Delhi District Court
State vs Gurpreet Singh on 22 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-07, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 66490/2016
Unique Case ID No. -: DLWT020048052015
FIR No. -: 516/2014
Police Station -: Tilak Nagar
Section(s) -: 279/338 IPC & 3/181
M.V. Act
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
GURPREET SINGH
.... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Sh. Harinder Kumar Mehta
2. Name of Accused Persons : Gurpreet Singh
Offence complained of or
3. : 279/338 IPC & 3/181 M.V. Act
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of registration of FIR : 16.05.2014
Date of filing of
6. : 11.05.2015
chargesheet
7. Date of Reserving Order : 02.09.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025
9. Final Order : Acquitted
Argued by -: Sh. Vakil Ahmad, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. R.K. Mishra, Ld. LAC for accused
Digitally signed
ANEEZA BISHNOI
by ANEEZA
BISHNOI Date: 2025.09.22
16:12:09 +0530
Cr. Case No.66490/2016 State vs. Gurpreet Singh Page 1 of 9
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.05.2014 at about 04:00 PM, in front of H.No. 13/33A, Tilak Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Tilak Nagar, the accused is alleged to have been driving a motorcycle bearing no. DL-10SG-5759, make Honda Red Colour, in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life. Further, on the above said date, time and place, it has been alleged that the accused while driving the abovesaid vehicle in the aforementioned manner, struck against the complainant namely Harinder Kumar Mehta as a result of which complainant sustained grievous injuries, and thereby, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence u/s 279/338 IPC. Further, on the above said date, time and place, it has been alleged that the accused while driving the abovesaid vehicle in the aforementioned manner without driving licence, and thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offence u/s 3/181 M.V. Act.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED -
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, charge-sheet against the accused was filed. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
3. On her appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused, charge under Sections 279/338 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. ANEEZA by Digitally signed ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date: 2025.09.22 16:12:16 +0530 Cr. Case No.66490/2016 State vs. Gurpreet Singh Page 2 of 9 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE -
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : Varsha Mehta PW-2 : Dr. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava PW-4 : Retd. SI Ramphal Singh PW-5 : Retd. SI Devender PW-6 : HC Ishwar DW-1 : Accused Gurpreet Singh DW-2 : Charanjeet Singh DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW-2/A : MLC of patient Ex. PW-2/B : Final opinion on MLC Ex. PW-4/A : Rukka Ex. PW-4/B : Site plan Ex. PW-4/C : Seizure memo Ex. PW-4/D : Arrest memo Ex. PW-4/E : Personal search memo Ex. PW-4/F : RC of offending vehicle Ex. PW-4/G : Seizure memo of RC Ex. PW-4/H : Marksheet of accused Ex. PW-5/A : Inspection report Ex. P1 (colly) : Photographs of offending vehicle Ex. AD-1 : FIR Ex. AD-2 : Endorsement on Rukka Ex. AD-3 : Certificate u/s 65B I.E. Act Ex. AD-4 : DD No.39B Ex. AD-5 : School A certificate of accused Cr. Case No.66490/2016 State vs. Gurpreet Singh Page 3 of 9 Digitally signed by ANEEZA ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date:
2025.09.22 16:12:22 +0530 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED-
5. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against her, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC. The accused stated that it is a false case which has been filed against him. He is innocent. He is falsely implicated in the present case with the connivance of complainant and IO. He only stopped at the alleged place of accident in order to help the injured and no accident was committed by him. Also, it was the father of accused who was driving the motorcycle and accused was sitting at the back seat and was not driving the motorcycle at that time. All the prosecutions witnesses have deposed at the instance of complainant. He is innocent and has not done no wrong.
ARGUMENTS -
6. I have heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
7. It is argued by the learned APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further argued that it has been alleged by the prosecution that accused was driving without DL, however in the defence, accused and his father have clearly Cr. Case No.66490/2016 State vs. Gurpreet Singh Page 4 of 9 Digitally signed by ANEEZA ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date:
2025.09.22 16:12:28 +0530 stated that it was his father who was driving the motorcycle and not the accused. Further, it is also argued that nowhere in the FIR or the other documents in the charge-sheet has the name of Varsha, wife of victim, has been mentioned by the prosecution and it was only at the stage of prosecution evidence that she was brought as an eye- witness to the alleged accident. It is argued that it can be inferred from this that the prosecution is trying to improve their case by adding her name to the list of witnesses at a later stage. It is further argued that the complainant in the case was never cross-examined on behalf of accused and hence his testimony will not hold any merit as the accused did not get the opportunity to defend himself. Further, the prosecution witnesses have made contradictory statements and no eye-witness to the alleged accident has been brought forth to corroborated their allegations. It is submitted that the accused has been wrongly made an accused in this case and this is a fit case of acquittal.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE -
9. The accused has been charged for the offences of rash driving on public way (S. 279 IPC), causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others (section 338 IPC). Whereas under Section 279 IPC, the factum of rash or negligent driving likely to endanger human life or cause hurt etc. is in itself the offence, section 338 IPC punishes the act of causing hurt caused by a rash or negligent act endangering human life or personal safety of others. Accordingly, even u/s 338 IPC, rash or negligent act is an essential ingredient of the offence. Accordingly, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the Cr. Case No.66490/2016 State vs. Gurpreet Singh Page 5 of 9 Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI ANEEZA Date:
BISHNOI 2025.09.22 16:12:34 +0530 accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, and due to such driving of the accused, the victim suffered grievous injuries.
10. Thus, the gravamen of the offences under Section 279/338 IPC is the act of the accused, done with "rashness" or "negligence". The IPC does not define either of these terms. However, the ambit of these terms has now been settled by judicial pronouncements of superior Courts. In Empress of India v. Idu Beg ILR (1881) 3 All 776, the term "rashness" was interpreted to mean commission of an act with indifference or recklessness towards the consequences of such act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 474 has observed, inter alia, as under-:
"7. .... 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. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
8. As noted above, "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 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 Cr. Case No.66490/2016 State vs. Gurpreet Singh Page 6 of 9 Digitally signed by ANEEZA ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date:
2025.09.22 16:12:39 +0530 circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
11. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Ansal v. CBI (2014) 6 SCC
173. The standard of negligence was discussed in the said case, by observing, inter alia, as under-:
"58. In the case of "negligence" the courts have favoured a meaning which implies a gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge arises, it may be the imperative duty of the accused to have adopted. Negligence has been understood to be an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. Unlike rashness, where the imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness, negligence implies acting without such consciousness, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him. The imputability in the case of negligence arises from the neglect of the civil duty of circumspection."
12. Thus, rashness implies doing an act despite the consciousness that it might result in injuries. Negligence, on the other hand, means lack of reasonable care that a person placed is the fact situation ought to take, in order to avoid injuries.
13. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE -
14. PW-1/Varsha Mehta who is the wife of complainant, Cr. Case No.66490/2016 State vs. Gurpreet Singh Digitally signed Page 7 of 9 by ANEEZA ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date:
2025.09.22 16:12:44 +0530 has nowhere been named in the FIR or charge-sheet as to be present at the spot of alleged accident. Further, neither her statement has been recorded by the police officials nor has she been cross- examined by the prosecution witness, as she had expired before she could be cross-examined on behalf of accused.
15. Further, PW-2/Dr. Rajendr Kumar is not the eye- witness to the alleged accident and has only treated the injured.
16. PW-4/Retd. SI Ramphal has deposed that he responded to the intimation of accident by reaching at the spot of accident, however he has not mentioned that PW-1 i.e. Varsha Mehta was present there. Further, he has not made any other public person as a witness in the present case, even-though the alleged accident took place at about 04:00 PM at a busy road with public present there. He has also admitted he has not given notice to any of the public persons present at the spot of alleged accident.
17. PW-5 was the mechanical expert and has stated that he was not the eye-witness to the alleged accident.
18. PW-6/HC Ishwar has nowhere stated that PW-1 i.e. Varsha Mehta was present at the spot of accident at the time of accident and that she was the eye-witness of the alleged accident. He also have failed to cite any public witness to corroborate the prosecution story even the accident took place at a busy road in the afternoon.
19. In defence, the accused deposed as DW-1 and stated that on oath that he was not driving the motorcycle and it was his father who driving the same and they only stopped to help the injured on the road and he was in turn made the accused. His deposition was duly supported by DW-2 who is the father of accused Cr. Case No.66490/2016 State vs. Gurpreet Singh Page 8 of 9 Digitally signed ANEEZA by ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date: 2025.09.22 16:12:50 +0530 who stated that it was he who was driving the motorcycle and they only stopped to help the injured and in turn they were made accused.
20. Further, no photographs of alleged place of accident or of the skid marks present on the road caused due to alleged accident have been placed on record by the prosecution.
21. Based on the aforesaid discussion and the material on record, the commission of the offences and their essential ingredients cannot be proved. The doubtful testimony of the prosecution witnesses has not proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
-:CONCLUSION:-
22. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offences under Section 279/338 IPC & 3/181 M.V. Act beyond reasonable doubt. The basis of the offences charged in the present case is rash or negligent driving of the accused. The testimony of the star witness is doubtful and does not prove the essential ingredients of the offence. Further, there are material defects in the investigation and hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
23. Resultantly, the prosecution has failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. As such, the accused Gurpreet Singh S/o Sh. Charanjeet Singh is hereby found not guilty. She is ACQUITTED of the offences under Section 279/338 IPC & 3/181 M.V. Act.
Pronounced in open court on 22.09.2025 in presence of the accused. This judgment contains 10 pages, and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by ANEEZAANEEZA BISHNOI Date: BISHNOI 2025.09.22 16:12:55 (Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi) Judicial Magistrate First Class-07 +0530 West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi/22.09.2025 Cr. Case No.66490/2016 State vs. Gurpreet Singh Page 9 of 9