Delhi District Court
State vs . Attar Singh on 11 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DR. KARAN CHOUDHARY, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE05 SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW
DELHI
STATE Vs. ATTAR SINGH
Cr. CASE No. : 92686/2016
Unique Case ID : DLSE020007802011
FIR No. : 245/10 (Case QR Code)
Police Station : Sarita Vihar
Section(s) : 279/337/304A IPC
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution 10.01.2011 Name of the complainant ASI Satish Chander Date of Commission of 22.08.2010 offence Name of the accused Sh. Attar Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh R/o H. No. H. No. 71, Near Shiv Mandir, Village Neelwal, P.O Tikari Kalan, Nangloi, Delhi.
Offence complained of 279/337/304A IPC Plea of accused Not Guilty Case reserved for orders Not Reserved Final Order Convicted u/s 279/337/304A IPC Date of order 11.10.2022 Cr. Case No. 92686/2016 State vs. Attar Singh Page 1 of 12 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 22.08.2010 at about 07:30 PM, accused was driving DTC low floor bus bearing no. DL1PC8501 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the aforesaid vehicle in a aforesaid manner, accused hit against a bicycle make Atlas bearing no. G705609 of black color and a two wheeler Scooter Honda bearing no. DL85AJ2894 and a pedestrian. Due to the accident victim Virender Singh died and victims Sh. Sahay Ram and Sh. Ram Rishi suffered injuries. The said incident took place at Mathura Road, Mohan Cooperative Society, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. On the basis of aforesaid facts, present FIR was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under section U/s 279/337/304A IPC.
2. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused. The copy of chargesheet and annexed documents were supplied to accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on finding a prima facie case against the accused, for the offence punishable under Sections 279/337/304A IPC notice was framed against the accused to which he had pleaded not guilty and had claimed trial.
3. To bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Vide his statement, the accused had admitted the genuineness of (i) MLC No. 223986 Dated 22.08.10 of injured Ram Sahay prepared by Dr. Shahid Akhtar, AIIMS (ii) MLC No. 223987 dated 22.08.2010 of injured Rishi Ram prepared by Dr. Shahid Akhtar, AIIMS (III) Postmortem Report No. TC690/10 dated 23.08.10 of deceased Virender Singh prepared by Dr. Raghvendra, AIIMS. Thereafter, Cr. Case No. 92686/2016 State vs. Attar Singh Page 2 of 12 prosecution evidence was closed and matter was listed for examination of accused U/s 313 CrPC.
4. The statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. In his statement, accused denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. He stated that Police has falsely implicated him in the present case and that all the witnesses had deposed falsely. However, the accused did not produce any independent witness to substantiate his defence. Accordingly, matter was listed for final arguments.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel as well as gone through case file very carefully. The argument of Ld. APP is that there is enough material on record to prove the case against the accused. Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has argued that the accused has been wrongly associated with the offence in question and as such the accused is entitled to acquittal in the present case. In his statement U/s 313 CrPC, the accused had admitted that he was driving the offending bus bearing no. DL1PC8501 at the relevant date and time. The defence of the accused is that he was driving carefully and that the accident took place due to the fault of scooter driver and cyclist who hit him from the wrong side.
6. I have perused the case file very carefully and have duly considered the respective arguments. The settled propositions of criminal trial are :
(A) Prosecution is required to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. (B) In order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if Cr. Case No. 92686/2016 State vs. Attar Singh Page 3 of 12 any, in the defence of the accused.
(C) The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. (D) The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
7.1 Law relating to requirement of independent witness: Sections 100 Clause 4 & 5 Cr.P.C: Requirement of independent witnesses only when search is made on the person of the accused or at some place from where the incriminating articles is recovered and not when corroboration of happening of event in which accused is alleged to be involved is concerned.
7.2 Minor contradictions do not effect the credibility of the prosecution case: It was held in the judgment titled as Ravi Kapoor V. State of Rajasthan, 2012 VIII AD (S.C) 73 that "Minor variations are bound to occur in the statements of the witnesses when their statements are recorded after a considerable lapse from the date of occurrence".
7.3 Overall context of the case is to be seen: It also the settled law laid down in Sardul Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2002 SC 3462 that Courts have a duty to undertake a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all the vital features of the case and entire evidence with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case in their attempt to find out proof beyond reasonable doubt.
7.4 Law relating to Evidentary value of testimony of Police Officers:
The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as Cr. Case No. 92686/2016 State vs. Attar Singh Page 4 of 12 testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds; Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 2003 SC 1311.
7.5 Definition of rashness and negligence: What is rashness or negligence has been defined in relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Ravi Kapur Vs State of Rajasthan 2012(7) SCALE354 which are quoted below:
Para11 "Negligence means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the Court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence."
Para 17 "A rash act is primarily an overhasty 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 Cr. Case No. 92686/2016 State vs. Attar Singh Page 5 of 12 recklessness and with indifference as to the 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."
8. Ingredients to be proved: The accused is liable to be punished under Sec. 279 IPC when the prosecution proves the following ingredients :
(i) the accused should have been driving offending vehicle at the relevant time and place.
(ii) the manner of driving should be rash or negligent in a way to endanger human life or which is likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
9.1 The accused should have been driving the offending vehicle on public way?
9.2 The alleged offending vehicle was a DTC Bus. The IO served notice U/s 133 M.V. Act vide Ex. PW9/C to ATI, DTC Depot Wazirpur DepotI. In response to the said notice, Sh. Tulsi Ram (ATI) was Authorized by Wazirpur DTC Depot to reply to the said notice. He was examined as PW12. PW 12 Tulsi Ram deposed that on 23.08.2010 on the basis of authority letter Ex.PW1/X given by then Depot Manager, Sh, P.K. Bangar, he appeared before IO and gave him the duty slip of driver Sh. Attar Singh (driver of the offending bus), driver batch no. 10107 and conductor Sh. Narain Dutt, batch no. C131 of bus no. DL1PC8501 and the copy of the same is Ex.PW12/A. As per the record maintained at the Depot, duty hours of accused Attar Singh/accused driver were from 14:35 to 23:05 on 22.08.2010 and at the time of present accident, Attar Singh was the driver of DTC Bus no. DL Cr. Case No. 92686/2016 State vs. Attar Singh Page 6 of 12 1PC8501. PW12 also produced all the relevant documents regarding bus no. DL 1PC8501 before the IO. Accused was arrested and personally searched in his presence vide memos Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively. Driving licence of accused Attar Singh was seized in his presence vide memo Ex.PW6/C. Mechanical inspection of offending bus DL1PC8501 was conducted by Sh. Santosh Kumar, foreman in his presence. Accused Attar Singh was duly identified by the witness in the Court and the DTC bus no. DL1PC8501 was identified through photographs Ex.P1(Colly). The witness PW12 was duly cross examined by counsel for accused wherein he admitted that the IO had obtained his signatures at the bottom of the notice and no reply was written in his hand on the said notice. The witness was duly reexamined by Ld. APP wherein the witness also admitted that the contents of reply of the notice U/s 133 M.V Act i.e. Ex.PW12/Y, were correct as per their record. Thus, the witness duly proved that accused Attar Singh was driving the offending bus bearing no. DL1PC8501 at the relevant date and time. The accused could not demolish the testimony of this witness despite cross examination.
9.3 In his statement U/s 313 CrPC, the accused had also admitted that he was driving the offending bus bearing no. DL1PC8501 at the relevant date and time. As per the seizure memo, offending bus bearing no. DL1PC8501 was seized from the spot of the incident. The seizure memo has been duly proved by the prosecution.
9.4 In view of the above discussion, it is held that prosecution has successfully proved that the accused was driving the alleged offending vehicle i.e., DTC bus bearing no. DL1PC8501 at the relevant date, time and place which is a public way.
Cr. Case No. 92686/2016 State vs. Attar Singh Page 7 of 1210.1 The manner of driving should be rash or negligent in a way to endanger human life or which is likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
10.2 PW8 SI Satish Chander deposed that on 22.08.2010 he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as ASI. On that day he received DD No. 28A in respect to accident occurred on road in front of Haldiram, Mathura Road. Upon receipt of this information, he alongwith Ct. Ved Pal reached at the spot where they found one DTC bus bearing no. DL1PC 8501. They also found that one Atlas cycle was lying under the wheels of that DTC bus at the driver side and one scooter bearing no. DL8SAJ 2894 was lying under the wheel of DTC bus at conductor side. There was blood on the road. In the meanwhile, he received DD No. 51B from AIIMS Trauma Center regarding admission of the injured person. He left Ct. Ved Pal at the spot and went AIIMS Trauma Center and collected MLC No.223991 of an unknown person, MLC No.223986 of Sahay Ram and MLC No.223987 of Ram Rishi. Sahay Ram and Ram Rishi were not found present in casualty. Unknown person was declared brought dead. He returned back to the spot. He made endorsement on the DD No.28 A vide Ex. PW 8/A and handed it over to Ct. Ved Pal for registration of FIR. He seized the said DTC bus, Scooter and cycle vide seizure memos Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/C and prepared site plan vide memo Ex.PW8/B. After registration of the FIR, investigation was assigned to ASI Umrao Singh and he handed over above said prepared documents and custody of Seized articles to him. He identified the seized vehicles through photographs and negatives Ex. P1 (colly).
10.3 PW9 SI Umrao Singh is the IO of the present case. He deposed that on 23.08.2010, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as ASI. On that day, investigation of Cr. Case No. 92686/2016 State vs. Attar Singh Page 8 of 12 present matter was marked to him by concerned SHO. Thereafter, he got conducted postmortem of deceased at AIIMS Mortuary by moving application vide memo Ex. PW9/A. Thereafter, he got conducted identification of dead body of deceased Virender Singh vide statements Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW2/A and handed over dead body of the victim to relatives of deceased vide document/statement vide memo Ex. PW2/B. On the same day, he gave notice U/s 133 MV Act to ATI, DTC Depot Wazirpur DepotI which Ex. PW9/C. In response to the said notice, the ATI produced accused/driver in the police station as the person who was driving the offending bus on the relevant date, time and place. He arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex. PW6/A & Ex. PW6/B and seized Driving Licence of accused vide memo Ex. PW6/C and photocopies of RC, Permit, Insurance of the offending vehicle. The accused was released on police bail, the offence being bailable. Thereafter, IO got conducted mechanical inspection of offending vehicle i.e DTC bus bearing no. DL1PC8501 and scooter Honda bearing no. DL8SAJ2894 and black coloured Atlas Bicycle vide memo Ex. PW7/A to Ex. PW7/C. He moved application of TIP of accused wherein accused refused to join the same. IO also obtained result of MLCs of two injured. Doctor opined the injures to be simple. On 07.09.2010, IO obtained Postmortem result of deceased vide Ex. PW9/D. On 14.09.2010, IO got verified RC, DL, insurance, and fitness from concerned authority. Thereafter, IO prepared chargesheet and filed before Court through concerned SHO. He identified the offending vehicle, place of incident and victim's vehicle through nineteen photographs Ex. P1 (Colly).
10.4 Victim Ram Sahay was examined as PW4. He deposed that on the date of incident, he was going on scooter which was being driven by Aman. He further Cr. Case No. 92686/2016 State vs. Attar Singh Page 9 of 12 deposed that one bus came from behind and hit against the scooter due to which they sustained injuries. Thereafter, he became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital in PCR van. The witness failed to identify the accused in the Court. The victim was riding the scooter which was being driven ahead of the bus. He was hit by the bus from behind and suffered injuries and subsequently fell unconscious. As the witness became unconscious, failure of this witness to identify the accused or the offending vehicle is duly explained. During cross examination PW4, inter alia admitted that he didn't remember which vehicle hit his scooter. As discussed above, the prosecution, through the testimony of PW12, PW8 & PW9 and the seizure memo of the offending bus, has already proved that the accused Attar Singh was driving the offending DTC Bus on the relevant date and time. Thus, failure of this witness to identify the accused and state which vehicle hit him is not material in the given facts of the case. Further PW2 in testimony stated that bus bearing no. DL1PC8501 came in rash and negligent manner and hit victims. PW2 correctly identified the offending bus i.e. Ex. P1(Colly).
10.5 IO got all the vehicles mechanically inspected. Mechanical Inspection Reports of the offending bus, victim's scooter and cycle are Ex. PW7/A to Ex.PW7/C respectively, and have been duly proved by Mechanical Inspector. The accused did not cross examine the witness. The Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending bus shows that the brake, steering, accelerator, mirror glass of the offending bus were ok. However, there was substantial damage on both front head lights. Front right side bumper was also damaged and front windshield was broken. There was substantial damage on the scooter and the cycle of the victims. The damage on the offending bus was not explained by the accused. The scooter and Cr. Case No. 92686/2016 State vs. Attar Singh Page 10 of 12 the cycle was found lying under the wheels of the bus and the same is corroborated by the testimonies of the IO and SI Satish Chand. It is settled law that independent witnesses are not necessary for corroboration in every case when the material witnesses sound truthful and their testimony is convincing to sustain the conviction of the accused. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that there is no such requirement of independent witnesses in CrPC or Evidence Act. Even under Clause 4 and 5 of Section 100 Cr.PC two witnesses of the locality are necessary only in a case where any incriminating article is found from the possession of the accused and independent witnesses are not necessary where they can be quoted only as witness to the fact though it would be better if the IO has cited such witnesses. In view of the aforestated law in Appabhai v. State of Gujrat & Kathi Bharat Vasjur v. State of Gujarat (Supra) the prosecution case is not affected due to the absence of the public witnesses. In view of the settled law in Sardul Singh's case (Supra) one has to see the totality of circumstances which in this case point towards the negligence of the accused in commission of the accident.
10.6 The negligence is apparent from the fact that the cycle of deceased and scooter of other injured victim had been hit in the present case from behind which caused death of cyclist driver and injury to the Pillion rider on the scooter. Hence, accused Attar Singh is guilty of negligent driving. Considering the circumstances accused was clearly negligent and did not act like a prudent person by not maintaining sufficient distance from the vehicle in front. I also take support from the judgment of Delhi High Court in Paras Nath Vs. State of Delhi 107(2003) DLT 169 in which the accused was rightly held to be convicted because the complainant vehicle was hit from behind even though there was not direct allegation of rash or Cr. Case No. 92686/2016 State vs. Attar Singh Page 11 of 12 negligent driving by the accused. In view of the judgment of Ravi Kapoor Vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) that minor contradiction in the case do not affect the credibility of the case, the contradictions and circumstances pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the accused are minor in nature and do not affect the prosecution case.
11. In respect of offence u/s 304A, IPC which states "Causing death by negligence Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide" it has already been proved that the accused on the aforesaid date, time and place was found driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving he has struck against the aforesaid cycle and scooter, thereby causing death of the cyclist and injuries to pillion rider. The fact of death of said deceased has been duly proved as the postmortem report has been placed on record which has never been denied by the accused. All this has not been rebutted by the accused.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Attar Singh is hereby convicted for offence u/s 279 IPC, U/s 337 IPC and U/s 304A IPC.
Pronounced in the open court on 11.10.2022 in presence of accused person.
(Dr. Karan Choudhary) Metropolitan Magistrate05/South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi This judgment contains 12 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Cr. Case No. 92686/2016 State vs. Attar Singh Page 12 of 12