Delhi District Court
State vs Punit on 6 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KARANBIR SINGH, JMFC-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. Punit
FIR NO. 262/16
U/S 279 / 338 IPC
POLICE STATION TIMAR PUR
Date of institution of the case : 02.08.2018
Date of judgment reserved : 25.09.2025
CNR : DLCT02025227-2018
Cr. Case No. : 11004/2018
Date of commission of offence : 17.05.2016
Name of the complainant : Ms. Munni Devi
Name of accused and address : Sh. Punit, S/o Om Prakash, R/o D-41,
Sec -16 B, Dwarka Police Colony, Delhi.
Offence complained of : Section 279/338 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 06.10.2025.
Final order : Convicted
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :
1. The prosecution case in brief is that on 17.05.2016 at about 12:10 am at teacher's colony gate, Timarpur, accused was driving his car bearing no. DL 1YD 7981 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others and he injured Munni Devi causing grievous injury to her.
COURT PROCEEDINGS :
2. Investigation was completed and police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. PUNIT FIR NO. 262/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 1 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.10.06 17:22:13 +0530 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC. Cognizance was taken and accused was summoned. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of the accused.
NOTICE U/S 251 CR.P.C. :
3. After hearing arguments on point of service of notice, notice for the offence under Section 279/338 IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION :
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses.
5. PW-1 Sh. Inder Pal deposed that on 17.05.2016, after having dinner he was sitting outside on chaarpai (Cot) of his house. His mother was also sitting on a footpath due to the hot weather. At around 12:10 am, a car came from Teacher Colony side and the car was being driven in a negligent manner and the driver was driving the vehicle in zig-zag manner and the driver was also drunk. The driver drove the vehicle on footpath and hit his mother due to which she sustained injury on the left side of her stomach. He alongwith his neighbours apprehended the driver. His friend Arun called police from his phone. The driver on asking his name, revealed the same as Punit. Within a short time, the police reached the spot and they handed over the accused and offending vehicle to the police. The offending vehicle was a white colour swift desire bearing registration number DL1YD7981. He identified the accused persons and the case property correctly in the court. The photographs are collectively exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A(colly). Police called the ambulance and my mother namely Munni Devi was shifted to Trauma Center for treatment. His mother remained admitted at trauma center for 2-3 days and thereafter, she was referred to Lok Nayak Hospital where she remained admitted for 6-8 months. Police arrested the KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. PUNIT FIR NO. 262/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 2 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.10.06 17:22:17 +0530 accused in his presence and prepared the arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B bearing his signature at point A. Personal search of the accused was conducted in his presence and the corresponding personal search memo was prepared which is Ex. PW-1/C bearing his signature at point A. The site plan was prepared at his instance and the same is Ex. PW-1/D.
6. PW-2 Retd. ASI Gurdeep (Technical/ Mechanical Expert) deposed that he was working as Technical/Mechanical Expert for the past 35 years. He has conducted the mechanical inspection of Maruti Swift Car bearing registration no.
DL-1YD-7981 on the request of SI Ganpati in the FIR No. 262/16. He had prepared the mechanical inspection report of Maruti Swift Car which is EX. PW.2/A bearing his signature at point A. As per report, front bumper of the Maruti Swift car was having fresh damage.
7. PW-3 Retd. Shobha Devi deposed that on 17.05.2016 she was posted as head constable at PS Timarpur and on that day, she was working as duty officer. She received a PCR call at night 12:10 a.m regarding an accident near Teacher Colony through wireless operator. She reduced the information in writing vide DD No. 3A, is EX. PW3/A and the same was marked to SI Ganpati. At 12:10 a.m, she received a rukka and on the basis of which she registered the above mentioned FIR No. 262/2016. Today she has brought the original FIR and copy of the said FIR, is EX. PW3/A (OSR) bearing her signature at point A. He also made the endorsement on the rukka at point A to A1 which is EX. PW.3/B bearing her signature at point A. She also issued certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1955 regarding the computerized copy of FIR. After registration of the case, he handed over the copy of the same to Ct. Shailender.
KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. PUNIT FIR NO. 262/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 3 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.10.06 17:22:22 +0530
8. PW-4: HC Shailender has deposed that on 17.05.2016, he was posted as constable at PS Timar Pur. On that day, & DD No. 3-4 was marked to SI Ganpati Maharaj. Thereafter, he along with him went to the spot i.e., near gate of teacher colony where they found Swift Dezire car bearing no. DL-TYD-7981 in accidental condition and the driver of the said car was present at the spot who was apprehended by the public persons. (witness correctly identified the accused person present in court. They got to know that the injured was removed to the trauma center. IO handed over the custody of the accused to him and the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1YD-7981 and left him at the spot to preserve the same. IO went to the trauma center. After some time, IO returned to the spot along with Inder Pal and the statement of injured. IO prepared tehrir and handed over the same to him for the purpose of getting the FIR registered. He left the spot and after sometime, returned back along with the computerized copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to SI Ganpati Maharaj. Thereafter, IO seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW4/A bearing his signature at point A. After making inquiry with the accused, IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo which is already Ex. PWI/B bearing his signature at point B. IO conducted personal search of the accused vide personal search memo which is already Ex. PW1/C bearing his signature at point C. IO also seized the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle i.e., original RC, fitness certificate, permit and the same is Ex. PW4/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, the said case property and accused were brought to the PS. The case property was deposited into halkhana of PS Timar Pur. IO recorded his statement and relieved him from the investigation. He identified the case property correctly in the court.
9. PW-5 ASI Gautam Singh deposed that on 01.07.2018, the further KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. PUNIT FIR NO. 262/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 4 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.10.06 17:22:26 +0530 investigation of the present case was marked to him. During investigation he found that DL of the accused namely Punit Kumar was not on the case file and he made inquiry from the accused regarding the same and he told him that his DL had been lost during the accident and he had the photocopy of the old DL. Thereafter, he collected the photocopy of the DL of the accused Punit from him and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter he got verified the said DL from the concerned authority and it was found genuine. Thereafter he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the concerned Court for the judicial verdict. He identified the accused in the court.
10. PW-6 Inspector Ganpati Maharaj deposed that on 17.05.2016, he was posted as SI at PS Timar Pur. On that day, a DD No. 3-A which is already Ex. PW3/A1 was marked to him. Thereafter, he along with the CT. Shailender went to the spot i.e., near gate of teacher colony where they found Swift Dezire car bearing no. DL-1YD-7981 in accidental condition and the driver of the said car namely Punit was present at the spot. They got to know that the injured was removed to the trauma center. He handed over the custody of the accused and the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1YD-7981 to CT. Shailender and left him at the spot to preserve the same. He went to the trauma center. He collected the MLC of the injured Munni Devi and recorded her statement which is Ex. PW6/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he returned to the spot along with the son of the Munni Devi namely Inder Pal and the statement of injured. He prepared tehrir which is Ex. PW6/B bearing my signature at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Shailender for the purpose of getting the FIR registered. He left the spot and after some time, returned along with the computerized copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to him. In the meanwhile he tried to search the public witness but none was found and he prepared the site plan at the instance of Inderpal which is already Ex. PW1/D bearing KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. PUNIT FIR NO. 262/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 5 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.10.06 17:22:30 +0530 his signature at point A. Thereafter, he seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo which is already Ex. PW4/A bearing his signature at point B. After making inquiry with the accused, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo which is already Ex. personal search memo which is already Ex. PW 1/C bearing his signature at poil the time of accident PW1/B bearing his signature at point CI also conducted personal search in his own handwriting. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the eye witness Inderpal under section 161 CrPC. Thereafter, the said case property and accused were brought to the PS. The case property was deposited into the malkhana of PS Timar Pur. The accused was released on the police bail vide bond Ex. PW6/C bearing his signature at point A. He recorded the statement of CT. Shailender and relieved him from the investigation. Thereafter he got conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle and collected the report which is already Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, accused produced insurance of the offending vehicle to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/D bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he got verified the documents of offending vehicle from the concerned authorities and they were found genuine. He collected the report of the MLC of injured and it was found grievous. So he added Section 338 IPC. During investigation, the offending car was released on the superdari as per the orders of the Court vide superdarinama Ex. PW6/E and punchnama of the same is Ex. PW6/F bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he was transferred and he handed over the case file to MHC (R). He identified the accused persons and the case property correctly in the court.
11. PW7 : ASI Ram Niwas deposed that on 15.11.2016, he was posted as HC at PS Timar Pur and on that day, the further investigation in the present case was marked to him. On 07.12.2016, he filed the DAR in MACT Court. On 02.05.2017, he was transferred and he handed over the case file to the MHC (R).
KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. PUNIT FIR NO. 262/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 6 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.10.06 17:22:40 +0530 ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS :
12. Accused, in his statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. did not dispute the genuineness and correctness of MLC No. 225986 of Munni Devi as Ex. AD1, X-ray report no. 225986. Resultantly, witness Dr. Pooja, Dr. Ahmad Ali and Dr. Jageshwar were dropped by Ld. APP.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED :
13. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Punit Kumar denied each and every incriminating circumstance appearing against him and deposed that he did not drive rashly or negligently. He did not lead defence evidence.
14. In his statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C. the accused admitted that he was driving the vehicle on the day of incident. He further stated that he was not driving the vehicle rashly but a child came running on the road and in order to save him, he turned his car on the other side.
15. The respective submissions of Sh. Deepak, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Varun Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused have been heard. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that State has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accident and injury to victim was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. On the other hand, as per Ld. Counsel for the accused there are contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. It has also been submitted that no public witness has been joined at anytime during investigation. The accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
16. Allegations against the accused are for offence under Section 279/338/ KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. PUNIT FIR NO. 262/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 7 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.10.06 17:22:44 +0530 IPC.
17. Section 279 IPC provides that "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 or 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".
18. Section 338 IPC provides that "Whoever causes grievous 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 two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
19. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution was under
the obligation to prove the following essential ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC:
a. Identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle.
b. That the alleged accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place.
c. The rash and negligent driving of the accused resulted in injury to one person and the death of the deceased.
RE: IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED :
20. The identity of the accused as driver of the vehicle is not disputed. Accused has not denied the same in his statement u/S 313 of Cr.P.C. Further PW-1 Inderpal has also identified the accused correctly. Thus, the presence of the accused at KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. PUNIT FIR NO. 262/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 8 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.10.06 17:22:47 +0530 the spot and his identity is not disputed.
RE: ALLEGED ACCIDENT IS THE RESULT OF RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING OF THE ACCUSED AT A PUBLIC PLACE.
21. The prime witness PW-1 has deposed that he was sitting on a footpath and his mother was also sitting on a footpath when the accused came from the side of teacher's colony while driving his vehicle in a zigzag manner and he drove the vehicle on footpath and hit the left side of stomach of his mother. The same is corroborated with the damages on the front bumper of the car. The same is also corroborated with the MLC of Munni Devi which is admitted by the accused. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that during the cross-examination the witness PW-1 has deposed that he was standing near the place of incident whereas in his examination in chief he deposed that he was sitting. The court is of the view that the same is not a major contradiction and it does not go to the root of the trial. Similarly, the deposition of witness that he cannot tell the speed of the car is not sufficient to discard his testimony when the witness has deposed that accused was driving the vehicle in a zigzag manner. When the aforesaid circumstance was put to the accused in his statement u/S 313 of Cr.P.C., he stated that he wanted to save a child who came running and he turned his car on the other side. It is noteworthy that no such question that no such question was put to PW-1 and no such suggestion was suggest to PW-1. The testimony of the witness is consistent and the accused has not been able to impeach the credibility of the witness in the cross examination.
22. The argument that public witness were not joined does not hold any water as the testimony of PW-1 cannot be discarded solely on the ground of non- joining of public witnesses. The presence of the accused on the spot, coupled with the damage on his car clearly establish the rashness and negligence on the part of accused.
KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. PUNIT FIR NO. 262/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 9 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.10.06 17:22:51 +0530
23. It was held in Niranjan Singh vs. The State (Delhi Administration) 1977 CriLJ 333 held that Rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable or proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. Thus the main criterion for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard to the obligation of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a risk indifference as to the harmful consequences resulting from it. In a case of this nature, the test is whether the prosecution has proved that :
(i) the accused was driving the vehicle in such a manner as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to some other person who might happen to be using the road or doing substantial damage to the property;
(ii) in driving the vehicle in that manner the accused did so without having given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or, having recognized that there was some risk involved, had nonetheless gone on to take it; and
(iii) the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of the death of the deceased.
24. Damages on the vehicle also substantiate the case of the prosecution.
25. It further stands proved that MLC of Munni Devi Ex. AD1 was also KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. PUNIT FIR NO. 262/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 10 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.10.06 17:22:55 +0530 prepared and her injuries were opined to be grievous.
26. Accused has pleaded his false implication in this case. However, this plea does not inspire confidence in view of the ample evidence available on record. Moreover, he is not alleging any enmity, ill-will or grudge against any of the prosecution witness for which they will falsely implicate him in this case.
27. As regards, the contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as pointed out by the counsel for the accused, is concerned, the evidence of the witnesses cannot be brushed aside merely because of some minor contradictions, particularly for the reason that the evidence and testimonies of the witnesses are trustworthy. Not only that, the witnesses have consistently deposed with regard to the offence committed by the accused and their evidence remain unshaken during their cross-examination.
28. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and Ors.: (2011) 4 SCC 324, it was observed:-
"30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. PUNIT FIR NO. 262/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 11 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.10.06 17:22:59 +0530 should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence."
29. From the testimony of the witnesses, it stands proved that it was the accused who was driving car in a rash and negligent manner on the fateful day resulting in grievous injuries to Munni Devi. As such offence u/s 279/338 IPC stands proved. Accused is accordingly held guilty and for commission of offences punishable under Section 279/338IPC.
This judgment consists of 12 pages and each and every page of this judgment is digitally signed by me.
Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH KARANBIR Date: SINGH 2025.10.06 17:23:04 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Karanbir Singh) COURT ON 06th DAY OF OCTOBER, JMFC-02, Central District 2025. Tis Hazari Courts/06.10.2025. STATE VS. PUNIT FIR NO. 262/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 12 / 12