Delhi District Court
State vs Manohar Lal on 25 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA Courts : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 107/2023
FIR No. 116/2019
Police Station Shastri Park
Under Section 304/308 IPC and 185 of M. V. Act
Instituted on 30.05.2023
Argued on 01.09.2025
Decided on 25.09.2025
Final Order Convicted
State Vs. Manohar Lal
S/o Radhey Lal,
R/o House No.B-37, Gali No.9,
Rana Ji Enclave, Nagli Dairy,
Najafgarh Road, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this Judgment, this Court shall decide the charges leveled against accused Manohar Lal under sections 304/308 IPC and 185 of M. V. Act. Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 page 1 of 37 16:42:23 +0530
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.03.2019, on receipt of DD No. 3A and 4A, HC Naresh Vir along with Constable Yogesh reached the front of Dharampura Red Light, where a truck bearing No. DL1G2070 in a damaged condition was found. A crowd had gathered there and informed that the injured persons had been taken to JPC Hospital. Manohar Lal, the driver of the truck, was apprehended. The SHO of PS Shastri Park also reached the spot. Information was given to the MACT Cell. SI Rajender Singh from the MACT Cell reached JPC Hospital and collected five MLCs pertaining to Jahid Hussain, Chander, Mehraj, Jameel Ahmad, and Danish, out of which two persons, namely Jahid Hussain and Chander, were declared dead. Jameel Ahmad was referred to the Trauma Centre, while Mehraj and Danish were found present at JPC Hospital. The statements of Danish and Mehraj were recorded. The dead bodies of Jahid Hussain and Chander were sent to the mortuary at GTB Hospital for postmortem. Mehraj and Danish later reached the spot. The said truck was seized. On the basis of the MLCs, the present case was registered. Accused Manohar Lal was arrested. Relevant documents were prepared and the statements of witnesses were recorded. On 12.07.2019, the IO/Inspector Raj Kumar Sharma filed the charge sheet.
A. Charges
3. Vide order dated 01.08.2023, charges were framed against accused Manohar Lal for offences under sections 304/308 IPC and section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accused has pleaded not guilty to the said Digitally charges. signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:42:32 +0530 SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal page 2 of 37 B. Prosecution Evidence:-
4. Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in this case.
5. PW1 HC Nareshveer deposed that on 18.09.2019, upon receiving DD Nos. 3A, 4A, and 5A, he, along with Constable Yogesh, proceeded to the spot near Dharamshala Red Light, where a truck bearing registration number DL1GC-2070 was found in an accidental condition. PW1 further deposed that a crowd had gathered at the scene and had apprehended the driver of the said truck, who was identified as Manohar Lal. PW1 came to know that the injured had been shifted to JPC Hospital. He handed over the driver Manohar Lal to the SHO, who had also arrived at the spot along with other staff. He further deposed that thereafter, PW1, along with Constable Yogesh, proceeded to JPC Hospital, where two of the injured persons, namely Zahid and Chander, were declared dead, while a third injured person was found under treatment. PW1 informed the MACT Cell, pursuant to which SI Rajender arrived at the hospital. The statement of PW1 was then recorded.
6. In his cross-examination, PW1 deposed that he had received the information at about 12:20 a.m. He and Constable Yogesh proceeded to the spot on foot, and their departure was recorded through the aforesaid DD entries. He further stated that his statement was recorded on the same day.
7. PW2 HC Jitender Kumar deposed that on 18.03.2019, he was on night emergency duty with SI Rajender Prasad, their duty hours being from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. At about 12:00 midnight, one call was received Digitally SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal signed by TWINKLE page 3 of 37 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:42:40 +0530 by SI Rajender regarding a fatal accident, pursuant to which they went to JPC Hospital. There, IO/SI Rajender collected three MLCs of the injured persons, namely Jameel Ahmad, Mehraj, and Danish, and two MLCs of Zahid Hussain and Chander (both deceased) from the concerned doctor. On the two MLCs, the concerned doctor had declared Zahid Hussain and Chander as "brought dead." He further deposed that thereafter, the dead bodies of the deceased were sent to the GTB Hospital mortuary for preservation through Constable Yogesh. Thereafter, PW2 along with the IO reached the spot, i.e., Dharampura Red Light, Shastri Park, where they found one truck (bearing registration no. DL-1GC-2070) parked near the Dharampura Red Light in an accidental condition. PW2 further deposed that the IO seized the said truck vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. The IO then prepared a tehrir and handed over the same to PW2 for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, PW2 took the tehrir to the PS and got the FIR registered.
8. PW2 further deposed that the IO informed him that he was going to GTB Hospital for conducting the postmortem of the deceased persons. As there was some technical error in the PS computer, the FIR could not be lodged immediately. Once the system started functioning, the FIR was registered. In the meantime, the IO himself reached the PS along with accused Manohar Lal, and PW2 handed over the copy of the FIR and the original tehrir to him. He further deposed that thereafter, the IO interrogated the accused, arrested him, and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C respectively. The IO also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex.PW2/D. Thereafter, the accused produced a copy of his Digitally SC No. 107/2023 page 4 of 37 signed by State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:42:48 +0530 driving license, which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/E. During his testimony, PW2 identified the accused in court. PW2 further deposed that the IO recorded his statement. PW2 also identified seven photographs of the said truck bearing registration no. DL-1GC-2070, which are Ex.P1 (colly).
9. In his cross-examination, PW2 deposed that he reached the spot with the IO at about 1:00-1:30 a.m. by the IO's personal motorcycle. The IO had prepared the tehrir himself. No statement of any person was recorded by the IO in his presence at the hospital. PW2 deposed that he reached the PS on foot at about 4:30 a.m. with the tehrir. No one met them at the spot, and even no police official was present there when they reached. PW2 further affirmed that there was also a call regarding an accident between a car and a TSR on the same day, very near to the spot. He further deposed that he could not say whether any CCTV cameras were installed there, and that the IO made no effort to trace the said car or TSR in his presence. PW2 affirmed that public persons usually passed through the spot, and that it was a crowded area with several small shops and jhuggies nearby. He further deposed that the truck was parked facing towards the Ghaziabad side of the road, and blood was visible at the spot.
10. PW3 Retired SI Rajender Prasad deposed that on 18.03.2019, he received a call vide DD No. 2 regarding a fatal accident. Thereafter, he along with HC Jitender went to JPC Hospital, where he collected five MLCs from the concerned doctor, out of which two patients, namely Zahid and Chander @ Bahadur, were declared "brought dead." PW3 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal 2025.09.25 16:42:53 page 5 of 37 +0530 further deposed that patient Jameel was referred to a higher centre for further treatment. The injured persons, namely Danish and Mehraj, met PW3 in the hospital as they were undergoing treatment. PW3 further deposed that he recorded the statement of Danish in the hospital (Ex.PW3/A) and, on that basis, prepared rukka (Ex.PW3/B), which was handed over to HC Jitender for registration of the FIR. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, he sent the two dead bodies to the GTB Hospital mortuary for preservation through one Constable. He further deposed that he, along with Danish and Mehraj, then went to the spot near Khatta, main road, Shastri Park, towards Shahdara, on the right side of PS Shastri Park, where he clicked photographs of the spot from different angles through his mobile phone. PW3 further deposed that he prepared the site plan at the instance of Danish and Mehraj (Ex.PW3/C). The offending vehicle, i.e., truck Eicher bearing registration no. DL-1LC-2070, was found parked at the spot. PW3 took possession of the said truck vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A and deposited it in the malkhana. PW3 further deposed that he sent accused Manohar Lal, who was present at the spot, in the custody of Ct. Vikas to JPC Hospital for his medical examination. In the meantime, HC Jitender came to the spot after registration of the FIR and handed over a copy of the FIR and the original tehrir to PW3. PW3, along with HC Jitender, thereafter went to GTB Hospital mortuary, where the postmortem of the dead bodies of deceased Zahid and Chander was conducted on his request.
11. PW3 further deposed that prior to the postmortem, the dead bodies were duly identified by the family members of the deceased. He Digitally signed by SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE page 6 of 37 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:42:59 +0530 prepared the identification memos in this regard, already admitted as Ex.A13 and Ex.A14, and Ex.PW3/C1, Ex.PW3/C2, and Ex.PW3/C3. PW3 further deposed that after the postmortem, the dead bodies of the deceased persons were handed over to their family members vide receipts of dead bodies Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E, respectively. PW3, along with HC Jitender, then returned to the PS. He further deposed that thereafter, he interrogated the accused Manohar Lal, arrested him, and personally searched him vide memos Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. PW3 further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo already Ex.PW2/D. He further deposed that the accused produced a copy of his driving licence, which was seized by PW3 vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/E. PW3 further deposed that the accused was produced before the concerned court and was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, PW3 deposited the case file with MHC(R) of PS Shastri Park, as police officials posted in the MACT Cell did not investigate matters under Section 304 IPC. During investigation, PW3 recorded the statements of witnesses. During his testimony, he identified the accused and also identified seven photographs of the said truck bearing registration no. DL-1GC-2070.
12. In his cross-examination, PW3 deposed that he received the call on 18.03.2019 at about 2:00-2:30 a.m. He reached the spot on his personal motorcycle. Thereafter, he went to JPC Hospital, where he met the injured Danish and Mehraj. Victims Zahid and Chander were declared dead, and victim Junaid had been referred to a higher centre and was not present when PW3 reached the hospital. PW3 further deposed that he recorded the statement of injured Danish at the hospital at about Digitally signed by SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE page 7 of 37 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:43:23 +0530 4:00-4:30 a.m. He sent HC Jitender to the PS for registration of the FIR, after which he came to the spot. PW3 further deposed that he reached the spot along with injured Danish at around 6:30-7:00 a.m. No person was present at the spot at that time. He prepared the site plan at the instance of Danish. PW3 further deposed that the offending vehicle was found facing the Shahdara side. He also noticed some blood spots at the spot. The offending truck was parked about 15-20 feet ahead of the blood spots. PW3 further deposed that no shops were located near the spot at that time. He affirmed that another accident had earlier taken place between a car and an auto just prior to the present incident, but he did not inquire into the registration number of the car or auto. PW3 further deposed that he recorded the statement of Danish as a public witness because he had also witnessed the incident and was injured during the same. He also recorded the statements of police witnesses, i.e., the IO from PS Shastri Park and other accompanying staff. PW3 further deposed that he went to GTB Hospital at about 10:00-10:30 a.m., where the postmortem of the deceased victims was to be conducted. At the hospital, PW3 met one Raj Guru, who was a relative of deceased Chander. PW3 further deposed that the accused met him at PS Shastri Park, where he was interrogated. At about 2:00 p.m., PW3 again reached PS Shastri Park, where he interrogated accused Manohar. PW3 further deposed that he instructed that the offending truck be brought to the PS, and at about 6:00 a.m., the same was brought and deposited in the malkhana.
13. PW4 Retired Inspector Raj Kumar deposed that on 19.03.2019, the present case file was marked to him for further investigation. PW4 Digitally SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal signed by page 8 of 37 TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:43:33 +0530 went through the file and the documents annexed thereto. He prepared documents with regard to the postmortem of deceased Jameel Ahmed, which was conducted on 19.03.2019 at the Department of Forensic Medicine, GTB Hospital, Delhi. PW4 further deposed that the postmortem report of Jameel Ahmed is Ex.A-7. The dead body was handed over to his relatives, and PW4 recorded the statements of witnesses. He further deposed that on the same day, he got the mechanical inspection of the offending truck no. DL-1GC-2070 conducted. PW4 deposed that the said truck was stationed at the premises of PS Shastri Park, as it had already been seized by the earlier IO. His request in this regard is Ex.PW4/A. PW4 further deposed that the mechanical inspection was conducted by Sh. Manohar Lal Dhyani, who prepared the report and handed the same over to PW4.
14. He further deposed that on 21.03.2019, he served a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act upon Lalit Malik, the owner of the offending vehicle (Ex.PW4/B). In response to the notice, Lalit Malik appeared at the PS on 22.03.2019 and submitted his reply (Ex.A-9). He further deposed that the owner also produced photocopies of the permit, fitness, and insurance of the offending vehicle, which were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. The owner also produced the copy of the RC of the offending vehicle, which was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D. PW4 further deposed that he got the aforesaid documents verified from the concerned authorities. The copy of the RC is Ex.PW4/E, insurance is Ex.PW4/F, permit is Ex.PW4/G, and certificate of fitness is Ex.PW4/H. Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal 2025.09.25 page 9 of 37 16:43:42 +0530
15. PW4 further deposed that he deposited the MLCs of injured Danish and Mehraj at GTB Hospital for obtaining the final opinion. The doctor opined that Danish had suffered grievous injuries, while Mehraj had suffered simple injuries. PW4 placed the said MLCs on the file. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was released to its owner after the order of the concerned court, on superdari. The certified copy of the superdarinama order is Ex.PW4/I. PW4 also prepared a panchnama of the offending truck bearing no. DL-1GC-2070 before its release on superdari, which is Ex.PW4/J-1. He further deposed that the said proceedings were recorded and photographed, and the same were placed on record in a CD, which is Ex.PW4/J-2. After showing the photographs of the offending truck, PW4 stated that the truck bearing registration no. DL-1GC-2070 was released on superdari to its owner Lalit Malik. He further deposed that the photographs are collectively Ex.P1. PW4 also called eyewitnesses Mehraj and Danish to PS Shastri Park and recorded their statements. He further deposed that he got the driving licence of accused Manohar Lal verified. After completion of the investigation, PW4 prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the court.
16. In his cross-examination, PW4 deposed that he got the postmortem of Jameel conducted. He affirmed that he had moved an application for the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle. He further deposed that there is overwriting at two places in the number of the vehicle in the Mechanical Inspection Report Ex.PW6/A. (Vol. Sometimes, due to work pressure, such mistakes might occur. The vehicle number "2070"
is correct, but the overwriting is only in the portion written in English Digitally SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal signed by TWINKLE page 10 of 37 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:43:49 +0530 alphabets "DL1GC.") PW4 affirmed that he had appeared before the court at the time of hearing of the bail application of the accused. He further affirmed that initially the FIR was registered under Section 304 IPC, which was later converted to Section 304A IPC. Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet was filed under Section 308 IPC. PW4 further deposed that the earlier IO had got the accused medically examined, but he did not cite the said doctor as a witness in this case. He also deposed that the previous IO did not get the blood sample of the accused tested to ascertain whether he was drunk. PW4 further deposed that he himself did not prepare the site plan.
17. PW4 further deposed that on 19.03.2019, he reached the spot. At that time, there was no CCTV camera installed. He affirmed that there are residential houses near the spot. He further affirmed that he did not ask any resident of the area whether they had witnessed the incident, as he visited the spot two days after the occurrence. PW4 affirmed that there is a temple (mandir) near the spot, where one pujari stays at night. He further affirmed that no residential house is situated within 200 meters of the alleged spot, though Danish resides approximately 100-150 meters away. He further deposed that he went to the spot only once.
PW4 recorded the statement of Danish at his house. He clarified that he did not record the statement of Rajguru, as the same had already been recorded by the previous IO.
18. PW5 Danish deposed that in the intervening night of 17/18.03.2019, he was at his house when he heard a commotion. He came outside and saw that a collision had taken place between a Swift car and an auto. He Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal 16:43:57 +0530 page 11 of 37 further deposed that the auto had toppled, and the driver of the Swift car had fled. Three to four persons who were inside the auto were taken out. PW5 stated that he was asking them whether they had sustained injuries. A crowd had assembled there. The incident of collision had occurred near Shastri Park Red Light. He further deposed that suddenly, a truck came from the side of Kashmere Gate at a high speed and drove into the crowd that had assembled. The truck bearing registration No. DL-1GC-2070 was driven by the accused Manohar Lal (correctly identified by the witness). Several persons, including PW5, sustained injuries. PW5 further stated that police officials arrived at the spot. The truck driver was apprehended there and was under the influence of liquor. On interrogation, he disclosed his name as Manohar Lal. The injured persons, including PW5, were taken to JPC Hospital. His statement was recorded at the PS (Ex. PW5/A).
19. PW5 further deposed that the accused was driving the truck at a very high speed and struck the crowd standing there without giving them any time to disperse. PW5 sustained a fracture in his left hand. He further stated that later, after receiving treatment from the hospital, he went to PS Shastri Park and identified the driver who had been driving the aforesaid truck. The accused was arrested in the present case, and PW5 signed the documents prepared by the IO. He identified his signatures on the arrest memo (Ex. PW2/B) and personal search memo (Ex. PW2/C). He also identified seven photographs of the offending truck bearing registration No. DL-1GC-2070, collectively Ex. P1. PW5 further stated that he had shown the place of incident to the police officials, and the site plan was prepared at his instance (Ex. PW3/C).
Digitally SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal signed by page 12 of 37 TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:44:04 +0530 The offending truck was also seized.
20. In his cross-examination, PW5 deposed that at the time of the incident, he was working in aluminium fabrication. Generally, he goes for work at around 10:00 a.m. and returns at around 6:00 p.m. He further deposed that on 18.03.2019, he was at his house and had not gone to work. The distance between the place of incident and his house was around 100 meters. His house is situated in a gali and faces the road. PW5 affirmed that he was not an eyewitness to the accident between the Swift car and the auto. He did not remember the registration numbers of either the auto or the Swift car. He further deposed that about five minutes after hearing the commotion, he reached the spot. He found the auto present there. PW5 stated that he removed some injured persons from the auto; around 3-4 persons were present inside, out of whom three were injured. He admitted that he did not make a call at 100 number. He did not remember the number of injured men and women. He further deposed that he did not himself take the injured to the hospital (Vol. the injured persons were shifted to the hospital in another auto).
21. PW5 further deposed that the auto driver was not known to him, and he did not catch hold of the auto driver. About 6-7 persons apart from him were present at the spot, who were from nearby houses in the gali. He did not remember their names. PW5 deposed that the accident had occurred on the road itself. The auto driver left the spot with his auto about ten minutes after the accident, once the injured were removed. He further deposed that the offending truck arrived about two minutes after Digitally signed by TWINKLE SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
page 13 of 37 2025.09.25 16:44:13 +0530 the auto had left. PW5 stated that he saw only one person in the truck, namely the driver. He did not remember the clothes the driver was wearing. He further deposed that about five persons were present at the spot when the truck arrived. The truck did not stop and directly hit them. PW5 further deposed that the truck hit all the persons at once, and he could not say who sustained injuries first. He admitted that he did not make any call after the truck hit them. Some local persons gathered and managed to stop the truck. Police reached the spot within ten minutes. PW5 further deposed that he did not know who informed the police. He did not remember the number of police officials who came. He was taken to the hospital in an ambulance but did not know who had called it. He did not remember the time he reached the hospital. He returned home from the hospital at around 2:00 a.m. He further deposed that police later called him to the PS, but he did not remember the date. His statements were recorded both at the hospital and at the PS. He was again called to the PS the next day. PW5 further deposed that he had visited the PS 2-3 times and had accompanied the police to the spot. He further deposed that he had seen the offending truck stationed at the PS after the incident.
22. PW5 further deposed that he did not notice any blood marks on the tyres of the truck. However, he had seen blood at the spot and had shown it to the police in the daytime. He did not remember the exact time. PW5 denied that the truck bearing no. DL-1GC-2070 had not committed any accident or that he had deposed at the instance of the police. He denied that he sustained injuries in the accident between the Swift car and the auto. He denied that the auto driver was known to him Digitally SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal signed by TWINKLE page 14 of 37 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:44:19 +0530 and, therefore, he did not implicate him. He denied that the other injured persons allegedly hit by the truck were actually in the auto. He denied that he never accompanied the police to the spot. PW5 further denied that there was a temple on the road itself, or that houses were situated adjoining the temple, or that a family resided on the ground floor of the temple premises. He denied that there were many shops adjoining the road which remained open late at night. He denied that there was a 15-feet-wide service road between the main road and the gali.
23. At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the accused pointed out the site plan Ex. PW3/C to the witness. The witness admitted that the site plan was prepared by the police in his presence but not at his instance. He could not comment on the service road or patri shown in the site plan.
24. PW5 further deposed that the other injured persons also reached the hospital with him in the ambulance. PW5 knew one person, namely Miraj. In that ambulance, Miraj, PW5, and his family members went to the hospital. He further deposed that his family members reached the spot within five minutes. PW5 generally goes to sleep at 2:00 a.m. and denied working at home until that time. He further deposed that on the next day of the incident, he saw the truck driver in the PS in the morning, and the police officials told him that Manohar Lal was the driver of the offending vehicle. He further deposed that when the public pulled Manohar Lal down from the truck, he was drunk and had fallen on the ground. However, PW5 denied having told this fact to the police. PW5 denied that the accused Manohar Lal was not drunk. He also Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal 2025.09.25 16:44:29 page 15 of 37 +0530 deposed that no horn was blown by the truck driver. He denied that they had falsely implicated the accused. He denied that Manohar Lal had himself stopped the truck due to the crowd gathered after the accident between the Swift car and the auto. He further deposed that police had recorded his statement in this case but he could not say whether statements of other witnesses were recorded. He further deposed that the truck was seized by the police in his presence at about 12:15 a.m. He could not tell when the truck was taken to the PS or which police official drove it. He further deposed that no photographer was called in his presence.
25. PW5 further deposed that he had told the police officials that Miraj had also witnessed the incident. No one else besides Miraj and PW5 had witnessed the accident. PW5 denied that he had received injuries in the accident between the Swift car and the auto. He denied that, since the registration number of the Swift car could not be noted, they falsely implicated the accused who was driving the truck. PW5 denied that the offending vehicle was driven by the accused Manohar Lal at a normal speed while following traffic rules or that they had stopped the said vehicle to falsely implicate him in order to claim compensation under the MACT Act.
26. PW6 Retired SI Manohar Lal Dhyani deposed that on 19.09.2019, on the request of IO Inspector Raj Kumar, he conducted the mechanical inspection of truck No. DL1GC-2070, make EICHER, at PS Shastri Park and found fresh damages on the vehicle, namely: (i) front body center portion dented, (ii) front show grill plastic broken, and (iii) left Digitally signed by SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE page 16 of 37 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:44:40 +0530 headlight glasses broken. All control systems of the vehicle were found in working condition and roadworthy. The request of the IO is Ex. PW4/A. The detailed report of PW6 is Ex. PW6/A. PW6 identified the aforesaid vehicle from the photograph.
27. In his cross-examination, PW6 deposed that he did not have any instrument to check whether the damage was fresh or old. (Vol. He observed this on the basis of experience). The dent visible on the front body of the said vehicle was at a height of approximately 5-6 feet from the road. Again said: 4-5 feet. The inspection report was prepared in his own handwriting. It is correct that there is some overwriting in the vehicle number written in alphabets in his report. The request of the IO for mechanical inspection, Ex. PW4/A, also contains overwriting in the alphabetical part of the vehicle number.
28. PW7 Bantu deposed that deceased Bahadur @ Chander was his uncle, who expired on 18.03.2019. On that day, PW7 went to GTB Hospital, Mortuary, and identified the body of his uncle. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them. Police recorded his statement regarding identification of the dead body, which is Ex. PW3/C2.
29. In his cross-examination, PW7 deposed that his deceased uncle used to reside with them and was engaged in brush manufacturing work from home. He had no children. His aunt (wife of the deceased uncle) had been living separately for many years. She was informed about the death of her husband. Rajguru is his elder brother. The witness identified his signature on the receipt of the dead body, Ex. PW3/D. The deceased Bahadur was not his real uncle but was the cousin of his Digitally signed by TWINKLE SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE WADHWA page 17 of 37 WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:44:45 +0530 father. PW7 came to know about the accident of his deceased uncle from his cousin.
30. PW8 Raj Rana deposed that deceased Bahadur @ Chander was his uncle, who expired on 18.03.2019. On that day, he went to GTB Hospital, Mortuary, and identified the body of his uncle. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them. Police recorded his statement regarding identification of the dead body, which is Ex. PW3/C1. The receipt of the dead body is Ex. PW3/D.
31. In his cross-examination, PW8 deposed that the deceased was his real uncle, who used to reside with them and worked as a labourer. His wife was living separately. She was informed about the death of her husband and came to Delhi several days later. Rajguru is his real brother, who filed a MACT claim regarding the death of Bahadur. PW8 came to know about the death of his uncle. The distance between his house and the place of the accident was less than 1 kilometre. His uncle Bahadur generally used to return home daily by 9:00-10:00 p.m., though at times, he stayed overnight at the Mandir.
32. PW9 SI Parvesh Kumar deposed that in April 2023, the further investigation of this case was assigned to him. He perused the file and found that the present FIR had been registered under Sections 304/323 IPC, while the main chargesheet had already been filed under Sections 279/304A/337/338 IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further deposed that after filing of the main chargesheet, the Ld. Court had sought an explanation from the DCP, North-East, as to why Sections 304/323 IPC, which were invoked at the time of registration of Digitally signed by SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE page 18 of 37 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:44:52 +0530 the FIR, had been dropped at the time of filing the chargesheet and replaced with Sections 279/304A/337/338 IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. PW9 further stated that he discussed the file with senior officers. As the investigation in the present case was already complete, PW9 on overall consideration of the material, including statements of witnesses, found that there was sufficient evidence to file a chargesheet against accused Manohar Lal for offences under Sections 304/308 IPC. Accordingly, PW9 filed a supplementary chargesheet against accused Manohar Lal.
33. In his cross-examination, PW9 deposed that he had mentioned in the chargesheet itself that he had perused the statements of complainants Danish and Mehraj, along with other circumstantial evidence, and on that basis, he had found sufficient material against the accused for offences under Sections 304/308 IPC. PW9 further stated that in order to avoid repetition of the role of witnesses, the number of witnesses was reduced in the supplementary chargesheet. He further deposed that he had mentioned in the supplementary chargesheet that the accused was driving the offending vehicle under the influence of alcohol. PW9 admitted that no blood test was conducted to ascertain the presence of alcohol in the blood of the accused. He further stated that he does not remember whether the name of the doctor who prepared the MLC of the accused was cited as a witness in the list of witnesses in the chargesheet. (Vol. It is a matter of record). PW9 denied that it was a simple case of rash and negligent driving. He further denied that he had manipulated the evidence or had filed the supplementary chargesheet against the accused for offences under Sections 304/308 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE page 19 of 37
TWINKLE WADHWA
WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25
16:44:59
+0530
34. PW10 Mehraj deposed that he is residing at E-13, B-73, New Seelampur, North-East Delhi. He further deposed that though he does not remember the exact date, in the year 2019, at about 12:00 midnight, he was present at his house when he heard a loud noise. On hearing the noise, he came to the road near the Red Light, where he noticed that an accident had taken place between a car and an auto, in which several persons, including women, had sustained injuries. PW10 further deposed that he was interacting with the injured persons at the spot when somebody made a call at 100 number. In the meantime, a truck coming from the side of Shastri Park hit the injured persons as well as him, while he was attending to them. PW10 further deposed that the injured persons and he were on one side of the road when the truck hit them. He further deposed that the driver of the truck was apprehended at the spot and handed over to the police.
35. PW10 further deposed that the name of the truck driver was Manohar Lal (witness correctly identified the accused). PW10 sustained a head injury for which nine stitches were put. He was taken to JPC Hospital. The registration number of the truck was 2070. PW10 further deposed that the police had prepared some documents at the spot and he had signed them. At this stage, the witness was shown seizure memo of the truck (Ex. PW2/A) and personal search memo (Ex. PW2/C), and he identified his signatures on both the documents at point C. The witness was also shown photographs of the offending truck bearing No. DL-1GC-2070 from the judicial file, which he identified. PW10 affirmed that the incident had taken place in the intervening night of 17/18.03.2019.
Digitally signed by SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA page 20 of 37 WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:45:05 +0530
36. In his cross-examination, PW10 deposed that he works in hand embroidery and that his house is situated at a distance of about 100 meters from the spot. It took him about 10 minutes to reach the spot on foot. He further deposed that the house of Danish is adjoining his own. PW10 affirmed that he had not witnessed the accident between the auto and the car. After his medical examination in the hospital, when he returned to the spot, he did not find the two injured ladies there. He came back from the hospital at around 1:00 a.m. PW10 went to the hospital in an ambulance, accompanied by some police officials. PW10 did not remember what residential address was written on his MLC. He further deposed that at the time of his medical examination, his particulars and address were provided by his brother, who resides with him at the same address. PW10 further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police in the hospital in the presence of his father.
37. At this stage, the attention of the witness was drawn to his statement dated 18.03.2019 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW10 denied that he had stated his address to the IO as E-13/541, New Seelampur, Delhi. PW10 denied that he was not present at the spot or that he is not the person whose address was written as E-13/541, New Seelampur, Delhi, in his MLC as well as in his initial statement. He further deposed that the auto driver was present at the spot with him and was helping the injured. The auto driver himself did not sustain any injury. PW10 stated that he does not know whether the police had recorded the statement of the auto driver, nor does he know when the auto driver left the spot (Vol. He remained present till the truck hit). About ten people were present at the spot including PW10. PW10 affirmed that there was a Digitally SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal signed by TWINKLE page 21 of 37 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:45:52 +0530 temple about 10 to 15 steps away from the spot. He denied that there were paan and cold drink shops adjoining the temple (Vol. There was a police station, New Usmanpur, near the temple). PW10 further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police in the morning. He also deposed that he had seen the accused in the police station. PW10 did not know who had taken the offending vehicle from the spot to the police station. PW10 denied that he had wrongly identified the truck from the photographs in court. PW10 further denied that the auto driver was known to him and Danish, that it was the auto driver who had caused injuries to passengers, or that no accident had occurred with the truck and that the story of the truck was concocted at the instance of the IO. PW10 further deposed that the truck was stopped about five meters from the spot and that the truck driver was handed over to the police. He further deposed that he did not notice any bloodstains on the wheels or chassis of the truck. PW10 denied that he was deposing falsely.
38. PW11 Dr. Gaurav Chauhan deposed that on 18.03.2019, at about 12:03 p.m., patient Manohar Lal was brought to the hospital for medical examination. PW11 conducted the medical examination of accused Manohar Lal. No fresh injury was found on his body, and the smell of alcohol was detected through the Breath Alcohol Concentration (BAC) instrument. PW11 prepared the MLC regarding the aforesaid examination in his own handwriting. The said MLC is Ex. PW11/A.
39. In his cross-examination, PW11 affirmed that there were some overwritings at two places in respect of the person who had brought the patient to the hospital (Vol. He had put his initials on the overwritings).
Digitally
signed by
SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE page 22 of 37
TWINKLE WADHWA
WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25
16:45:11
+0530
PW11 affirmed that he had not carried out any blood test of the patient (Vol. There was no request from the IO for a blood test of the patient). PW11 further deposed that, as per forensic literature, if a person consumes liquor, he would test alcohol positive for up to 48 hours through the BAC machine, depending upon the quantity of alcohol consumed. He further stated that the patient was oriented and in a conscious condition. Since he was not admitted to the hospital, it was not felt necessary to take his blood sample.
40. On 25.08.2023, on the instructions of the accused persons, statement under section 294 Cr.P.C. of the counsel for the accused was recorded wherein he admitted the following documents:
(i) Dr. Shalabh Dass with MLC No.5188/19 of Danish and MLC No.5184/19 of Mehraj & MLC No.5186/19 of Zahid Hussain and MLC No.5187/19 of Chandra, all MLC of JPC Hospital are Ex. A1, A2, A3 and A4;
(ii) Dr. Rajan Paul with MLC No.5185/19 of Jamshed Ahmed of JPC Hospital is Ex. A5;
(iii) Dr. Atula Pratap Singh with PM report No.458/19 of Bahadur @ Channdra, GTB Hospital is Ex. A6;
(iv) Dr. Aditya Sri Ram with PM report No.468/19 of Jameel Ahmed, GTB Hospital is Ex. A7;
(v) Dr. Tarun Kumar Singh with PM report No. 455/19 of Zahid Hussain, GTB Hospital is Ex. A8;
(vi) Lalit Malik, owner of the offending vehicle and his reply on notice under section 133 M.V. Act is Ex. A9;
(vii) DO/ASI Paras Ram with copy of FIR is Ex. A10 and certificate under section 65A is Ex. All regarding the registration of FIR;
(viii) Ct. Sushant, DD writer of DD No.2 dated 18.03.19 is Ex. A12;
(ix) Tohid and Zakir regarding dead body identification is Ex. A13 & Digitally SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal signed by page 23 of 37 TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:45:22 +0530 Ex. A14;
(x) Wasim Raza and Rahees regarding dead body identification is Ex.A15 and Ex. A16; and
(xi) Statement of Ct. Yogesh under section 161 Cr. P.C dated 18.03.19 is Ex. A17.
41. On 24.07.2025, statements of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he had denied his involvement and opted to lead evidence. In defence evidence, accused examined Ram Kumar.
42. DW1 Ram Kumar deposed that he was a truck driver. On 18.03.2019, he started driving his vehicle from Nangloi to Ghaziabad. His truck number was DL 1GC 2072. He was following another truck bearing no. DL 1GC 2070, which was being driven by Manohar Lal. When they reached near Shastri Park Red Light, DW1 noticed a crowd on the road, and Manohar Lal stopped his truck near the crowd. He further deposed that He also stopped his truck about 25 meters behind Manohar Lal's truck. Some persons from the crowd pulled Manohar Lal down from his truck and started beating him. DW1 further deposed that he reversed his truck slightly, then overtook the truck of Manohar Lal, and informed the owner. DW1 further deposed that he came to know there had been an accident between a car and an auto, and the injured and deceased were lying about 3 to 4 meters away from Manohar Lal's truck.
43. In his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, DW1 deposed that he did not meet any police official in respect of the said incident and never narrated to the police any facts that he had deposed Digitally SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal signed by page 24 of 37 TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:45:59 +0530 in his examination-in-chief. He stated that he had informed his owner on mobile number 9810016576 at about 12:20 a.m. (night). He admitted that he had not filed any invoice or bill to show that he was coming from Nangloi. He further stated that Manohar Lal was also coming from Nangloi. DW1 further stated that the name of his truck owner was Lalit Malik. He admitted that he did not try to help Manohar Lal when he was pulled down by the crowd (Vol. There were many persons and, due to fear, he could not help Manohar Lal). He further deposed that when public persons were beating Manohar Lal, he reached the spot and came to know about the accident between the car and the auto. He remained at the spot for about 15 minutes. He did not ask any public persons why they were beating Manohar Lal (Vol. Due to fear, he could not ask). He further stated that Manohar Lal was a resident of his village and that he had provided him employment before his present owner. DW1 admitted that he never informed the police at any point of time about the facts of the incident.
C. Findings:-
44. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 18.03.2019 at around midnight, accused had caused death of three persons and injured two persons namely Danish and Mehraj. Both the injured persons have deposed before the Court and have supported the case of the prosecution. At the outset, it is important to analyze their testimonies before appreciating other evidence.
45. PW5 Danish has stated before the Court that on the intervening night of 17/18.03.2019, he heard some noise outside his house and went outside Digitally signed by SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE page 25 of 37 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:46:22 +0530 his house. He saw that a collision had taken place between a Swift car and an auto, resultantly the auto got toppled. 3-4 persons who were inside the auto were taken out from the auto, he inquired from them if they had sustained injuries. In the meantime, crowd had assembled there. Suddenly, a truck bearing No.DL1GC-2070 which was driven by accused had come from Kashmiri Gate side at high speed and drove on the crowd which had assembled there. Several persons were injured including himself. His left hand was fractured. He further deposed that truck driver was apprehended at the spot and he was under the influence of liquor. He identified accused in Court also.
46. In his cross-examination, PW5 Danish had specifically denied the suggestion that he was injured due to the collision between Swift car and auto. He has denied the suggestion that other persons at the spot were also injured due to the accident of auto and Swift car. He specifically deposed that when public persons had got the Manohar Lal (accused) down from the truck, he was drunk and had fallen on the ground. This witness has been extensively cross-examined and has stood the test of cross-examination.
47. Another injured in this case is PW10 Mehraj who deposed that he was present in his house at around 12:00 in the midnight, he heard loud voice and came out of his house. He noticed that an accident had occurred between car and auto, and some persons were injured. While he was also interacting with injured persons, suddenly, one truck coming from Shastri Park side hit the injured persons including himself. He along with injured persons was standing on one side of the Digitally signed by SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE page 26 of 37 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:46:29 +0530 road when truck hit them. He further deposed that driver of the truck was apprehended at the spot and he was handed over to the police. He also correctly identified accused Manohar Lal in the Court. He deposed that he sustained injuries on his head and nine stitches were put on his head. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not seen the accident between auto and Swift car. Auto driver was also present at the spot and he was helping the injured. This witness has been extensively cross-examined as well and has supported the case of the prosecution.
48. MLC of Danish Ex. A1 is duly proved on record, rather this MLC is admitted by accused Manohar in his statement recorded under section 294 Cr.P.C. on 25.08.2023. According to this MLC, the nature of injury is grievous, he was examined on 18.03.2019 at 00:51 am. This MLC itself proves that he was present at the spot and received grievous injuries. Further MLC of PW10 Mehraj is also on record, he was also examined on 18.03.2019 at around 00:51 am. His MLC is Ex.A-2 according to which he received simple injuries.
49. The testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher footing than that of any other witness because the injury itself proves his presence and involvement in the accident. He is a natural witness to the occurrence.
Since he has himself suffered injuries in the accident, it is unlikely that he would shield the real culprit or would falsely implicate anyone else. In the present case, two injured witnesses have given consistent and cogent version of the accident which finds due corroboration from the medical evidence as well as other attending circumstances. His testimony inspires complete confidence and deserves to be relied upon Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal 2025.09.25 page 27 of 37 16:47:57 +0530 completely. There is nothing in his testimony which raises doubt on the credibility of his testimony. The case of prosecution is also supported by the report of mechanical inspector PW6 retired SI Manohar Lal Dhyani who had observed glass of head light broken and front show grill plastic broken.
50. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajan v.
State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.3904/2025 dt 02.09.2025 :
33. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness 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 eye-witness 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.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of 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."
34. 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 Digitally SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal signed by TWINKLE page 28 of 37 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:46:57 +0530 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 yet 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 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. (See: Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra :(2023) 13 SCC 365) Under influence of alcohol
51. Further, it is specifically the case of the prosecution that Manohar Lal was found drunk at the time of offence and had consumed alcohol. It is specifically deposed by PW5 Danish that he was under the influence of liquor when he was apprehended at the spot. He also deposed in his cross-examination that when public persons had got the accused down from the truck, he was drunk and had fallen on the ground. Any person can infer if the other person has consumed alcohol by his behaviour and smell of alcohol.
52. There is MLC of accused Manohar Lal which is Ex.PW11/A. It is mentioned in the MLC that on his examination, alcohol was found to be positive. This MLC is proved by PW11 Dr. Gaurav Chauhan who deposed before the Court that he tested his breath through breath alcohol concentration (BAC) instrument and smell of alcohol was positive. He further clarified in cross-examination that he had not mentioned the concentration of alcohol in MLC as BAC instrument does not reflect the concentration of alcohol if there is excessive alcohol concentration. Hence, it is proved that he had consumed alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol as well while he was Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal 2025.09.25 page 29 of 37 16:47:47 +0530 driving.
53. There were three more persons who died in the accident and their names are Bahadur @ Chander, Jahid Hussain and Jameel Ahmad. It is specifically deposed by both injured witnesses that truck had injured them and other persons on the spot. The MLC of these three persons are also exhibited on record as Ex. A3, Ex. A4 and Ex. A5. According to MLC of Jahid Hussain Ex. A3, he was declared dead on arrival at 00:53 am on 18.03.2019. As per the MLC of Bahadur @ Chander Ex. A4, he was also declared dead on arrival at 00:10 am on 18.03.2019. As per the MLC of Jameel Ahmad Ex. A5 dt 18.03.2019, he had sustained severe injuries but he died later on.
Defence taken
54. It is important to mention here that accused does not deny the fact that he was driving the truck. In statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 24.07.2025, he stated that he was driving the truck at normal speed by following traffic rules and regulations. The defence taken by accused is that an accident had already occurred between a car and auto when he reached near place of incident. Death of three persons namely Bahadur, Jameel Ahmad and Jahid Hussain had already occurred in that accident. Deceased and injured persons were sitting in the auto who were hit by car and public persons had gathered at the spot. By seeing the gathering of the public on the road, he also slowed down near the spot. Some public persons had got him down from the truck and with connivance of police, he was wrongly implicated in this case. He had not caused any accident nor he was under the influence of Digitally signed by TWINKLE SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE WADHWA page 30 of 37 WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:47:04 +0530 liquor.
55. An accident had occurred between a Swift car and auto prior to this accident is already established on record but both PW Danish and Mehraj have specifically denied that they were injured due to collision with Swift car and auto. PW5 Danish specifically deposed that after the incident of Swift car and auto, he took out 3-4 persons who were sitting inside the auto and was asking them if they had sustained injuries or not. This itself implies that the injured persons were alive and were not in very bad condition. Questioning from them if they were ok itself implies that they were alive. He specifically deposed that a truck came later hitting several persons present at the spot.
56. PW10 Mehraj stated that in the accident of car and auto, some persons including women had sustained injuries. While he was interacting with injured persons, a truck came and hit him and other persons standing on the spot. Hence he also deposed that he along with other persons were hit and received injuries due to the truck being driven at high speed. Also the injured sitting in auto were only injured and he was asking them about their condition. Hence they were alive.
57. Accused has examined DW1 Ram Avtar to support his case. He deposed that he was driving the truck bearing No.DL1GC-2072 and his truck was behind the truck of accused Manohar Lal. When they reached near Shastri Park Red Light, they noticed a crowd on the road. Manohar Lal stopped his truck near the crowd and he also stopped his truck behind him. Some persons got the accused down from the truck and started beating him. He informed the owner of the truck. However, SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal page 31 of 37 during cross-examination by Ld. APP, he was asked about any invoice or bill to show that he was coming from Nangloi. Further, DW1 never tried to inform police about the real culprit. Further, he did not ask any public persons why public was beating him. He admitted that accused Manohar is resident of his village and accused helped DW1 in getting the job.
58. Hence, this witness could not produce any document to show that he had occasion to be present at the spot at the time of offence with his truck. The testimony of DW1 does not inspire any confidence. Unless he actually proves his presence at the spot, his testimony is not reliable. The public witnesses who are examined in this case i.e. Danish and Mehraj are believed to be present at the spot as their address was of that area only and they suffered injuries also. Hence, unless witness establishes his presence at the spot or occasion to be present at the spot, his oral testimony thereby claiming himself to be eye witness is not reliable.
Proximate cause of death
59. As far as PW5 Danish and PW10 Mehraj are concerned, they have specifically deposed that they were not hit by earlier accident of Swift car and auto, they were hit by the truck itself. As far as the other three deceased are concerned, there is a possibility that any of them or all of them might have received injuries in the prior accident between Swift car and auto. In the present case, it might be the truth that these deceased persons might have suffered some injuries in earlier accident and were sitting by the road side, but the fact remains that the truck Digitally signed by SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE page 32 of 37 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:47:14 +0530 later came at a high speed and hit them whereby causing death of these three people. The immediate cause of fatal accident was the rash and negligent driving of the truck. Only because some victims might have received some injuries earlier, that does not break the chain of causation, what actually caused death was the fatal injuries as the truck hit them with force. Liability of accused depends upon whether the death of victim was proximate, direct and immediate consequence of the act of accused and not merely a remote or indirect cause. The proximate cause of death in the present case remains the accident with truck and victims succumbed only because of the direct impact caused by the truck. Only because a person was already injured does not absolve the driver of the vehicle of his liability if his act led to the fatal accident.
60. Place of accident
61. At this stage, it is essential to analyze the exact place where accident had happened. Accident occurred on main GT road, which is quite wide being main road. The perusal of the 12 photographs, showing the main road clearly from different angles, which are duly proved on record, would show that the road is approximately 40 feet in width on one side, it is three lane road. The photograph show that the road is very well lit. The photographs also depict the blood stains on the road where accident had happened. The accident happened on one side of the road near footpath where the blood is lying on the road. The other side of road has a divider which divides the road coming towards Dharampura Red light and going from Dharampura Red Light. Near the spot, there SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal page 33 of 37 is footpath and adjacent to footpath is a service lane.
62. The photographs reveal that the victims were standing towards the edge/one side of the road. From the photographs on record, it is clear that there was enough space on the road for the accused to drive safely without hitting anyone. The width of the truck is barely 8/9 feet while the road appears to be more than 40 feet in width. Instead of taking the other side of road, the accused under the influence of alcohol, drove rashly and ran over the victims. Any reasonable driver would have avoided the victims when there was ample space available on the other side of the road but the accused rammed into the victims whereby causing fatal injuries. The conduct of the accused in choosing to drive the heavy vehicle towards the side of the road where a crowd had gathered, itself reflects reckless driving. Any person who would have been in senses would not have done so.
Culpable Homicide
63. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal Nos.1318- 1320 of 2007 dated 12.01.2012:
Prabhakaran does not say in absolute terms that in no case of an automobile accident that results in death of a person due to rash and negligent act of the driver, the conviction can be maintained for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC even if such act (rash or negligent) was done with the knowledge that by such act of his, death was likely to be caused. Prabhakaran turned on its own facts. Each case obviously has to be decided on its own facts. In a case where negligence or rashness is the cause of death and nothing more, Section 304A may be attracted but where the rash or negligent act is preceded with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death, Section 304 Part II IPC may be attracted and if such a rash and negligent act is preceded by real intention on the part of the wrong doer to cause death, offence may be punishable under Digitally signed by SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE page 34 of 37 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:47:22 +0530 Section 302 IPC.
64. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal Nos.1838 of 2009 dated 16.08.2012:
15. Now, we may refer to some judgments of this Court which would provide guidance for determinatively answering such questions. In the case of Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 2 SCC 648] where the driver of a vehicle was driving the vehicle at a high speed at late hours of the night in a drunken state and killed seven labourers sleeping on the pavement, injuring other eight, this Court dismissing the appeal, laid down the tests to determine criminal culpability on the basis of 'knowledge', as follows :
"41. Rash or negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of the dangerous character and the likely effect of the act and resulting in death may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A person, doing an act of rash or negligent driving, if aware of a risk that a particular consequence is likely to result and that result occurs, may be held guilty not only of the act but also of the result. As a matter of law
--in view of the provisions of IPC--the cases which fall within the last clause of Section 299 but not within clause "Fourthly" of Section 300 may cover the cases of rash or negligent act done with the knowledge of the likelihood of its dangerous consequences and may entail punishment under Section 304 Part II IPC. Section 304- A IPC takes out of its ambit the cases of death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act amounting to culpable homicide of either description."
16. Again, in the case of Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. [(2008) 1 SCC 791], where a train had hit a bus being driven by the appellant at the railway crossing and the bus was badly damaged and two persons died, this Court, while altering the charges from Section 302 IPC to Section 304-A IPC, observed :
"7. Section 304-A IPC applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. Section 304-A applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304-A.
8. Section 304-A carves out a specific offence where death is Digitally signed by SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA page 35 of 37 WADHWA Date:
2025.09.25 16:47:28 +0530 caused by doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable homicide under Section 299 or murder under Section 300. If a person wilfully drives a motor vehicle into the midst of a crowd and thereby causes death to some person, it will not be a case of mere rash and negligent driving and the act will amount to culpable homicide. Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or knowledge that doing an act was likely to cause a person's death is culpable homicide. When intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of the act, Section 304-A has to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide. The provision of this section is not limited to rash or negligent driving. Any rash or negligent act whereby death of any person is caused becomes punishable. Two elements either of which or both of which may be proved to establish the guilt of an accused are rashness/negligence; a person may cause death by a rash or negligent act which may have nothing to do with driving at all. Negligence and rashness to be punishable in terms of Section 304- A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judgment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime as well as the life of the person who may lose his life as a result of the crime. Section 304-A discloses that criminality may be that apart from any mens rea, there may be no motive or intention still a person may venture or practise such rashness or negligence which may cause the death of other. The death so caused is not the determining factor.
33. In our considered view, it was not necessary to hold the test identification parade of the appellant for two reasons. Firstly, the appellant was already known to the passersby who had recognized him while driving the bus and had stated his name and, secondly, he was duly seen, though for a short but reasonable period, when after parking the bus, he got down from the bus and ran away.
65. In the present case, initially the chargesheet was filed under section 304A IPC but later on supplementary chargesheet was filed and section 304/308 IPC were added as accused was in drunken state at the time of offence. It is to be noted that merely driving the vehicle at a high speed which results in death of a person may not by itself be sufficient to establish culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but when high speed is combined with intention or knowledge, it is considered as culpable homicide. In the present case, the speed is not stated by witnesses SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal page 36 of 37 nor it is stated in the chargesheet but as per the case of the prosecution, the negligence itself lies in the fact that he was under the influence of alcohol and hence he did not stop the vehicle even after seeing the crowd on the road side and drove over them. It is established on record that accused was driving under the influence of alcohol. He had knowledge that driving under the influence of alcohol may cause accident and accident had happened, hence, he is guilty not of culpable homicide.
66. In view of above discussion, it is proved that accused drove truck under influence of liquor with knowledge that his act may cause an accident and accident occurred whereby causing death of three people and injuries to two persons.
D. Conclusion:
67. Consequently, accused Manohar Lal is convicted under section 304 IPC for causing death of Bahadur @ Chander, Jahid Hussain and Jameel Ahmad. He is also convicted under section 308 IPC for causing injuries to Danish and Mehraj. He is also convicted under section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act for driving under influence of alcohol.
Digitally signed by Announced in Open Court TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
as on 25.09.2025 2025.09.25 16:47:37 +0530 ( Twinkle Wadhwa ) Additional Sessions Judge-02 North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No. 107/2023 State Vs. Manohar Lal page 37 of 37