Delhi District Court
State vs Ghanshyam Dass on 24 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07,
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Visvesh, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 423362/2016
Unique Case ID No. -: DLSW020014082015
FIR No. -: 410/2014
Police Station -: BHD NAGAR
Section(s) -: 279/337/304A IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
GHANSHYAM DASS
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o Village & PO Dulhari,
PS & Tehsil Tosham,
Dist. Bhiwani, Haryana.
.... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : SI Harish Kumar
2. Name of Accused : Ghanshyam Dass
Offence complained of or
3. : 279/337/304A IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
Date of commission of
5. : 04.07.2014
offence
6. Date of Filing of case : 12.01.2015
7. Date of Reserving Order : 10.07.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025
9. Final Order : Convicted on all charges
Argued by -: Sh. Vishvjeet Yadav, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Ashish Rohilla and Sh. Sandeep Kaushik, Ld.
counsel for the Accused.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 1 of 25
1. It is the case of prosecution that on 04.07.2014 at about 02.00 AM at Dichaun Road, Nirankari Ashram, Najafgarh within the jurisdiction of Police Station BHD Nagar, Accused Ghanshyam Dass was fond driving car (make Wagon R) bearing No. DL 7CH 5697 rashly and negligently in such a manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so the aforesaid vehicle hit against Maruti Alto Car bearing no. DL 2CAG 7158 and caused simple injuries to injured to Sh. Inder Paswan, Ram Nath, Samodh Yadav and Virender i.e. the occupants of Wagon R Car and death of its driver Sudhir not amounting to culpable homicide, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter, the 'IPC').
2. After conclusion of investigation, instant chargesheet was filed under Section 279/337/304A IPC. Cognizance of the offences disclosed in the chargesheet was taken, and Accused was summoned to face trial.
3. When the Accused entered appearance before this Court, copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. A formal notice explaining to him the substance of accusation against him was served upon the Accused on 05.08.2015. Accused pleaded not guilty to the offences alleged against him, and claimed trial. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of PE and prosecution examined fourteen witness to prove its case.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. Prosecution first examined Sh. Samodh Yadav as PW-1. He deposed that on 04.07.2014, at about 2.00 am, he was returning from Mauj Nagar with fodder in a Tractor. He deposed that he does not remember the registration number of the tractor but he was sitting on the seat adjacent to the seat of the driver and his father was driving the said Tractor. He further deposed that when they crossed village Dichau and reached at Radha Swami Ashram, one Wagon R Car during the process of taking over an Alto Car hit the same from its back side and due to the same, the Alto Car lost the balance and the Alto Car struck against their Tractor. He further deposed that during the process of saving the Alto Car, his father i.e. the driver over the tractor dropped down the Tractor in the fields and the tractor Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 2 of 25 and the trolly attached to it turned turtle and three labourers who were sitting in the Tractor received injuries. He further deposed that some public person made a call at 100 number and police and fire-brigade reached at the spot. The driver of the Alto Car was taken out of Alto Car and was shifted to the hospital. He correctly identified the driver of the offending vehicle Wagon R i.e. Accused Ghanshyam. He further deposed that after the accident, the Accused managed to fled away from the spot, but he snatched the keys of the Wagon R Car from the Accused. He further deposed that he did not remember the registration number of the car but last two digits were "97". He further deposed that the accident took place due to the fault of the Accused as he tried to overtook the Alto Car from wrong side. He correctly identified the victim's vehicle and the tractor however, the offending vehicle i.e. Wagon R Car bearing no. DL 7CH 5697 could not be produced as its superdar is not traceable. During his cross examination, he deposed that car of the deceased did not hit tractor. He further deposed that no number plate was installed at the said tractor that is why he was not able to tell the registration number of the tractor. He further deposed that there was no light at the front of trolley, however, there were back lights on the trolley. He deposed that he did not remember the registration number of Alto Car and Wagon R Car, however he stated that the said Alto car was of Red colour and the Wagon R car was of Silver colour. He further deposed that there was no divider on that road and he cannot tell about the width of the road. He further deposed that when the Alto car was coming from opposite side their tractor was on road. He deposed that police reached the spot after about 5 minutes of the accident and about 50-60 public persons gathered on the spot. He stated that he got injured in the present matter as the tractor turned turtle. He denied the suggestion that the Accused was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and as the tyre of Alto car got burst. He denied the suggestion that the accident was not caused due to the negligence of Accused as he was not driving the vehicle at that time. After duly cross examined, the witness was discharged.
5. Prosecution next examined Sh Ram Niwas as PW-2. He deposed that on 03-04- Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 3 of 25 07.2014 he was returning after attending a marriage of some relative and his son Sudhir Kumar was also returning from the said marriage from Badusarai in Alto car No. DSL-2CAG-7158. He further deposed that victim Sudhir was driving his car ahead to his car and at about 1.40 am, when they reached near Nirankari Ashram, at that time one Wagon R car No.DL-7CH-5697 coming from his back side in very rash and negligent manner and driver of the said car was driving his car in zig-zag manner and overtake his car from his left side and hit against the car of his son Sudhir from left middle portion (of Alto car) and due to the impact his son has lost the control due to which his car struck against one tractor which was coming from front side. He further deposed that he immediately, stopped his car and found the car of his son badly damaged and the offending vehicle i.e. Wagon R car No.DL-7CH-5697 stationed near the spot. He requested for help from the Accused Ghanshyam, but after some time he fled away from the spot. He further deposed that after seeing the bad condition of his son he got panic and later on he came to know that his son has expired. I became panic. After some time, I came to know my son Sudhir Kumar has expired. He stated that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the Accused. He further deposed that he identified dead body of his son and after postmortem dead body of his son was handed over to him and he identified the Accused before the IO. Accused was arrested and documents of the Accused were sized by the IO. The offending vehicle could not be identified as the same was not produced as the superdar of the vehicle is untraceable. During his cross examination he deposed that he met the police for the first time on the day of accident as the police came on the spot. He further deposed that his complete family i.e. his both sons, their wives and their 3 children went to Badu Sarai in marriage and they went by 3 different vehicles ie. wagon R bearing no. DL. 3309, his elder son's Alto Car bearing no. DL 2C AG 7158 and his younger son's Ford Ikon. He further deposed that he did not went to his house on 03/04.07.2014 and he do not remember what he told to the police about the accident. He further deposed that he saw offending vehicle when it crossed his car from left side ie. wrong side and went ahead of his car. He further deposed that the Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 4 of 25 tractor was going towards Najafgarh and was about 50-100 yards away from his car and trolley was attached to the tractor which was filled with fodder (tuda). He stated that he do not remember whether any lights / indicator lights were there on the said trolley or not. He stated that he did not call at 100 number as he did not have the mobile phone at that time, neither he asked anyone to make call at 100 number. He stated that there were many public persont at the spot but he do not remember whether police had enquired them or not. He further deposed that Police enquired from him on the spot on the same day and on the next day when he received the dead body in mortuary. He further deposed tht police recorded his statement only once in MACT Cell on 08.07.2014. He further deposed that he was alone in his car while coming back from the marriage. He stated that he told the IO about the driver Ghanshyam in his statement. He further deposed that the offending vehicle hit the car of his son on the left side of his car and after that the car of his son hit the tractor trolley coming from the opposite side. He admitted that there was no divider on the said road. He further deposed that after the accident, the car of Accused Ghanshyam was in front of deceased car and his car was behind them. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident and he had not witnessed the same. He further denied the suggestion that he is an interested witness and deposing falsely. He further denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Defence counsel and after cross examining at length the witness was discharged.
6. Prosecution next examined Sh. Pawan Kumar as PW-3. He only identified the dead body of his nephew Sudhir. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel being formal in nature.
7. Prosecution thereafter examined Sh. Pooran Chand, the Mechanical Inspector, who conducted the mechanical inspection of the vehicles involved in the accident as PW-4. He deposed that at request of IO he conducted mechanical inspection of Maruti Alto car no. DL2CAG7158, Maruti Wagon R no. DL7CH5697 and one Eicher Tractor without number plate (engine no. 30514, chasis no. 68833) in the police station. And proved on record mechanical inspection reports Ex. PW4/A, Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 5 of 25 Ex. PW4/B and Ex. PW4/C. Said witness was also not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
8. Prosecution next examined Sh. Birender Manji as PW-5. He deposed that on 04.07.2014, he alongwith other labourers were going in a Eicher Tractor belonging Sumodh Yadav after filling fodder in the trolley from Village Mauz Nagar, Sisana, Haryana at about 02.00 PM when they reached near Nirankari Ashram, Alto Car bearing no. DL 2C AG 7158 was coming from front and one Wagon R Car bearing no. DL 7CH 5697 came from back side overtaking the Alto Car in a very High speed and in rash and negligent manner and thereafter, it hit the Alto Car. He further deposed that the driver of the Alto Car was severely injured and they also sustained injuries. He further deposed that he alongwith Inder Paswan and Ram Nath Majri sustained injuries in the said accident as their tractor got disbalanced due to the accident of both the cars and the trolley of the tractor got overturned. He further deposed that somebody called at no. 100 and driver of Alto Car driver was taken out from the car after the fire brigade officials came and cut opened the door of the car. Thereafter, PCR van took them to hospital. The driver of the Alto Car succumbed to the injuries and died. He further deposed that the accident took place by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Wagon R Car as he was driving his car on the wrong side and overtaking the Alto Car. He correctly identified the Accused and victims vehicle including the photographs of the spot. The offending vehicle was not produced but the identity of the offending car i.e. the Wagon R car has been admitted by the Accused and same is not been disputed. During his cross examination PW-5 deposed that the incident took place at 02.00 AM and they were coming to Najafgarh Mandi for selling the fodder. He further deposed that the call at 100 number was made by the tractor driver. He further deposed that he do not remember who was at fault at the time of Accused as he fell unconscious after the accident took place. He further denied the suggestions put by Ld. Defence counsel and was discharged.
9. Prosecution next examined Sh. Inder Paswan as PW-6. In his examination in chief PW-6 corroborated the version of PW-5 Sh. Bijender Manji and stated that Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 6 of 25 the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Wagon R Car bearing no. DL 7CH 5697 and it overtook the Alto Car in a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and due to the impact of accident their tractor also turned turtle and they sustained injuries and the driver of Alto car had expired. He also correctly identified the Accused. But in his cross examination he also stated that he do not remember as to who was at fault at the time of the accident as he fell unconscious after the accident took place. He further denied the suggestions put by Ld. Defence Counsel and after being duly cross examined he was discharged.
10. Prosecution next examined Sh. Ram Nath Majri as PW-7. This witness also depose on the similar lines as of PW-5 Sh. Bijender Manji and PW-6 Inder Paswan in his examination in chief and stated that it is the fault of the Accused who was driving the offending vehicle i.e. Wagon R Car bearing no. DL 7CH 5697 in a rash and negligent manner and driving in such a manner in high speed took over the Alto car from wrong side and caused the accident resulting in death of driver of Alto car and he alongwith Birener Manji and Inder Paswan also sustain injuries in the same. In his cross examination he deposed that he also did remember who was at fault at the time of the accident as he fell unconscious after the accident took place. He further denied suggestions put by Ld. Defence counsel and after being duly cross examined, he was discharged.
11. Prosecution next examined Ct. Anil as PW-8. He deposed that on 04.07.2014, he was posted as constable at Mobile Crime Team and working as a photographer. On receipt of call about one accident he went to the spot of incident and saw one tractor with trolly attached to it and one Alto car in accidental condition. He clicked the photographs of the spot and the vehicles present at the spot Ex. PW1/A(colly). During his cross examination, he deposed that he received the information at about 02.20 am and he alongwith SI Hitender, Incharge Crime Team, and ASI Kulbhushan Bist (finger print expert), HC Naresh and Driver reached at the spot at about 03:00 am. He further deposed that they remained at the spot for about 40 minutes. He further deposed that at the spot the tractor with trolly, Alto car, Gipsy Car and PCR van and IO with staff were present. He further Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 7 of 25 deposed that IO/SI Harish told him that accident took place between tractor trolly and Alto Car and he had to click photographs of the said vehicles at the spot. He further deposed that the victim was not present at the spot when they visited the spot.
12. Prosecution next examined Sh. Ajit Singh as PW-9. He deposed that 04.07.2014, he was posted as STO(Station Officer) Fire Brigade Najafgarh. He deposed that at about 02:10 a.m. on receipt of call about accident near Nirankari Ashram, Dichaon Road, Najafgarh. The reached at the spot and saw that an Alto Car was present there in accidental condition. He further deposed that they saw that one person on driver seat, whose head was lying on the staring of the said car, they tried to open the door of the car but they could not open it and therefore, we tried to open the door with the help of ropes and gate got opened. Thereafter, the person on the driver seat was taken outside and he was shifted to RTRM Hospital by the police officials. One tractor with trolly attached to it was also present there but he do not remember the registration number of the tractor due to lapse of time. He correctly identified the photographs present at record. His cross examination was nil despite opportunity.
13. Prosecution next examined Ct. Hari Mohan as PW-10. He deposed that in the intervening night 03-04.07.2014, he was on emergency duty with SI Harish Kumar and at about 02:00 a.m. DD No. 5A was received regarding accident near Nirankari Ashram Dichaon Road, Najafgarh. They reached at the spot and saw that 3 vehicle were present at the spot in accidental condition i.e. 1 Alto Car colour red bearing registration No. DL 2CAG 7158, 1 Wagon Car bearing registration NO. DL 7CH 5697, and 1 Eicher Tractor. He further deposed that one person was stuck in the driver seat of the Alto Car. Thereafter, a message was sent to the Fire Brigade station and Fire brigade team reached at the spot with lots of efforts took out the said person and he was shifted to RTRM Hospital where he was declared brought dead. He further deposed that the body was shifted to mortuary for postmortem. He further deposed that SI Harish tried to search for eye witness but no one was found. Thereafter, IO got registered the FIR and seized the Alto Car, Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 8 of 25 Wagon Car and Tractor vide memos Ex. PW10/A to Ex. PW10/C. The said witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence witness despite opportunity.
14. Prosecution next examined Retd. SI Dilbagh Singh as PW-11. He deposed that on 08.07.2014 he was posted at MACT, South West, Sec-19, Dwarka as SI and investigation of the present case was marked to him. He deposed that he recorded statement of eyewitness Ram Niwas (father of deceased Sudhir) and on 10.07.2014 one Ashok Kumar, who is Manager of company brought the Accused to the office MACT, South West and stated that Accused Ghan Shyam was driving offending vehicle on the day of accident. Thereafter he arrested the Accused and interrogated him. He seized his document and upon checking the same were found genuine. After concluding the investigation he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the Hon'ble Court. During his cross examination he deposed that tractor trolley, which was filled with fodder, was also involved in the present matter in accident case. He further deposed that he has not investigated the matter qua registration no. of tractor. He further deposed that during investigation he went to the spot of incident and found that there is no divider at the spot. He stated that he did not investigated the fact about who is the PCR called or that he had not collected the call records or location records of witness Ram Niwas as. He further deposed that he did not ask witness Ram Niwas about the vehicle by which he reached there. He furtehr deposed that he did not give any notice to the owner or Manager to produce the Accused, however, they were informed telephonically. He admitted that at the time of filing of charge sheet the photographs of offending vehicle were not on record. He further denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Defence Counsel. After being cross examined at length, the witness was discharged.
15. Prosecution next examined Insp. Hitendra Kumar as PW-12. He deposed that on 04.07.2014, he was Incharge Crime Team in South West District, Delhi. He deposed that on receipt of information regarding accident near Sant Nirankari Ashram, Dichao village, Najafgarh, he along with photographer Ct. Anil reached on the spot and photographs of the spot were clicked by him. He correctly Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 9 of 25 identified the photographs. The witness was duly cross examined and discharged.
16. Prosecution next examined Dr. Someshwar, CMO RTRM Hospital, JP Kalan as PW-13. He deposed that during the intervening night of 03-04.07.2014, he had examined four injured namely Sudhir, Ram Nath, Inder Paswan and Virender vide MLC bearing no. 3478/14, 3479/14, 3480/14 and 3481/14 Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/C and Ex. PW13/D. He further deposed that the nature of injuries sustained by Virender, Ram Nath and Inder Paswan were Simple in nature, while Sudhir was brought dead. Thereafter, body of Sudhir was shifted to mortuary for autopsy. During his cross examination he admitted that the MLCs bear his handwriting alongwith handwriting of other helping doctors. He stated that it is possible that the MLCs were not prepared by the CMO only other doctors may also prepare the same under the supervision of CMO. He stated that some MLCs are prepared by him alone and some with the resident doctor. He further denied the suggestion put by Ld. Defence Counsel. After being duly cross examined, he was discharged.
17. At last prosecution examined Insp. Harish Kumar as PW-14. He deposed that 04.07.2014 he was on night emergency duty and on receipt of DD no. 5A, he alongwith Ct. Hari Mohan went to the spot of incident i.e. near Nirankari Ashram Dichaun Road and there they found 3 vehicles in accident condition. He further deposed that no injured was found at the spot but one person was found stuck in the alto car sitting on the driver seat who had already expired. He further deposed that the injured persons have already been taken to RTRM Hospital by the PCR. He further deposed that door of the Alto car was opened with the help of fire brigade. Upon local enquiry the name of the said deceased was found to be Sudhir Kaushik who was sent to RTRM Hospital. Crime team was also called to the spot and the spot was inspected by the crime team. ERV vehicle also arrived at the spot by this time. I left the spot in custody of the ERV Staff and went to RTRM Hospital where no injured was found present but the MLC no. 3479/14 of injured Ram Nath, MLC no. 3480/14 of injured Inder Paswan and MLC no. 3481/14 of injured Virender. He further deposed about the codal formalities carried out during Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 10 of 25 the investigation i.e. calling of crime team, inspection of spot, collection of MLC etc. He further deposed that notice under Section 133 MV Act was server upon the owner of wagon R car and reply was collect. Thereafter, matter was transferred to MACT Cell. During his cross examination he deposed that he received the information regarding the accident vide DD no. 5A at about 02.00 AM and he reached at the spot within 10-15 minutes of receiving the information. He further deposed that the distance between the PS and the spot of accident is about 4-5 Kms. He stated that when he reached at the spot, the father of Sudhir met him there and he did not state anything about the accident at that time. He further deposed that no other independent public person was found at the spot at that time. He further deposed that he tried to call to the caller of 100 number but the said call was not received by anyone. He further deposed that no eye witness of the accident was found present at the spot. He also admitted that the road was not divided by a divider at the spot of incident. He admitted that when he recorded the statement of father of deceased Sudhir namely Ram Niwas at the time of body identification statement, he did not specify that he is an eye witness of the accident. He further stated that he cannot say whether the accident in question took place between the Alto car and the tractor / trolly or that whether the Wagon R Car was involved or not in the present accident. He further denied suggestions put by Ld. Defence counsel and after being duly cross examined at length, he was discharged.
18. Vide statement of Accused recorded U/s 294 Cr.P.C, he admitted the genuineness of FIR no. 410/2014 PS BHD Nagar and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex. Al and Ex. A2, DD no. 5A, DD no. 9A, DD no. 8A, DD no. 7A all dated 04.07.2014, Εx. A3, Ex. A4, Ex.A5 and Ex. A6. As such, rest of the formal witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined. PE was closed thereafter.
19. After examination of all the witnesses, P.E stand closed and the matter was proceeded with for recording statement of Accused.
20. Accused was then given an opportunity to explain all the incriminating Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 11 of 25 circumstances appearing against him at trial, and his statement was recorded under Section 313/281 CrPC. He submitted the he is innocent and he have been falsely implicated in the present matter. The said accident was not caused by him. Accused opted not to lead DE in the affirmative.
21. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of final arguments. Final arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
22. Before proceeding further, it shall be apposite to note the provisions of law germane for the adjudication of present proceedings :
279 IPC- Rash driving or riding on a public way-
Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt to injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 337:- Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.
Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
304A IPC- Causing death by negligence-
Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
23. Liability for the aforesaid offences can be affixed upon the Accused only if the prosecution is able to prove he was "rash or negligent" when driving the offending vehicle, which resulted in the accident.
24. In Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam vs State Of Andhra Pradesh (2000) 7 SCC 72, the scope of the terms "rashness or negligence" was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India thus, " A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 12 of 25 consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
25. It is seen that evidence led in the case is largely ocular in nature. The same shall be scrutinized as per the following principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment titled Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra dated 14.07.2022 in Criminal Appeal no. 739/2017-
"I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate Court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 13 of 25
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.
[See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : AIR 1983 SC 753, Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 3717, and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 1012]"
26. With the above in mind, the facts of the case shall be adverted to. In order to prove the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution had to establish-
Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 14 of 25(i)That the accident took place on a public way.
(ii)That the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.
(iii) That the accident took place because of the 'rashness or negligence' of the driver of the offending vehicle.
(iv) That the offending vehicle was being driven by the Accused at the relevant time.
(v) That the accident that took place, resulted in the death of the victim Sudhir and simple injuries to Inder Paswan, Ram Nath, Samodh Yadav and Virender.
27. The ingredient (i) and (ii) could not be disputed by the defence in the course of cross-examination of witnesses and also in the course of final arguments.
28. In the course of final arguments, the Ld. Counsel has argued and disputed the prosecution case on the following points:
(a) The PWs have deposed that the accident occurred due to the offending vehicle hitting the victim vehicle from the left side/from the rear but the mechanical inspection report does not note any damage on these parts and as such the offending vehicle did not even contact the victim vehicle and the victim vehicle collided with the tractor due to tyre burst. The mechanical inspection report also notes the tyre burst.
(b) The PCR caller/driver of the tractor was not investigated/arrayed as a witness by the IO and the case of the prosecution is doubtful on that count.
(c) PW-2, the father of the deceased is a planted witness at the behest of the police to puff up the prosecution case as his conduct in not remaining at the spot or helping his son/admitting him in hospital renders his testimony/presence at the spot untrustworthy. Even the PWs have identified the Accused first time in Court and their evidence is unreliable.
(d) The accident was caused due to absence of any lights on the front part of the overloaded trolley and the victim vehicle could not see the overloaded trolley and collided with the tractor and overloaded trolley. It is the tractor-trolley driver who is responsible for negligence/contributory negligence in causing the crash.Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 15 of 25
(e) The offending vehicle was never produced in Court and no reliable evidence is there on record that the Accused was driving the said vehicle at the time of the incident.
(f) Even assuming that the offending vehicle had caused the accident and the Accused was driving it, mere PWs saying that the vehicle was being driven 'rashly/negligently' or at 'very high speed' does not satisfy the requirement of law since they were witnesses of fact and not opinion.
29. PW-1 has deposed that on the fateful day, he was returning along with his father on a tractor with a trolley containing fodder attached to it. He stated that he was in the co-driver seat and his father was driving. He stated that when they reached the spot, one Wagon R car which was making an overtaking attempt, hit one Alto car on its back side and due to the same the Alto lost balance and struck the tractor. He then stated that his father had, in an attempt at an evasive manoeuvre, dropped down the tractor into the fields and resultantly, the tractor and trolley overturned due to which he and the three labourers on the trolley suffered injuries. He has correctly identified the Accused but stated that he fled away from the spot. Even though he was not able to remember the number of Alto car but partially remembered the number of the Wagon R, he has pointedly stated that the accident was caused due to the fault of the Accused in the Wagon R as he tried to overtake the Alto from the wrong side. He has also recalled the correct body colour of both vehicles. While under cross-examination, he has deposed that the vehicle of the deceased did not hit the tractor, However, as the discussion in the succeeding paragraphs shall show, the vehicle of the deceased had indeed come into the path of the tractor and collided with it, which proved fatal to the driver. He has stated that no front lights were installed in the trolley back lights were installed. Under cross-examination, he has completely denied the suggestions given by the defence to the contrary.
30. PW - 2 is the father of the deceased and he has stated that on the fateful day, he was coming after attending a marriage in the family and his son was also coming along in the Alto car, with his car ahead of him. He stated that he saw that the offending vehicle had overtaken his car in a zigzag manner and thereafter, struck Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 16 of 25 against the Alto car going ahead, in the left middle portion due to which it lost control and struck the tractor was coming from the opposite side. He then stated that he stopped his vehicle and sought help from the Accused. He identified the Accused to be the one offending vehicle said the name of the Accused was revealed to him by the Accused himself when he sought help from the Accused. Thus, he has also supported the case of the prosecution and material particulars.
31. PW- 5,6 and 7 have deposed on similar lines wherein they have stated that hen the stated that they were all going after filling fodder in the trolley and when they reached the spot, they saw the victim vehicle, i.e., the Alto car coming from the oncoming direction with one Wagon R trying to overtake it in very high speed and in quite rash and negligent manner and it hit the Alto car and their tractor-trolley got imbalanced and turned turtle. They have all correctly identified the driver of the offending vehicle and also deposed that the Fire Brigade had come to the spot to extricate the deceased. They all stated that the PCR call was made by the tractor driver and they do not remember as to who was at fault as they fell unconscious after the accident.
32. PW - 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12 are formal witnesses of investigation and nothing material could be elicited by the defence to discredit their testimony. In addition thereto, they are essentially witnesses to the codal formalities of investigation and witnesses 'after the fact' as opposed to direct witnesses to the incident and as such, their testimony is not reproduced here for the sake of brevity. Similarly, the testimony of PW-13, i.e., the medical witness/formal witness was faintly attempted to be discredited citing that the findings were not in his handwriting etc. but the explanation given by the witness is plausible and as such, even his testimony could not be discredited on that score.
33. Save and except the testimony of the IO, what has been stated hereinbefore is the bulk of the testimony of the direct witnesses to the incident which is available for this Court to examine the contentions of the defence in light of the same.
34. Contention (a) is the most important contention raised from the side of the defence and deciding the said contention is pivotal in the instant case. It has been Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 17 of 25 contended that as per the mechanical inspection report, the front right tyre of the offending vehicle is mentioned to have been in burst condition. It is stated that going as per the site plan, if the front right tire had burst before the accident, going by the natural trajectory of the vehicle, the vehicle would have started naturally veering to the right owing to the sudden loss of steering characteristics caused by the tyre burst and come into the path of the oncoming tractor and hit it and as such the tyre burst was responsible for the victim vehicle hitting the tractor. Another ancillary contention that has been raised is that even if it is assumed that the version of the PWs is true and that the offending vehicle had hit the victim vehicle from the left side or rear side, causing the victim vehicle to come into the path of the tractor, the mechanical inspection report on record has not noted any damage on the left side or rear of the victim vehicle.
35. Both these contentions can be decided together. The defence is quite conveniently trying to present only one side of the story whereas the fact of the matter is there is no explanation which has come forth from the side of the defence as to the fresh damage caused on the right side of the offending vehicle and also the fact that fresh blood marks are appearing on the engine bonnet and front bumper. The damage caused and the right side of the offending vehicle is consistent with the offending vehicle trying to overtake the victim vehicle from the left side and nudging/bumping into the victim vehicle and leading it into the path of the tractor. The mechanical inspection report has not to be read in isolation and the mere absence of there being any damage noted on the left side of the victim vehicle cannot be read as so material as to rebut the entire ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses who have deposed that the offending vehicle had tried to overtake the victim vehicle from the wrong side and struck it and which resulted in the victim vehicle coming into the path of the oncoming tractor. Similarly, the mechanical inspection report noting that the front right tire of the victim vehicle was in burst condition would not ipso facto mean that the tyre burst had happened prior to the accident. No such inference can be drawn only on the basis of the mechanical inspection report and on the other hand the ocular testimony of the Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 18 of 25 prosecution witnesses clearly points out that the victim vehicle had collided with the tractor trolley and it is well nigh possible that on such a collision the front right tire had burst.
36. Coming over to contention (c), the objection from the side of the defence is that the said witness is a planted witness and his conduct is surprising as he did not even care to remain at the spot after the accident wherein his son was critically injured and even the MLC of the deceased is not showing any name in the column of relative or friend (implying that PW-2 did not even care to admit the deceased in hospital after the accident). In addition, it is stated that it is made to appear as a pure happenstance that when PW-2 had visited the MACT cell a few days after the incident, he saw the Accused/driver too and identified him.
37. To properly appreciate this contention, the facts of the case and the response of the witness/PW-2 has to be read in context. It must be kept in mind that as soon as the collision occurred, the body of the deceased was stuck inside the Alto car and as the photographs shall show, along with the evidence of the PW-9/member of the fire department, the body of the deceased was stuck inside the car had to be extricated from the victim vehicle. Even otherwise, PW - 2 has deposed that he had got into a state of panic/shock on seeing the incident and the Accused had fled away from the scene shortly thereafter. In such circumstances, the conduct of PW
- 2 in not lingering there is quite is consistent with the conduct of a man who has faced such trauma. When PW-2 would have realised that life of his son was extinguished and it was not possible for him to have his son saved or to extricate his body out of his car by himself , it would be but natural for the said witness to have realised that he could have done nothing to better the situation than to proceed ahead and wait for the authorities, who had already arrived at the scene, to do their job.
38. It must be considered that the accident had occurred in the dead of the night/wee hours of the morning and it could be well within the contemplation of PW - 2 that there were other family members also returning in different cars and it would be unsafe for them to linger on at the relatively secluded spot with fields on each side, Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 19 of 25 especially when the deceased had already passed away. With regard to the other contention that has been raised from the side of the defence is that PW - 2 made no attempt to admit his son to the hospital and the MLC mentions a blank in the column of relative, the testimony of PW - 9 is material. The condition of the vehicle was such that the body of the deceased could not be extricated except by use of ropes etc. and it could not have been possible for PW-2 to make such efforts himself and that is why could have left the spot.
39. It is also stated by PW - 9 that he had assisted in removing the body and handed it over to the police official, which is consistent with the noting the MLC that the personal effects of the deceased were handed over to the said police official. Now, with regard to the chance identification of the Accused in the MACT cell, stated to be at the instance/with the connivance of the IO, it must be kept in mind that it was the Accused himself who had refused his identification by way of TIP etc. and the statement to that effect is present on record. As such, the mere fact that the Accused was identified in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C./at the MACT cell or that the Accused was named in response to the notice under section 133 of the MVAct is not the only evidence of identification against the Accused.
40. It must be kept in mind that the prosecution witnesses have clearly and unequivocally identified the Accused as the driver of the offending vehicle in Court and as such, the identification before the Court is a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be lightly brushed aside as stated by the defence. The ingredient (iv) is clearly made out.
41. With regard to contention (b), as the discussion in the preceding paragraphs has shown, the testimony of witnesses PW-1,2,5,6,7 when read conjunctively have clearly brought out the manner of the accident and the responsibility of the Accused in causing it and as such the fact that the PCR caller was not arrayed would not be of much significance to the instant case as the direct witnesses to the incident have come on record and deposed in support of the case of the prosecution. The mere non-joining of the PCR caller cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution case when all the other witnesses have deposed clearly and Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 20 of 25 correctly in support thereof.
42. Further, with regard to contention (e) that the offending vehicle was not produced in Court, the fact remains that the offending vehicle, though seized in the matter, was released on superdari an application made by the owner of the vehicle to the SHO concerned and without any order of this Court. Such illegality was noted by the Ld. Predecessors in their respective orders and even though repeated attempts were made to trace out the offending vehicle and the owner/the same failed. The Ld. APP has stated that the misconduct on the part of the police officials in releasing the vehicle/misplacing photographs etc. should not be allowed to come in the way of the case of the prosecution.
43. It must be kept in mind that even though the offending vehicle could not be produced in Court nor its photographs were on record, the testimony of the witnesses when taken in conjunction have clearly identified the offending vehicle, its make and model, registration number and colour. The said particulars of the offending vehicle have also been noted in the registration document and the mechanical inspection report annexed with the instant case and the fact that the offending vehicle was found at the spot of the incident in damaged condition along with the victim vehicle and the tractor trolley is a fact which could not be disputed by the defence at any stage of the trial. As an aside, the Accused has also given his statement on record that he does not dispute the identity of the offending vehicle and now, it seems quite surprising that at the stage of final arguments, the said contention is raised again before this Court. Thus, the contention regarding non- production of the offending vehicle does not survive.
44. Now, dealing with the contention (d), it has been contended on behalf of the defence that the fact that the trolley was overloaded is apparent in the photographs and it could have a very well been the case that, owing to the absence of any indicator lights on the front portion of the trolley, the victim vehicle would not have been able to gauge the width of the vehicle approaching as the rear track of the tractor is wider than the front track and the trolley (over)loaded with fodder was even wider than the rear track and jutting out. It has also been contended that Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 21 of 25 the headlights of the tractor as apparent from the photographs from the front, are placed near to each other which does not give any hint about the wider rear wheels and , which would have made it appear that are relatively narrower vehicle was approaching and the victim vehicle would not have realised the same until it was too late and collided with the tractor trolley and it is the driver of the tractor trolley who is guilty of negligence/contributory negligence.
45. To examine this contention in the right perspective, the contents of the preceding paragraphs have also to be adverted to. All in all, from what has come on record by the evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses, the version could be reconstructed thus - the victim vehicle was proceeding in one direction and the tractor trolley was coming in the opposite direction on a single lane undivided road. The offending vehicle then, in a manoeuvre of overtaking the victim vehicle from the left side had nudged the victim vehicle and with the result, the victim vehicle had veered to the right side and onto the oncoming lane. In these circumstances, it could have been very well possible that seeing the narrowly placed headlights of the oncoming vehicle and the absence of any indicator lights on the front portion of the trolley, the victim vehicle would not have been able to adjudge the width of the oncoming vehicle, i.e., tractor trolley. It is a matter of fact that the front track of the tractor is relatively narrower than the rear track and the mechanical inspection report notes that the rear right rim of the tractor was freshly damaged which is consistent with the offending vehicle hitting the rear the rim of the tractor. However, on this aspect alone, the Accused is not entitled to Acquittal as clear case of his rashness or negligence has been made out on the part of the Accused in his actions prior to the collision and as a causa causans of the accident which resulted in the victim vehicle colliding with the tractor-trolley.
46. The fact that the road itself undivided meant that an overtaking manoeuvre entailed brief transgression into the oncoming lane and thereafter returning to the correct lane after the manoeuvre is complete, which is a risky manoeuvre as the risk lies in colliding with oncoming traffic if the overtaking vehicle is not able to return to its correct lane in time or in the alternative case, colliding with vehicle Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 22 of 25 being overtaken in case any evasive manoeuvre is made to avoid the vehicle in the oncoming lane. Attempting such a manoeuvre in the dead of the night multiplies the risk in orders of magnitude larger than that of daytime, when visibility is high. Now, when this stage is reached, the factum of trying to overtake on an undivided road, that too from the wrong side and in the dead of the night is a clear pointer towards rashness or negligence on the part of the Accused. The fact that such a manoeuvre was undertaken and which resulted in nudging the victim vehicle on the path of the tractor is held to be the proximate, direct and efficient cause of the accident. To examine it from another angle, if in similar circumstances, the offending vehicle had tried to overtake the victim vehicle from the correct side, i.e., the right side, it would have necessitated the offending vehicle to transgress into the oncoming lane of the undivided road and it would have been the offending vehicle which would have come on onto the path of the tractor trolley and struck it instead of the victim vehicle. When the manoeuvre was so risky when undertaken from the correct side, it proved to be all the more, rather, fatally risky when done from the wrong side, as the facts of the instant case have demonstrated, clearly bringing out the ingredient (iii).
47. With regard to the aspect of rashness or negligence, it must be kept in mind that mere witness mouthing these words/the ingredients of the offence is not sufficient as has been held by the Courts (see Abdul Subhan v. State (NCT) 1). It has also been held in various decisions that mere high speed would not ipso facto constitute rashness or negligence (see State of Karnataka vs Satish 2). However, the line of defence adopted by the learned counsel misses a very important point. Even if the words rashly or negligently and very high speed stated by the said witnesses is discounted in totality, the evidence of rashness or negligence in the manner of driving the vehicle is quite apparent when the other parts of the testimonies are concerned and considered. PW-1,2,5,6,7 have deposed that the offending vehicle was coming from behind the victim vehicle and was trying to overtake the victim 1 supra 2 AIRONLINE 1996 SC 95 Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 23 of 25 vehicle from the wrong side, i.e., the left side and resultantly, the victim vehicle had come into the path of the oncoming tractor and collided with the same resulting in the death of the driver of the victim vehicle and injuries to the persons on the tractor. The manner of driving of the offending vehicle is clearly brought out from their testimony. Further, driving the vehicle in such manner at night and taking part in overtaking vehicles from the wrong side in a single lane undivided road is nothing but rashness or negligence writ large. The fact that such a manoeuvre had in turn, because the collision of the offending vehicle with the victim vehicle wherein the victim vehicle collided with the tractor coming into the oncoming lane is but an anticipated result of such rash or negligent act and deciding contention (f) against the Accused. Thus, ingredient (v) is also clearly brought out and no reasonable doubt could be case/plausible explanation could be given by the defence to explain any alternative theory as to how the injured suffered injuries at that time/place or the deceased succumbed to injuries or as to how the three vehicles at the spot were damaged.
48. At this stage, it would be fruitful to deal with certain other aspects which, though not argued by the defence, deserve to be dealt with at the stage for a complete adjudication of the matter. It is seen that PW - 1 has deposed that the victim vehicle had collided with the tractor in his examination in chief but, in his cross examination he has deposed that the collision did not take place. Similarly, PW 5, 6 and 7 have deposed that they do not know "as to who was at fault" as they had gone unconscious. Both of these aspects are stray inconsistencies and not material aspects which affect the case of the prosecution. With regard to the statement of PW - 1, it is seen that it is nobody's case that the victim vehicle did not collide with the tractor. PW - 1 has deposed about the collision in his examination in chief and PW - 2 has also deposed identically in his testimony which has withstood the test of cross-examination that he had seen the victim vehicle, which was going ahead of him, colliding with the tractor as a result of the act of the offending vehicle. Similarly the statement that PW-5, 6 and 7 that they do not know as to who was at fault will not ipso facto operate to exonerate the Accused Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 24 of 25 of any rashness or negligence in causing the accident as the said witnesses could not be elevated to the status of the ultimate adjudicator. The fact of determining as to who was at fault is a matter which is to be decided by the Court on the basis of the evidence led before it and as discussed hereinabove, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses taken together have clearly established the factum of rashness or negligence on the part of the Accused in driving the victim vehicle.
49. In the concluding paragraphs, the testimonies of the IOs, PW11 and PW14 may be discussed. They both have corroborated the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and deposed qua the investigative process. It must be kept in mind that they are witnesses to the investigative process and as such 'witnesses after the fact' and their testimony and any inconsistency therein does not materially affect the prosecution case. The suggestions given by the defence to the effect that other public witnesses were not joined, PCR caller was not investigated, PW-2 was an alleged planted witness/CDR record of PW-2 was not obtained etc. are contentions which have already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Essentially, such contentions do not materially divert the finger of guilt from pointing at the Accused. PW-2's veracity has been duly established and the witnesses joined have deposed in support of the incident. Merely some other witnesses were not joined/CDR was not obtained cannot be a ground to doubt the whole prosecution case. Similarly, as discussed above, absence of photographs of the offending vehicle with the chargesheet is not a fatal defect.
50. Thus, as all ingredients of the offence have been established against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Accused Ghanshyam Dass is convicted of the offence u/s 279/337/304A IPC.
51. Let he be heard on point of sentence separately.
Digitally signed by VISVESHDate: 2025.07.24 14:29:12+05'30' (VISVESH) Judicial Magistrate First Class-07 South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, 24.07.2025 Cr. No. 423362/2016 State vs. Ghanshyam Dass Page 25 of 25