she had gone to the local market to purchase vegetables, she saw that one truck had entered in no entry zone and hit one child. Father of the child took him to the hospital. Many public persons gathered at the FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 4 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi spot. They brought down the driver from the vehicle. She identified accused and offending truck in the Court.
8. PW3 Ms. Mumtaz Inayat is the owner of the offending vehicle. She has deposed that she is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing no. UP13D5376, which is Ex.P1. She had got the same released on superdari from the court vide superdarinama Ex.PW3/A.
9. PW4 Sh. Aftab Alam is also an eye witness. He has deposed that on 13.02.2006 at about 7:45 p.m,(sic) when he was going to take milk and when he reached near nukkad Faras Khana, he saw that one milk tanker bearing no. UP13D5376 coming from the side of Hauz Qazi Lal Kuan had entered into no entry zone and was coming at fast speed and in rash and negligent manner and it hit the child, who was going alongwith one person. The said child fell unconscious. In the meantime, 1520 persons gathered there and stopped the vehicle and pulled accused from the tanker. He identified accused in the Court as driver of the offending vehicle Ex.P1. Somebody had called the police. One SI and one Constable came at the spot. SI handed over the custody of accused to constable and went to hospital.
FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 5 of 25PS Hauz Qazi
10. PW5 Md. Irfan had identified the dead body of deceased Md. Danish in JPN mortuary vide memo Ex. PW5/A.
11. PW6 Tahir Hussain is also an eye witness. He has also deposed similar to PW2 and PW4.
12. PW7 Ct. Sudesh Kumar has deposed that on 13.02.2006, after receiving the PCR call regarding accident at Farashkhana, he alongwith SI Virsa Oren reached at the spot and he found that many public persons had gathered and one tanker bearing no. UP13D5376 was also standing. Public persons had apprehended the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. He was handed over to them. They came to know that injured was shifted to hospital by his father. IO handed over accused in the custody of him and went to hospital. At about 10:00 a.m, SI returned at the spot and gave him rukka for registration of case. He went to PS and got registered the FIR and returned at the spot with copy of FIR and rukka. The tanker was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B.
13. PW8 HC Marie Rose is the Duty Officer. She has deposed that on 13.06.06, she received rukka brought by Ct.Sudesh sent by SI Birsa and on the basis of rukka, she registered FIR Ex. PW8/A. She also made endorsement on the rukka at point X to X1, Ex.PW8/B (OSR).
FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 6 of 25PS Hauz Qazi
14. PW9 Ct. Ajit Kumar is the police official. He has deposed that on 13.02.2006, he had joined the investigation with the IO. IO seized the tanker. Accused was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively. IO also seized the RC of the vehicle and DL vide memos Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F.
15. PW10 Dr. Sunil has deposed that had had conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased on 13.02.2006 and given his detailed reasons of death vide memo Ex. PW10/A.
16. PW11 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jaon, Record Clerk, RTO District Bulandsahar, UP has produced the record regarding the offending vehicle no. UP13D5376, which are Ex.PW11/A and PW11/B.
17. PW12 Sh. Anil Kumar, LDC, RTO Office, Ghaziabad, UP has produced the record regarding the permit of offending vehicle no. UP13D5376, which are Ex.PW12/A and PW12/C. He has stated as per record w.e.f., 07.01.2006 to 14.02.2006 the vehicle was not having any valid permit to run in Delhi.
18. PW13 Sh. Ram Pravesh Prasad, Superintendent, Department of Publication, Ministry of Urban Development has proved the gazette notification FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 7 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi Ex.PW13/A.
19. PW14 HC Hempal has deposed that on 13.02.2006, he was working as DD writer. He has proved DD No.6A, which is Ex.14/A.
20. PW15 Mr. Anil Kr. Harit, Sr. Clerk, RTO Office, Ghaziabad, UP has brought the original record related to National Permit of vehicle bearing registration no. UP13D5376, which was got renewed on 14.02.2006 and it was valid till 07.07.2006. The earlier permit of the vehicle had expired on 07.01.2006.
21. The IO of the case had expired during the trial and therefore he was dropped from the list of witnesses.
22. The witnesses were cross examined. The accused admitted the Mechanical Inspection report of vehicle bearing no. UP13D5376, which is Ex. C1, MLC No.14951 dated 13.02.2006 of Md. Danish is Ex. C2, his postmortem report no. 129/06 dated 13.02.2006 is Ex. C 3, the death summery report is Ex. C4.
23. The prosecution evidence was closed. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr. P.C. The accused denied the incriminating evidence against him. He would state that he was falsely implicated and that he had not committed any such crime. He had not seen any boy on that day. He was caught by the public FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 8 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi persons. There was heavy traffic on the road and there was turn of Faras Khana, where he was driving the vehicle. There was no occasion for him to drive the vehicle at high speed in such condition. No accident had happened with his vehicle. He was only caught by the public persons. He was present at the dairy and the milk from the tanker was transferred in the dairy booth tank when he was caught by some persons who had stated that he had caused the accident. However, he was falsely implicated.
24. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
25. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle on the relevant date, time and place. The testimonies of the witnesses have also proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle at very high speed in rash or negligent manner and that he had hit the son of the complainant and due to this he had sustained injury and finally died. It has also been proved that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle without having any valid driving license and that he was driving the vehicle in FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 9 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi no entry zone. Further, the vehicle did not have a valid permit at the relevant time. Hence, the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 279 & 304A, IPC and Section 3/181, 115/194 and 66/192A MV Act, and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
26. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. None of the prosecution witness has been able to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner. PW1 is an interested witness. He has deposed falsely against the accused to claim monetary compensation. Other public witnesses have also deposed in his favour being his neighbors. The accused had been falsely implicated. The site plan had not been proved. Mere driving at high speed can not be considered as driving rashly or negligently. Thus, reasonable doubts have been created on the story of the prosecution. Hence, it is prayed, the benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 10 of 25PS Hauz Qazi
27. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
28. In a criminal case the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts before the accused is asked to put his defence. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution case appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused
29. In the present case, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A, IPC and Sections 3/181, 66/192A and Section 115/194 MV Act.
30. Section 279, IPC prescribes punishment for rash or negligent driving or riding on a public way. To constitute an offence under Section 279, IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way and that he was driving it in rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or to be likely to be caused injury or hurt to any other person. The offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC includes within its ambit the offence punishable under Section 279, IPC. Section 304A, IPC reads as under:
FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 11 of 25PS Hauz Qazi "whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to the culpable homicide, shall be punished with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both".
31. In order to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case for an offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC, the prosecution is required to prove, beyond reasonable doubts, the following facts :
1. the identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle,
2. the accused was driving the offending vehicle at a public place;
3. the accused was driving the vehicle in such a manner so 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 of doing substantial damages to the property;
4. in driving the vehicle in that manner the accused did so without having given any thought to the possibility of there being such risk or, having recognized that there was some FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 12 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi risk involved, had nonetheless gone on to take it,
5. the rash and negligent driving resulted into the death of the deceased which is not amounting to the culpable homicide, and
6. the rash or negligent act must be the proximate cause of injury of the injured.
32. It is no more res integra that the mere fact that an accident had taken place and some person/s had been injured can not lead to a conclusion of rash or negligent driving.
33. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to discuss the meaning of the expressions "rash" and "negligent". These words i.e "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. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment entitled "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1972 SC 685 as under :
34. "Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 13 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi 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."
35. In the matter entitled Niranjan Singh Vs State (Delhi Administration), 1997 Cri LJ 336, it has been observed that the main criteria for deciding whether the driving which lead to the accident was rash and negligent is not only speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard to the obligations of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a risk indifferent to harmful consequences resulting from it. In Mahammed Aynudin V. state of A. P., AIR 2000 SC 2511, it has been held:
"Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution for guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of the vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution".
36. Negligence is a tort as well as a crime and can be used for the purpose of fastening the defendant with the liability under a civil law and at times under the criminal law. To fasten the liability in a criminal law, the FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 14 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi degree of the negligence has to be higher than that of negligence to fasten the liability for damages in civil law.
37. In the present case, the case of the prosecution is that accused Amit had been driving the vehicle bearing no. UP13D5376 on a public way at high Speed and in rash or negligent manner. Entry of the transport vehicles on the said road was restricted during those hours. While driving the said vehicle in such manner, the accused had hit the complainant PW1 Md. Laiq and his son Danish and due to this his son had fallen down on the road and he sustained injuries. He was admitted in the hospital where he was declared brought dead.
38. Complainant PW1, in his evidence, has narrated the entire incident. The witness has categorically stated that the accused had been driving the abovesaid vehicle at fast speed in no entry zone. He has also stated that the vehicle all of a sudden had taken a turn and hit him and his son.
39. The witness has been crossexamined by the learned counsel for accused. However, nothing contradictory has come in his crossexamination so as to doubt his testimony.
FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 15 of 25PS Hauz Qazi
40. Similarly, PW2 Smt. Nuzahat, who is a public person, has also stated in her examination that she had seen that one truck had entered into no entry zone and hit one child. Father of the child had taken the child to hospital. She also identified the accused in the Court as driver of the offending vehicle. She also identified the offending vehicle in the Court. Nothing contradictory has come in her crossexamination also so as to doubt her testimony.
41. PW4 Aftab Alam is also an eye witness who has corroborated the testimonies of PWs 1 & 2. Similarly, PW6 Tahir Hussain is also an eye witness. These two witnesses have also deposed that the offending vehicle had come at very high speed in no entry zone and the truck had hit the boy who was taken to the hospital. These two witnesses have also stated that the accused was driving the offending vehicle and he had entered into No entry zone at fast speed and hit the said child. Nothing contradictory has come in the crossexamination of these two witnesses also.
42. During crossexamination, the suggestion has been given to the witnesses, interalia, that at the time of accident the vehicle was not at high speed and rickshaw and public persons were coming and going. It has been further suggested to the witnesses that the accused was FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 16 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi not driving the vehicle at the time of accident. However, the testimonies of the complainant and other public persons have proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant date, time and place. Thus the identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle has been established beyond reasonable doubts. It has also been established beyond reasonable doubts that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at a public place. There is nothing on Court record to show that the public persons examined by the prosecution were neighbors of the complainant and they were associated with the complainant in any manner. Therefore, no doubt could be raised on their testimonies.
43. The testimony of the complainant and other public witnesses have also proved that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at high speed on a public way at 7 :45 a.m., on 13.02.2006. The month of February in Delhi has shorter days and longer nights. During that month in Delhi, the time of sun rise is after 7 : 00 a.m. Thus time of 7 :45 a.m, is early time immediately after the sun rise. Further, it is not a time of rush hour of traffic. Markets in Delhi are not opened during that time. The office going traffic is also not present on the road during FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 17 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi that time period. Therefore, it is hard to believe that there was heavy traffic on the road at the relevant time. The burden was on the accused to prove the facts asserted by him that there was heavy traffic on the road. However, the accused has not led any evidence to prove that there was heavy traffic on the road due to which it was not possible to drive the offending vehicle at high speed. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary and in the circumstance mentioned herein above, I hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle at high speed.
44. The prosecution has relied upon the Gazette notification Ex.PW13/A to show that it was a no entry restriction on the said road during 24 hours of day. As per notification dated 11.02.2000, the road on Hauz Qazi area is having no entry restriction during 24 hours a day for heavy goods vehicle and medium goods vehicles. The offending vehicle is a tanker having gross weight of 12000 Kgs. Section 2 (16) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the definition of heavy goods vehicle. It provides that any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road roller the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12000 Kgs is a heavy goods vehicle. Section 2 (21) of the Act defines light motor vehicle as a transport vehicle FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 18 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi or Omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or a tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which does not exceeds 7500 Kgs. Section 2 (23) of the Act provides the definition of Medium goods vehicle as any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle. Thus, in the present case the offending vehicle was, without any doubts, was a medium goods vehicle. Hence, entry of this vehicle was restricted on the road in question for 24 hours on every day. The accused has not produced any permission from the concerned authority to drive the offending vehicle in no entry zone. Hence, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle in no entry zone.
45. It has come in the testimony of PW1 that while driving the offending vehicle the accused had taken a turn all of a sudden and hit the vehicle against him and his son. Thus, it has been established beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle on a public way at a high speed in no entry zone and at such speed he had taken a turn and hit the complainant and his son. No doubt driving of a vehicle at high speed in itself does not amount to driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner. However, as the evidence in FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 19 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi the present case would show, the accused was not only driving the vehicle at high speed, he had also taken a turn at high speed. This act of the accused proves beyond reasonable doubts that he was rash or negligent. There is duty of a driver to slow down the speed of his vehicle during taking turn as there are chances that there might be some obstacles after the turn and there might be persons also who could not see the vehicle as it was on another road. It is not possible to any human being to see the presence of a vehicle on a road which is not visible to him. However, the driver of the vehicle can always insure that no accident is taken place if he follows the rule of common sense that he has to take a turn at slow speed. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the driver of a vehicle to slow the speed of his vehicle, to give an indicator and only thereafter to take a turn so as to avoid any collusion. In the present case, however, the accused did not slow down his vehicle while taking turn due to which the accident had happened.
46. One of the argument of learned counsel for the accused is that the site plan has not been proved and therefore there are reasonable doubts on the case of the prosecution.
FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 20 of 25PS Hauz Qazi
47. I have considered the submissions. Perusal of record would show that the site plan is shown to be prepared by the IO. However, the IO had expired before he could have been examined as a witness in the present case. I am of the considered opinion that non exhibition of the site plan can not be a ground of acquittal of the accused. Even though site plan has not been proved by any witness, however, the testimonies of the eye witnesses are sufficient to prove that the accused had taken a turn at high speed and hit the victim. Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence. A site plan is prepared only to explain the circumstances of the spot in question. Once the testimonies of the eye witnesses have proved the circumstances of the spot without any reasonable doubts, the fact that site plan could not be proved can not come to the rescue of the accused. I get strength from the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prithvi Vs. Mamraj (2004) 13 SCC 279. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in said case has held that site plan is not a ground to disbelieve the otherwise credible testimony of eye witnesses.
48. It has also come on record that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle without having valid driving license required to drive a medium goods FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 21 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi vehicle. The driving license seized by the IO is on record, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/E. Perusal of DL would show that it is valid to drive motorcycle and car only. Thus, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused did not have any valid driving license to drive a transport/goods vehicle. Even though there is no presumption in law that a person who does not have driving license necessarily does not know driving vehicles. However, in the present case the offending vehicle was a medium goods vehicle. The drivers of such vehicles require special training and skills to drive safely such vehicles. In the present case the accused had not brought on record any material to show, even on the preponderance of probabilities, that he had been driving such a vehicle for a long time and therefore he was having necessary skills to drive such a vehicle on a public way.
49. In the present case also thus, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the offending vehicle i.e., a medium goods vehicle on a public way without having necessary training and skills required to drive such a vehicle and that he had taken a turn at high speed without having given any thought to the possibility of their being any risk of presence of any person on the road after taking the turn.
FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 22 of 25PS Hauz Qazi Thus, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accident had been caused by rash or negligent driving of the accused at a public place and his rash or negligent act had resulted into injuries to victim Danish.
50. It has been proved on record that victim child was declared brought dead in the hospital. The postmortem report is Ex. C3. The cause of death is "due to hemorrhage and shock consequent upon blunt force surface impact to abdomen and pelvis. All the injuries are shown to be antemortem and recent which could be possible in a road side vehicular accident". The MLC of Md. Danish is Ex. C2. The identification memo of the dead body is Ex. PW5/A. All the abovementioned material on Court record has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the child had died due to injuries caused to him in accident as abovementioned and that the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of injury of the child (since deceased).
51. The prosecution has also proved beyond reasonable doubts that the permit of the offending vehicle was not valid on the date of the accident. PW12 had brought the record relating to the permit of the offending vehicle. As per the record, it has been shown that the during the period w.e.f., 07.01.2006 to 14.02.2006 the FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 23 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi offending vehicle did not have any valid permit to run in Delhi. Thus, on the date of incident i.e., on 13.02.2006 there was no valid permit of the offending vehicle. Hence, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle in Delhi without having a valid permit as required under Section 66 of the MV Act. Section 192A of the Act provides the punishment for using a vehicle without having any permit. Similarly, it has been proved that the accused was driving the offending vehicle without valid driving license as provided under Section 3 of the Act. Driving a vehicle without having a valid driving license is an offence punishment for which is provided under Section 181 of the Act. Further, it has also been proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle in violation of notification issued by State Government under Section 115 of the Act, which is offence punishable under Section 194 of the Act.
52. In the light of the discussions hereinabove, I hold that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 279/304A, IPC, beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution has also proved all the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 3/181, 66/192A and 115/194, the MV Act. The guilt of FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 24 of 25 PS Hauz Qazi the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused Amit @ Amit Kumar is found guilty and he is accordingly convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304A, IPC and under Section 3/181, 66/192A and 115/194, the MV Act.
53. The Convict be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
54. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost. Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2018.07.04 16:21:28 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court on Dinesh Kumar this 4th day of July, 2018. MM08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.FIR No. 60/06 State Vs Amit Page 25 of 25
PS Hauz Qazi