Delhi District Court
State vs . Gajender Singh on 28 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST):SAKET
COURTS:NEW DELHI
Presided by : Ms. SONAM SINGH-I
State Vs. Gajender Singh
FIR No. 414/2017
Police Station: Badar Pur
Under Section: 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(in short "IPC") & Section 17(1) 177, 146/196 Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (in short "MV Act").
Date of institution : 03.12.2018
Date of reserving : 24.11.2022
Date of pronouncement : 28.11.2022
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 8618/2018
b) Date of commission of : 13.12.2017 offence
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Anand Jain
d) Name, parentage and : 1) Gajender Singh s/o Balveer address of the accused Singh, R/o. H.No. E-14, Gali No.2, Om Nagar Colony, Meethapur, Badar Purl, New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and u/s 17(1)177, 146/196 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "IPC" and "MV Act") State vs. Gajender Singh FIR No. 414/2017, P.S.Badar Pur Pages 1 of 9
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquitted u/s 279 of IPC and already stands convicted u/s 17(1) 177, 146/196 MV Act and acquitted U/s. 338 IPC vide separate order dated 24.11.2022
h) Date of final order : 28.11.2022 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. Vide this judgment, the accused, namely, Gajender Singh stands acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 279 IPC in this case for the reasons mentioned below:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is that on 13.12.2017, at about 06.50 AM at Shaheed Bijender Singh Marg, near SP Tailor Tajpur Pahadi, Badar Pur, within jurisdiction of PS Badar Pur, accused Gajender Singh was found driving a motorcycle bearing No. DL 3SCB 3092 without valid insurance and drove from the opposite side on a way . It is alleged that he was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. Further, it is alleged that while driving the said vehicle in the said manner, accused struck against the pedestrian /complainant namely Sh. Anand Jain and caused State vs. Gajender Singh FIR No. 414/2017, P.S.Badar Pur Pages 2 of 9 grievous injuries to him and thereby accused Gajender Singh committed offences punishable U/s 279/338 IPC & 17(1)177, 146/196 MV Act .
3. The investigation was done by the IO/SI Shiv Ram Singh who filed the police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC and 17(1) 177, 146/196 MV Act .
COURT PROCEEDINGS
4. The learned predecessor of this court took cognizance upon the said police report on 19.03.2019 and accused was supplied with the copies of police report and documents on 15.07.2019.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 15.07.2019, the learned predecessor of this court framed the charge against accused Gajender Singh for the offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
OTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS
6. On 24.11.2022, both the complainant and accused vide their separate statements deposed that they have amicably settled the matter between them qua section 338 IPC and both prayed for compounding of offence U/s. 338 IPC, whereby the accused paid State vs. Gajender Singh FIR No. 414/2017, P.S.Badar Pur Pages 3 of 9 the monetary compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant Anand Jain. The accused further pleaded guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 17(1) 177, 146/196 MV Act and prayed for leniency.
7. Accordingly, vide separate order dated 24.11.2022, accused Gajender Singh was acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 338 IPC, but was convicted for the offences U/s. 17(1) 177, 146/196 MV Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1100/-. The fine of Rs. 1100/- was paid by accused/convict Gajender Singh vide receipt No. 0239435 EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
8. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
(i) Prosecution Witnesses
9. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution in all has examined only one witness, namely:
Designation and Name Role in the present case Sr. No. of the Witness
1. PW1 Sh.Anand Jain Complainant/injured
(iii) Documents on record:
10. The prosecution witness relied on the following documents:
State vs. Gajender Singh FIR No. 414/2017, P.S.Badar Pur Pages 4 of 9 Sr. No. Exhibits/Marks Nature of documents
1. Ex.PW1/A Complaint
2. Ex.PW1/B Site plan
3. Ex.PW1/C Seizure memo of vehicle
4. Ex.PW1/D Seizure memo of DL & RC
5. Ex.PW1/E Supplementary statement of PW1
11. It is pertinent to mention here that during the examination of PW1 Sh. Anand Kumar Jain it was observed that inadvertently the charge U/s. 17(1)177, 146/196 MV Act was not framed against the accused. However, since his counsel cross-examined the witness and was supplied with copy of chargesheet and annexed documents, he had sufficient notice of accusation against him.
12. PW1 Sh. Anand Jain who is the complainant/injured and only material witness in this case during his examination in chief did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Ld. Sub.APP for state after obtaining the permission of the court cross examined this witness and even in the cross examination did not utter even a single word against the accused and even failed to identify the accused in court.
13. Thereafter, Ld. APP for the State requested the court to summon other prosecution witnesses, but the request was denied on the ground that the sole material witness/ the complainant, namely, Sh. Anand Jain had failed to identify the accused in the court and had turned hostile. There was no incriminating evidence on record. Hence, no purpose would have been served State vs. Gajender Singh FIR No. 414/2017, P.S.Badar Pur Pages 5 of 9 by examining them or the remaining prosecution witnesses who were police officials and formal in nature. Hence, PE was closed vide order dated 24.11.2022.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSON UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
14. Since there was not an iota of incriminating evidence/material on record which may be put and confronted to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, consequently recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with on 24.11.2022.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
15. The Court heard the final arguments on 24.11..2022.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
16. In support of its case, prosecution has produced and examined only one witness i.e. PW1 is Sh. Anand Jain who is the only material witness in this case. It is pertinent to note that the complainant PW1 Sh. Anand Jain in his examination-in-chief deposed that he does not remember anything about this case. Further, he failed to identify the accused in the court. Ld. APP for state cross examined him but even in the cross examination he failed to identify the accused and specifically deposed that he cannot identify the accused.
State vs. Gajender Singh FIR No. 414/2017, P.S.Badar Pur Pages 6 of 9
17. I have heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State as well as that of the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents and the entire material on record.
18. It is argued by Ld. APP for State that the accused be convicted as per law.
19. On the other hand, it is argued by the accused that he be acquitted as no incriminating material or evidence has come on record against the accused. Further, he argued that PW1 Anand Jain, the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and failed to depose regarding his identity in his deposition.
20. The entire prosecution case against the accused is based on the statement of complainant/PW1 Anand Jain made before police whereby he narrated that on 13.12.2017 at about 06.50 am PM at Shaheed Vijender Singh Marg, near S.P.Tailor, Tajpur Pahadi, Badar Pur, New Delhi which is a public way within jurisdiction of PS Badar Pur, accused was driving a motorcycle bearing No. DL 3SCB 3092 in rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in said manner, accused hit against the complainant due to which the complainant sustained grievous injuries on his person.
21. In regard to the offence U/s. 279 IPC, the prosecution case cannot be considered to be standing on its own legs without the testimony of said complainant asserting the facts mentioned in his statement before the police / IO.
State vs. Gajender Singh FIR No. 414/2017, P.S.Badar Pur Pages 7 of 9
22. In the aforesaid circumstances, the fact of hitting against the motorcycle bearing no. DL 3SCB 3092 of complainant and causing grievous injuries on the person of injured/complainant/PW1 Anand Jain cannot be proved because the complainant specifically deposed that he cannot identify the accused or remember the facts of the incident.
23. Since, complainant//PW1 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile before the Court, nothing incriminating to suggest that the accused hit the motorcycle in this case could be brought on record. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of offence u/s 279 IPC alleged against the accused in the present matter beyond reasonable doubt.
24. The remaining unexamined witnesses are either police officials or formal witnesses who are not ocular witnesses and could not prove the culpability of accused. None of the remaining witness is an eye witness to the alleged accident. No other witness is competent enough to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. The complicity of accused could have been proved by the ocular evidence or circumstantial evidence. The ocular witnesses are dropped and the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to infer the guilt of accused. It is well settled law that to convict the accused on circumstantial evidence, there must be complete chain of events pointing towards the guilt of accused and nothing else.
State vs. Gajender Singh FIR No. 414/2017, P.S.Badar Pur Pages 8 of 9
25. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave may be, cannot take place of proof. Every benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused.
26. In case titled as Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that in a case where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date.
27. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited Judgment, this Court is of considered view that the prosecution is unable to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The Court needs to protect the right of accused to have speedy justice and acquit the accused forthwith as there is nothing incriminating against accused Gajender Singh. Accordingly, accused Gajender Singh is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 279 IPC.
28. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 28.11.2022 (SONAM SINGH-I) ACMM (SOUTH EAST):
SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI State vs. Gajender Singh FIR No. 414/2017, P.S.Badar Pur Pages 9 of 9