Delhi District Court
Court In Kaliram vs State Of Himanchal Pradesh, Air 1973 Sc on 7 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05 (SOUTH-
WEST), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Sh. NITESH GOEL .
State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh
NITESH Digitally signed by NITESH GOEL
FIR No.406/11 GOEL Date: 2022.09.07 17:20:43 +0530
Police Station: Vikas Puri
Under Section: 279/304A IPC.
Date of institution : 26.10.2012
Date of reserving : 25.08.2022
Date of pronouncement : 07.09.2022.
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case 11265/19
b) Date of commission of offence 29.11.2011
c) Name of the complainant DD no. 25 A SI Vimal Dutt
d) Name, parentage and address Jai Shankar s/o Sh. Thako
of the accused Singh R/o A-19A Suraksha Vi-
har Vikash Puri, Delhi
e) Offence complained of Section 279/304A IPC.
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Convicted
h) Date of final order 07.09.2022
State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 1
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
1. Brief factual matrix is that on 29.11.2011 at about 1:30 pm at in front of Oxford School, Guru Virjanand Marg Vikas Puri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Vikas Puri accused Jai Shankar was found driving Bus No. DL 1 PB 0426 in rash or negligent man- ner so as to endanger life of others and thereby he hit against the motor cycle bearing no. DL6SAF 3609 and caused death of Sh. Amit. Therefore it is alleged that he had committed offences u/S 279/304A IPC.
2. Chargesheet was filed and copy of the same was sup- plied to the accused as per mandate of u/S 207 Cr.P.C. Notice under Section 251 Cr. P.C was served upon the accused for the offence under Section 279/304A IPC vide order dated 11.02.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Thirteen witnesses. Sh. Jawahar Singh was the father of deceased has proved the death certificate Ex. P1. PW-1 Sh. Rohit Sharma and PW 2 Shyambeer Singh were the eye witnesses, PW-3 Smt Kusum Tyagi was the witness, who was care taker on the bus no. DL 1LP0426 and was in the offending bus. PW 4 Ct. Narender was the witness to dead body identification of deceased Amit which was ex-
State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 2 hibited as Ex. PW 4/A, PW-5 Sh Manohar Lal Arora has depose that his daughter in law Kanika signed an agreement with the Mamta Modern Senior Secondary School for supply of bus for transportation of student for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 but Kanika was unable to provide the bus to said school then she entered in an agreement on 25.06.2011 with accused Jai Shankar Singh to pro- vide the bus for the said purpose. Now the agreement was made in between Kanika and accused Jai Shaker regarding supply of bus for transportation of student from 01.07.2011 to 31.03.2012. PW-6 SI Vimal Dutt IO to the DD no. 25 A and has deposed regarding the in- vestigation done by him. PW 7 SI Satish was the witness to the dead body identification memo already Ex. PW 6/B, PW 8 Sh. Manoj Sharma was the Manager of Mamta Modern Sr. School and has ex- hibited the agreement between Mamta Modern Sr. Secondary School and Kanika Travels as Ex. PW 8/A (OSR), PW 9 Dr Vineet Kumar Soni proved the MLC as Ex. PW 9/A, PW 10 Dr B. N. Mishra has proved the PM Report as Ex. PW 10A, PW 11 HC Pritam Singh joined the investigation with the IO he deposed that IO seized the of- fending vehicle on 01.12.2011 in his presence from near the house of accused and he in his cross examination has stated that public person were present at that time and in the cross examination on 09.09.2019 he has changed his version and has said that no public person were present at that time. PW 12 HC Munna was the beat of- ficer and he has deposed that IO prepared the site plan at the in- stance of witness and seized the motorcycle which was in accidental condition and PW 13 Inspt Manoj Dahiya deposed that he recorded State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 3 the statement of witness Manoj Sharma and placed on record as the matter has already been concluded by previous IO SI Vimal Dutt.
4. Accused admitted the DD no. 25A, DD no. 26A, DD no. 29A, FIR and endorsement of DO and mechanical inspection report of vehicle DL6 SAF 3609 and DL 1PB 0426 U/s 294 r/w 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C and the same were exhibited as Ex. A-1 to Ex. A 7 re- spectively.
5. PW 1 Rohit Sharma has deposed that on the date of in- cident he along with his friend namely Amit were going to their resi- dence on a motorcycle of Amit, one bus came from behind on their right side. The area was congested and the front wheel of the motor- cycle hit against the rear tyre of the conductor side of the bus. They both fell down on the road. He got unconscious. After 10 minutes he regained his consciousness. He found himself to be injured. PCR Van took his friend he remained in the PS. After some time he came back to the spot. Thereafter he went to DDU hospital. Thereafter he came back at the PS. Police got his signatures on the some blank papers.
6. In his cross examination by Ld. APP he denied that bus was being driven in a high speed. He also denied that offending bus hit their motorcycle from back side. He deposed that the front wheel of motorcycle struck against the rear conductor side wheel of the bus. He denied that the wheel of the bus ran over the head of Amit.
State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 4 He denied that he had gone to DDU hospital along with some friends where he came to know about the death of Amit. He deposed that his friends went DDU hospital separately and he had gone with the police. He deposed that he saw the offending bus standing outside the PS Vikas Puri. He denied that in the PS he had seen the ac- cused and identified him there. The witness deposed that he had not seen the accused on the date of incident.
7. PW 2 Shyambeer Singh has deposed that on the date of incident the bus was on the side of middle verge of the road and the motorcycle was on the conductor side of the bus. He deposed that driver of the bus suddenly drove his bus towards left side and the conductor side front portion of the bus touched against the said mo- torcycle. He further deposed that conductor side rear wheel of the bus ran over the head and upper portion of the body of the motorcy- clist. He saw that a offending bus was of white coloured and having lining over its body and same was school bus and children were in- side the bus. He further deposed that he reached at the spot and made a call to the police at 100 number and at 102 number. The driver of the bus had stopped the bus at some distance away from the spot. The driver bus came out of the bus. He deposed that he realized that the injured had expired and he left the spot along with bus. Witness correctly identified the offending bus.
During his cross-examination he deposed that he gave his statement to police in the PS but he did not remember the date. He was confronted with the statement Mark P1/D1 where it is not so State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 5 recorded that the driver of the bus suddenly drove his bus towards left side and the conductor side front portion of the bus touched against the said motorcycle. He deposed that both the side of the road where the accident took place schools are situated. He said that one school of small children is situated inside the C Block of Vikas Puri approximately at a distance of 100 meter from road. He denied that at about 1:30 pm the traffic consisting of buses , motor- cycles and rickshaw etc move in the very slow speed at the spot. He deposed that he told his mobile number to the IO. He further de- posed that his clothes were not stained by blood of the injured. He further deposed that police brought the stretcher and the injured was put cautiously on the stretcher. He denied that he was not present at the spot therefore, his clothes were not got sustained by the blood of the injured. He deposed that after he had realized that the injured had expired, he rushed to catch the driver of the bus and he saw his face but he could not catch him as he managed to get into the bus and ultimately fled away with the bus.
8. PW3 Smt Kusum Tyagi deposed that the incident took place on 29.11.2011 and they were in the school bus and were go- ing towards Dwarka from Mamta Modern School, one motorcycle came and struck against their bus on which two persons were riding. They heard the noise as the motorcycle had strike from behind the bus.
In her cross-examination she deposed that the name of driver was already known to her. She denied that one boy came un- State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 6 der the front tyre of bus. She deposed that accused got down but did not flee from the spot as there were children in their bus. She de- posed that accused took the bus along with children and her near Kamal Public School and asked them to get down from the bus and told them that he had to take the bus to PS. Witness correctly identi- fied the accused who was driving the bus at the time of accident.
9. PW 6 SI Vimal Dutt has exhibited the Tehrir Ex. PW 6/A. He also exhibited the statement of relative of deceased as Ex. PW 6/B. He also exhibited the site plan Ex. PW 6/C and seizure memo of mo- torcycle as Ex. PW 6/D. He deposed that he traced the offending bus by number i.e. DL 1PB 0426. On 01.12.2011 he along with Ct. Pritam went to the house of accused and gave him notice u/s 133 MV Act as Ex. PW 6/E. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW 6/F and personal search as Ex. PW 6/G. He seized the documents i.e. original RC, insurance, DL and permit etc vide memo Ex. PW 6/H and seized the bus vide Ex. PW 6/I . Notice given to the accused for TIP was exhibited as Ex. PW 6/J. He further deposed that eye wit- ness namely Rohit came in PS and seeing the accused in PS pointed towards him and told him that he is the same person /driver who has driven the bus and caused the accident. He identified the photographs Ex. PW1/X1 to Ex. P1/X14. He further deposed that he contacted M. L. Arora who has given him a photocopy of agreement dated 25.06.2011 and stated that now accused is supplying the bus for transportation of student for the Mamta Modern School vide Mark Y. State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 7 During his cross-examination he deposed that a constable Pri- tam left the spot for PS Along with tehrir at about 3:50 pm. He de- posed that he had not obtained the signatures of Rohit Sharma on the site plan. He denied that after few days of the incident, the said Rohit Sharma was taken by him before the area of ACP and there also he stated before the ACP that the front wheel of their motorcycle hit against the rear tyre of the conductor side of the bus. He denied that Kusum Tyagi had informed him that when they reached near Sent Sisiliya and Oxford school, one motorcycle hit their bus from behind. He deposed that father of deceased Amit is a police official. He denied that witness Shyambir s/o Shiv Raj Singh r/o C Block house no. 479 Ground Floor, opposite Budhela Shiv Mandir is a planted witness and recorded his statement as per his own wishes and identified the accused after showing his photo.
10. Rest of the PWs were formal in nature.
11. After the completion of prosecution evidence, PE was closed and statement of accused u/S 313 Cr. PC was recorded wherein he stated false implication and innocence. Accused opted to lead defence evidence and thereafter, the matter was listed for DE.
12. I have heard the submissions of Dr Yadvendra Singh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsel , for ac- cused and perused the record carefully.
State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 8
13. During the course of arguments, Ld. APP submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts. He submitted that the identity of accused had not been disputed to the effect that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. He further submitted that it is clear from the testimonies of all the witnesses that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the prosecution has proved its case by examining the reliable and cogent witnesses. Therefore, accused be convicted as per law.
14. Ld. Defence counsel for accused has submitted that the accused has not been identified in the present case. The prosecu- tion has not led any conclusive evidence to prove that accused was driving the offending vehicle and thus it is prayed that accused be acquitted.
15. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by lead- ing reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Since, there is a strong presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and rebuttal of the same always lies upon the prosecution. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to benefit of every State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 9 reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
16. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kaliram vs State of Himanchal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 and held that accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
17. In another case titled as Mousam Singh Roy & ors. vs. State of West Bengal (2003) 12 SCC 377, it was held that burden of proof in criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence.
Let us now discuss basic legal propositions of law on penal provisions of Section 304-A IPC. Section 304-A Says:
"Whoever cause 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"
18. The requirements of this section are that the death of any person must have been caused by the accused by doing any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that the rash or negligent act of accused was the proximate cause of the State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 10 death. There must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash, or negligent act of the accused. In Kurban Hussain Mohd. Rangawalla V/s State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 1616 -
"It was observed that Section 304-A by it's own definition totally exclude the ingredients of Section 299 and 300 of IPC. In order to attract the Section 304-A, death must be direct result of rash and negligent act of accused and the act must be efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the 'causa causans, it is not enough that it may have been the causa sin qua non. Thus where death is not the direct result of rash and negligence act on the part of the accused and was not proximate and sufficient cause without the intervention of another negligence, then offence under Section 304-A IPC not established".
19. I have gone through the documents on record, evidence and submissions forwarded by counsel for the accused and Ld. APP for the State.
20. For the purpose of guilty of section 279/304A IPC the prosecution has to prove three ingredients:-
a that the accident had taken place,
b that the accused was driving the vehicle.
c. that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent
driving of the accused.
State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 11
21. From the testimony of PW 1, 2 and 3 who are the eye
witnesses to the case, it is proved that the accident had taken place at 1:30 pm in front of Oxford School Guruveer Janand Marg, Vikas Puri who is the eye witness to the case, have stated in their testimony that the accident had taken place. Nothing has been brought by the defence to prove that the accident did not take place.
22. Now we shall come to the second ingredient of Section 279/304A IPC which says that accused was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
23. Now in order to prove that the accused was driving at the time of accident the prosecution has examined PW 2 who is the eye witness to the case. He has correctly identified the accused in the court. Further, the examination of PW 3 also states that the accused Jai Shanker was driving the vehicle. Further, the prosecution has brought on record the agreement between Mamta Modern School and Kanika Travels wherein the Kanika Travels was engaged regarding the supply of the buses for transportation of students of Mamta Modern Sr. Secondary School. Further, the PW 5 Sh. M. L. Arora was examined who is the father in law of Kanika, who has signed an agreement with Mamta Modern School for supply of transportation of the student. In his testimony he has stated that Kanika travels had entered in to an agreement with Jai Shanker for supplying of bus for transportation of students from 01.07.2011 to 31.03.2012 and the date of accident is 29.11.2011. From the all the State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 12 above stated facts , it is proved beyond doubt that accused Jai Shanker was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
24. Now it has already been proved that the accused has occurred the impugned accident, now the main question arises whether the accident has been committed due to rash and negligent driving of accused Jai Shanker. In order to prove whether the accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, the prosecution has examined PW 2 wherein the PW 2 in his testimony has stated that the accused was driving the bus on the side of middle verge of the road and the motorcycle was on the conductor side of the bus, the driver of the bus suddenly drove the bus towards his left side and the conductor side front portion of the bus touched against the said motorcycle. Due the impact, the motorcycle fell down on the road and the motorcyclist fell on his right side and the bus ran over the head and upper portion of the motorcyclist.
25. Let us come to the meaning of Rash and negligent driving by considering the law laid down in the judgment of apex court as per Shakila Khader v. Nauser Gama reported in AIR 1975 SC 1324, it was observed that when a driver leads to an accident, the main question is whether it was rash and negligent. But in deciding this speed is not the only criterion. The width of the road, density of traffic and attempt to overtake are also criteria.
26. Regarding the rash and negligent driving it is to be seen that State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 13 what is rash/negligence varies from case to case and there cannot be any fixed parameters for judging rashness/negligence. At the same time, there cannot be any assumption/presumption of the same. 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 or proper case 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 FIR No. 220/10 U/s 279/304-A IPC PS Saket 12/14 State Vs. Mahesh Kumar attention and taking a risk indifferent to the harmful consequences resulting from it. Niranjan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (Delhi) 1997(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 320.
27. Reliance has been placed in the law laid down in the case titled Prabhakaran v State of Kerla wherein it was said that rashness means. Rashness means doing an act with consciousness of a risk that evil consequence will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is breach of duty imposed by law.
State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 14
28. Ld. Counsel for accused has cross examined PW 2 at length however, Ld. Counsel was not able to bring any contradiction on the fact of rash and negligence on the part of accused and PW 2 remained consistent in his cross-examination regarding the manner in which accused was driving the bus. From the testimony of the PW 2, it can be said that the accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner as he took the sudden left turn risking the life of motorcyclist and without taken the proper caution after foreseeing that the injury can be done to any person with this act. Further, the site plan Ex. PW 6/C shows that the road was busy and there is a school near by the place of incident. It is matter of prudence that when the school is nearby and the children are walking around (presuming that the children are around as time of incident is 1:30 pm ) then the driver must slow down the speed of the vehicle and must drive the vehicle very carefully. In the present matter the driver of the vehicle has not discharge the duty cast upon him to drive vehicle in careful manner and with caution and he took risk in different to the harmful consequences resulting him it.
29. Further, it has been brought on record from the testimony of PW 2 and PW 3 that after the accident the accused has came out of the bus after stationing his bus few meters away from the place of incident and after seeing that the accident had taken place, he had ran away taking his bus. The conduct of the bus driver shows that some negligence on his part has been done because of which he has escaped from the place of incident after viewing the scenario of State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 15 the place of accident. If the accused had not done any reckless act then he would not have escaped. Further, from testimony of PW 3, it has been brought on record that one motorcycle had come and had strike the bus from behind and the accused had got down from the bus after the children in the bus started to shout. However, in the cross examination of PW 3 it has been brought on record that accused Jai Shanker has after moving away from the place of incident had stopped the bus near Kamal Public School and asked PW 3 and the children to get down from the bus so that he can take the bus to PS ( he was supposed to drop the children at their respective stops) however there is no evidence on record that he had taken bus to PS. This shows that accused Jai Shanker is conscious of guilt relating to the offence committed by him and no explanation has been given by accused Jai Shanker in Section 313 Cr. PC Statement in regard to his conduct. This fact become relevant u/s 9 Indian Evidence Act and it brings the court to draw the inference that he had fled away from the spot with a motive to escape from clutches of the police.
30. Taking into consideration the dictum of the case titled Shakila Khader v Nauser Gama in the present matter also there has been no evidence regarding the speed of the bus however, the negligence of the bus driver in taking the sudden left hitting the motorcycle without any proper caution and after foreseeing the consequence of his act and risking the life of other person shows the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused in driving the bus. Further, the State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 16 rashness and negligence act of the accused could also be gathered from the conduct of the accused wherein he has fled away dropping the children and PW 3 near Kamal Public School in order to save himself from the police. This shows that the accused was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. No contributory negligence on the part of motorcyclist has been brought on record.
31. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that PW 1 in his testimony has stated that one motor vehicle hit the rear side of conductor side of the bus and the motorcyclist died due to the felling down on the road due to heavy impact on his head. The PM report Ex. PW 10/A reveals that the motorcyclist has died due to the crushing head injury subsequent upon the road traffic accident. Further PM report also states that in subject external injuries that whole head crushed side to side with flattened and distorted and the brain matter crushed and protruded out from the skull. It become indigestible to the court that if the motorcyclist had died due to his head hitting the road then how the fact could have come in PM report that the deceased had died due to his head crushed and protruded out from the skull. It cannot be believed that brain can come out of skull when the deceased had hit the road however it can be believed that the same can come out of skull when a very heavy object like bus or car runs over the head. The argument of the Ld. Counsel in regard to the reason for the death of the motorcyclist is not sustainable and it does not inspire the confidence of the court.
State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 17
32. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel that the PW 2 cloths did not received any blood stain when he was lifting the body of the deceased in the PCR Van. As per the cross-examination of PW 2, the PW 2 has stated that his cloths did not receive any blood stain because he put the injured very cautiously on the stretcher which was brought by the police. It seems to be doubtful that how PW 2 did not receive any blood stain on clothes when he was putting the injured on stretcher but on the basis of this discrepancy, the whole case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away.
33. Further, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that PW 1 who was the pillion rider of the motorcycle whose accident had taken place has not identified the accused and has also stated that the bus driver was not driving the bus at a high speed. It cannot be expected for a human whose accident had just taken place due to which he had become unconscious to see the face of the accused properly and remember his face for long time (the fact of unconsciousness of PW 1 after the accident has been corroborated by PW 2), therefore, the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for accused on the ground that PW 1 did not identify the accused is not sustainable.
34. Further the Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the motorcyclist is the son of a police officer however, there is nothing on record to show that eye witness PW 2 has deposed in order to falsely implicate the accused as no relation between the father of State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 18 deceased and the eye witness PW 2 has been shown.
35. Section 304 A is applicable when the death has been caused by rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. In the present case there is no evidence on record which shows the intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that he is likely to cause death. Therefore, section 304A ingredients are also getting satisfied in the present matter.
36. Now the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, now the onus shift upon the accused to discharge the burden that he has not commit the offence. Accused in order to discharge his burden has neither led DE nor has stated anything about the fact in statement u/s 313 Cr. PC. No explanation has been given by the accused apart from the Bald defence of false implication and has taken the plea the motorcyclist hit the rear tyre of the conductor side of the bus. Therefore the burden of proof on the accused remained undischarged. Accused has not proved the motive before the court as to why the PW 2 will be falsely implicating the accused. The accused is not able to prove that there is any previous animosity with the PW2.
37. From the above said discussion the court is of the view that the accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and has caused the accident due to which the motorcyclist got State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 19 expired and the fact of accident coupled with the conduct of the accused fleeing away after the accident shows the rash and negligence act on the part of the accused. This brings home the culpability of accused u/s 279/304A IPC.
38. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused death of the deceased. Therefore, accused is Jai Shanker S/o Sh. Thakur Singh is convicted in the present case for the offence U/s 279/304A IPC.
39. Copy of judgment be given the convict free of cost.
Announced in open Court on 07.09.2022 NITESH Digitally signed by
NITESH GOEL
GOEL Date: 2022.09.07
17:21:21 +0530
(Nitesh Goel)
Metropolitan Magistrate-05 (South-West)
07.09.2022.
State v Jai Shankar s/o Thako Singh FIR No.406/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/304A IPC. 20