Delhi District Court
State vs . Dev Ashish on 24 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. PUNEET NAGPAL METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-07, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
STATE
VERSUS
DEV ASHISH
Computer ID No.60888/2016
FIR No.241/2011
P.S. Paschim Vihar
U/S 279/304A IPC
ASI Suresh Kumar
PS Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
... Complainant
VERSUS
Mr. Dev Ashish
S/o Sh. Vineet Chaudhary
R/o H. No.D-27
New Multan Nagar,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
...Accused
Date of Institution : 07.10.2011
Date on which judgment was reserved : 18.09.2020
Date of judgment : 24.09.2020
Final Order : Convicted
FIR no. 241/2011 Page 1 of 21
P.S. Paschim Vihar
State Vs. Dev Ashish
JUDGMENT
The important facts of the present case are as follows :
1. In the instant case, accused namely Dev Ashish S/o Sh. Vineet Choudhary has been set up by the prosecution to face trial on the allegations that on 09.08.2011, at about 6:30 pm, at Outer Ring Road, Peeragarhi Chowk, near Bus Stand, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, the accused was found driving a Santro Car bearing No. DL-1CG-6674 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving in the said manner, the accused hit against one pedestrian namely Smt. Vidya Devi and caused her death not amounting to Culpable Homicide. Therefore, the accused was alleged to have committed offences punishable u/s 279 IPC and 304A IPC.
2. The FIR was lodged in respect of offences punishable under sections 279/337 IPC against an unknown accused by the IO/ ASI Suresh Kumar. Investigation commenced and final report/ Charge sheet under section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed against the accused Dev Ashish in respect of offences under section 279/304A IPC.
3. Cognizance was taken against the accused vide order dated 07.10.2011 and the accused was summoned. In the light of the above stated facts and proceedings and after making compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C vide order dated 13.09.2013, notice u/s 279/304A IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.FIR no. 241/2011 Page 2 of 21
P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish
4. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. Prosecution examined 11 prosecution witnesses to prove the charge against the accused.
5. PW-1/owner of the offending vehicle namely Sh. Vineet Chaudhary/father of the accused deposed that he is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No.DL-1CG-6674 (Make Santro). He deposed that on the day of the accident, he had been informed by his brother that his car was involved in an accident and that his car was being driven by his son/accused namely Dev Ashish on the day of the accident. He proved the notice received by him from the IO under section 133 M.V. Act.(Ex. PW1/A) and the reply given by him to the IO (Ex.PW-1/B). He also proved the superdarinama (Ex.PW-1/C) and also correctly identified the offending vehicle through its photographs Ex.PW-1/D (Colly). PW-1 was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
6. PW-2/Vijay Lakra deposed that in the month of August 2011 at about 06:40 PM, he was standing at Peeragarhi Chowk, Near Bus Stand. He deposed that at that time, he had seen one car bearing registration No.DL-6674, had hit one lady when the said lady was crossing the road at Peeragarhi Chowk. PW1 deposed that he had not seen the driver of the offending vehicle as the said vehicle had fled from the spot after hitting the lady. PW1, however, correctly identified the offending vehicle through its photographs. In his cross-examination, he FIR no. 241/2011 Page 3 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish deposed that he had seen the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and that he had called at number 100 and informed regarding the number of the offending vehicle and the direction of the offending vehicle. In his cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that on the day of the incident, he had come to Peeragarhi by bus and he was about 50-70 meters away from the spot. It was his version that many public persons had arrived at the spot to help the injured lady and therefore, he did not help the said injured lady. He deposed that the traffic Lights and zebra crossing was at the distance of 100 meters approximately from the place of the accident. PW-2 categorically negated the suggestion of the accused that he was a planted witness and that he had not seen the accident as has been alleged by him.
7. PW-3/Brijesh Yadav deposed that on the relevant day, at about 07:00 PM, he had reached Peeragarhi Chowk after he had deboarded from bus No.980. At that time, he saw that one Santro Car, which was coming from Paschim Vihar side and going towards Rohtak side, had hit one lady. He deposed that after taking the help of one another public person (lady), he adjusted the clothes of the injured and with the help of one passing by vehicle, he had taken the injured to Mahaveer Hospital. He deposed that police officials had arrived at Mahaveer Hospital and after the relatives of injured had arrived in the hospital, he had left the hospital. PW-3 proved the seizure memo of the offending vehicle Ex.PW-3/A, seizure memo of the D/L of the accused Ex.PW-3/B, arrest memo of the accused Ex.PW-3/C, personal search memo of accused Ex.PW-3/D and the seizure memo of the documents of FIR no. 241/2011 Page 4 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish the offending vehicle Ex.PW-3/E. PW-3 admitted the fact that the IO had prepared the site plan at his instance. In his cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that at the relevant time, he was working in Janpath Hotel and that there was no fixed timings of his leaving the office. He deposed that the time gap between his deboarding the bus and the accident was about 5-6 seconds. He deposed that the traffic signal light was still yellow when the offending car had crossed the same after hitting the pedestrian lady. He deposed that the distance between the spot of the accident and the red light is about 100 meters (approx). He deposed that as per him the speed of the car at that time was about 70 KMPH. He further deposed that he had signed the documents in the PS after going through them. PW-3 negated the suggestion of the accused that no accident was caused by the offending vehicle. He also categorically denied the suggestion of the accused to the effect that he had not witnessed the accident in question and that he had been planted as a witness by the IO.
8. PW-4/Subhash Chand and PW-5/Neeraj Kochhar proved the dead body identification statement. The same are Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-5/A. PW-5 also proved the dead body handing over memo Ex.PW-5/B. Both PW-4 and PW-5 were not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
9. PW-6/DO/HC Sajjan Kumar proved the FIR of the instant case bearing No.241/11, PS Paschim Vihar (Ex.PW-6/A). He deposed that he had recorded the FIR of the instant case, being the duty FIR no. 241/2011 Page 5 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish officer, on receiving a rukka through HC Kishan Kumar sent by ASI Suresh Kumar. He also proved the endorsement made by him on the rukka Ex.PW-6/B. He deposed that after registration of FIR, he had handed over a copy of the same along with original rukka to HC Kishan Kumar for handing over the same to ASI Suresh Kumar. PW-6 was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
10. PW-7/Dr. Ajay Dalal, Medical Officer, Bhagwan Mahaveer Hospital proved the MLC bearing No.1132 of the injured/patient. The said MLC Ex.PW-7/A. He deposed that on 09.08.2011, one unknown patient was admitted in the hospital with the history of hit and run by some vehicle near Peeragarhi. He deposed that the said patient was found to be unfit for statement and that he had referred the patient to SR Orthopaedic and SR Surgery for further treatment. PW-7 was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
11. PW-8/Dr. Ashish, Asst. Professor deposed that on 11.08.2011, he had conducted the postmortem of the dead body of one Vijay Devi at the request of the IO made to the HOD. He proved the postmortem report of the deceased. (Ex. PW-8/B). He deposed that the cause of the death of the deceased was cranio-cerebral damage (brain injury) as a result of blunt force trauma to the head. He deposed that all the injuries suffered by injured were ante mortem in nature and were possible in a road traffic accident. PW-8 was not cross examined by FIR no. 241/2011 Page 6 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish accused despite opportunity.
12. PW-9/ASI Tech. (Retd). Devender Kumar proved the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle. The said report is Ex.PW-9/A. He deposed that during mechanical inspection done by him on 12.08.2011, of the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1CG-6674, he found fresh damages on bonnet dents from front side and front wind screen, glass broken. However, the vehicle was fit for road test. In his cross-examination, PW-9 categorically negated the suggestion of the accused to the effect that he had prepared a false report in conspiracy with the IO.
13. PW-10/IO/SI Retd. Suresh Kumar deposed that on 09.08.2011, he had along with Ct. Krishan Kumar went to the spot i.e. Peeragarhi Chowk, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, on receiving DD No.43A which was regarding a road traffic accident. He deposed that on reaching the spot, he found that no one was present at the spot and on local enquiry, he got to know that the injured was shifted to Bhagwan Mahaveer Hospital. Thereafter, he went to Bhagwan Mahaveer Hospital along with Ct. Krishan Kumar to meet the injured. At the hospital, he obtained the MLC bearing No.1132/11 of the injured wherein it was stated that the injured was not fit for statement. He deposed that till that time, he had not found any eye witness and therefore, he prepared a rukka Ex.PW-10/A and the same was handed over by him to Ct. Krishan Kumar for getting FIR registered on the basis of the same. Thereafter, Ct.
FIR no. 241/2011 Page 7 of 21P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish Krishan Kumar returned back to the hospital after getting FIR registered. PW-10 deposed that after he had returned to the PS, he had received a call from one public person who had claimed that he had seen the accident in question and that he had along with the accused namely Dev Ashish had shifted the injured lady to the hospital. PW-10 deposed that the said public person, whose name was later revealed as Brajesh Yadav had given the details of accused Dev Ashish. PW-10 deposed that Brijesh Yadav had identified the accused Dev Ashish in the PS. He deposed that he had recorded the statement of the witness Brajesh Yadav under section 161 Cr. P.C. and in his presence, he had arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW-3/C and his personal search was also carried out vide memo Ex.PW-3/D. Thereafter, he prepared site plan Ex.PW-10/B at the instance of the witness Brajesh Yadav. PW-10 deposed that he had seized the offending vehicle, D/L of the accused and the documents of the offending vehicle. He further deposed that he had got conducted the postmortem of the deceased namely Vidya Devi from Forensic Medicine Department, Maulana Azad Hospital vide his request Ex.PW-8/A. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. PW-10 also got conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle. PW-10 correctly identified the accused during the testimony in the Court and also correctly identified the offending vehicle through its photographs Ex.PW-1/D. In his cross-examination, PW-10 deposed that the distance from the PS and the spot of the accident is about 1-1.5 KM. He deposed that he had not met any eye witness at the spot and that the offending vehicle was also not present at the spot. PW-10 negated the FIR no. 241/2011 Page 8 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish suggestion of the accused to the effect that the alleged offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the instant case in order to get compensation/claim from Ld. MACT Court.
14. PW11/ASI Krishan Kumar deposed on same lines as PW10. He deposed that the IO/PW10 had handed over a rukka to him for getting the FIR registered and that on the basis of the said rukka, he had got the FIR of the instant case recorded. Thereafter, he had went back to the spot and handed over the rukka, copy of the FIR to the IO/PW10. In his cross examination, PW11 deposed that he had left the PS along with the IO at about 07:00 pm and had reached the spot in about 15 minutes. He categorically denied the suggestion of the accused to the effect that he has deposed falsely and that the entire alleged investigation took place, while sitting in the PS.
15. Therafter, at the request of Ld. APP for the state, PE was directed to be closed as all the relevant prosecution witnesses had been examined. Thereafter, the matter was proceeded to recording the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. In his statement, accused admitted the fact that he was driving the offending vehicle on the day of the accident. However, it was the version of the accused that the accident had not taken place with his vehicle. The accused stated that the deceased was hit by some other vehicle (White Swift) which was running in front of the vehicle of the accused and that the deceased had come in front of the vehicle of the accused after the said hit. At the same time, accused FIR no. 241/2011 Page 9 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish submitted that he does not wish to lead defence evidence. Consequently, DE was directed to be closed and the matter was fixed for addressing final arguments.
16. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully.
17. The relevant sections are reproduced below for ready reference.
Section 279 IPC reads as under:-
" 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."
Section 304 A IPC reads as under:-
"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."
18. To secure the conviction in a vehicular accident case, the prosecution has to prove all the following ingredients beyond FIR no. 241/2011 Page 10 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish reasonable doubt:-
A) That an accident was caused with a particular vehicle.
B) That accused was driving that particular vehicle which caused the accident.
C) That accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of accused facing trial in the Court.
D) The injury suffered by an injured or death of deceased was the direct result and consequence of that accident.
19. On the facts and circumstances of the case, all the above mentioned ingredients are inter connected and inter related and hence, they are being taken up together and being disposed off jointly.
20. As far as ingredient no. A and B as mentioned above, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accident in question was caused by offending vehicle i.e. a Santro car bearing No. DL-1CG-6674 and that the accused was driving the said car at the time of accident. During the course of final arguments, the Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the prosecution has failed to lead cogent evidence to FIR no. 241/2011 Page 11 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish prove the fact that the accident in question was caused by the offending vehicle and that the accused was driving the offending car at the time of the accident.
21. Ld. Counsel for the accused has vociferously argued that apart from the alleged eyewitness PW-2 and PW3, there is no other witness, examined by the prosecution who had witnessed the accident in question. He argued that the fact that both the alleged eyewitnesses are chance witnesses, makes way for the entire case set out by the prosecution to get enveloped and enamoured into the inscrutable smokes of doubt. He has further argued that PW-2 had failed to even disclose the correct number of the offending vehicle, both at the time of making of call at number 100 as alleged as well as at the time of his testimony in the court and this would inexorably result in acquittal of the accused.
22. To appreciate this defence of the accused, it is pertinent to re-capitulate, that instant case is that of Hit and Run and that, as per the prosecution, the identity of the offending vehicle was disclosed to the IO by PW3 and apart from PW3, there is no evidence on record to connect the offending vehicle bearing number DL-1CG-6674 with the accident in question. Thus, the question which arises for consideration is whether, the testimony of PW3 is credible and can be relied upon by the court and reach the finding that the accident in question was caused by the offending vehicle bearing number DL-1CG-6674.
FIR no. 241/2011 Page 12 of 21P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish
23. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that PW3 has been declared as hostile by the prosecution and therefore, his testimony cannot be relied upon by the prosecution or the court to bring home the guilt of the accused and has to be eschewed from consideration. However, in my opinion, this argument of Ld. Defence counsel lacks force and is liable to be discarded at the threshold in light of law laid down by The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khujji Vs. State of M.P, AIR 1991 SC 1853. The Hon'ble Apex Court had observed in the above stated precedent that the testimony of hostile witness is not wholly effaced from the record and that part of the evidence which is otherwise acceptable can be acted upon. At the same time, in other judgments reported as Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana (1976) 25 RCR 921, Rabinder Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1977 SC 170 and Syed Akbar Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1979 SC 1848, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the evidence of prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to declare him hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether, but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
24. In my opinion, the evidence of PW3/ Brijesh Yadav is worthy of credence and the same can be accepted despite the fact that the said witness was cross examined by Ld. APP and during his cross- examination at the instance of the state, the witness/ PW4 had proved the FIR no. 241/2011 Page 13 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish genuineness of the seizure memo(s) Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW3/B, Ex. PW3/C, Ex. PW3/D. PW3 has categorically deposed in his testimony that he had taken the injured female/ victim of the accident to the Mahavir Hospital immediately after the accident in question. At the same time, he has also deposed that the accident in question was caused by one Santro car, which was coming from Paschim Vihar Side and was going towards Rohtak road. The same fact has also been stated by him in his statement to the police under section 161 Cr. P.C. The above extracted testimony of PW3/eyewitness is corroborated by the fact that the MLC bearing No. 1132 of the deceased dated 09.08.2011 Ex. PW7/A made around 06:56 p.m. clearly states that the injured whose identity was unknown at that point of time, was brought to the hospital by one "Brijesh". Thus, the testimony of PW3 to the effect that the injured/victim was taken to the hospital by him has been corroborated in material particulars. The inescapable conclusion which can be arrived at is that PW3 was present at/ near the spot, where the accident took place and that he had taken the deceased/victim to the hospital. Thus, PW3 had the opportunity and had noted down the registration number of the offending vehicle, which was subsequently disclosed by him to the IO. At the same time, in the present case, the photographs of the offending vehicle which are available on record clearly show that the offending Santro car was involved in the accident in question. The finding that the vehicle bearing No. DL-1CG- 6674 is the offending vehicle is further bolstered by the testimony of PW2, who had immediately made a call at number 100 and had disclosed that one Santro car bearing No. DL-6674 had caused the accident and had FIR no. 241/2011 Page 14 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish fled from the spot. Therefore, the conclusion that can be arrived at is that the Santro car bearing No. DL-1CG-6674 is the offending vehicle, which was involved in the accident in question.
25. The identity of the driver of the offending vehicle is proved from the testimony of PW1/ owner of the offending vehicle, who himself is the father of the accused. PW1 has not been cross examined by the accused and thus, the testimony of PW1 has to be accepted at its face value. PW1 has categorically deposed that on the day of the accident, the offending car was being driven by his son/ accused Devashish. Thus, the fact that the accused is the driver of the offending vehicle is proved beyond doubt. The above stated finding regarding the identity of the accused/driver is further bolstered by the fact that the owner of the offending vehicle had in his reply to the notice u/s 133 M.V. Act served upon him by the IO had also stated that the accused Dev Ashish was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Thus, in my opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove the ingredient no. A and B as stated above.
26. As far as ingredient "D" is concerned, the prosecution has to prove that the death of the deceased namely Vidhya Devi was direct result and consequence of the accident in question. PW-8 has proved Ex.PW8/A which is the post mortem report of the deceased Vidhya Devi. As per post mortem report Ex.PW8/A, the injuries suffered by the deceased were ante mortem in nature which were caused by blunt FIR no. 241/2011 Page 15 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish force impact to head due to vehicular accident and death was due to cranio-cerebral damage. Therefore, the prosecution has proved ingredient no. D to the effect that death of Vidhya Devi was a direct result and consequence of the accident in question.
27. At the same time, the prosecution has also to prove the ingredient no. C that the death of Vidhya Devi was direct result and consequence of rash and negligent driving of the accused. Thus, it has to seen whether the accused was driving the offending Santro Car/offending car in a rash and negligent manner. The eye witnesses/PW3 has deposed emphatically on oath that the accused, who was driving the Santro car had crossed the traffic signal when the traffic light was still yellow and that the distance between the spot of the accident and the Red Light was approximately 100 metres and that as per his observation, the speed of the offending car was around 70 Km/ Hr at the time of the accident. However, at the same time, nothing has been elicited by the prosecution from the mouth of PW-3 who is a sole eyewitness to the accident regarding the rash and negligent driving of the accused. There is not even a single statement in the testimony of PW-3 to even remotely suggest that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Apart from aforesaid testimony of PW3, there was no detail description of facts resulting into this accident by PW3. Thus, cumulatively seen, there is not even an iota of evidence, much less cogent, on record regarding the manner in which the accused was driving the offending Santro car bearing No. DL-1CJ-6674.
FIR no. 241/2011 Page 16 of 21P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish
28. Ld. APP for the state has argued that the accused was driving the offending Santro Car in a rash manner and the same can be inferred from the fact(s) that the spot of the accident was about 100 meters away from the red light, that the offending vehicle was being driven at a high speed of about 70 Km/ hr has been deposed by PW3 and that the number of injuries suffered by the deceased itself shows the severity of the impact of the accident. He has further argued that the offending vehicle had hit an pedestrian while she was crossing the road and this in itself shows that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, in substance, prayer has been made by the prosecution to convict the accused merely on the allegation that the accused had hit the deceased, who was a pedestrian while she was trying to cross the road and that the accused driver did not take sufficient care to see that deceased was crossing the road.
29. As per site plan Ex.PW10/B, the place of accident was somewhere near the edge of the road away from the road divider. Perusal of site plan Ex. PW10/B, shows that the road divider divided the road into two parts. Thus, the place where the accident took place is apparently not a designated place to cross the road. The fact that the victim chose to walk a busy road, with presumably heavy evening traffic, she knowingly, exposed herself to dangers that such risk may entail. It cannot be ruled out that the deceased was a jaywalker, who might have suddenly appeared on the road. The act of the deceased pedestrian of crossing the road, where there was no zebra crossing was not a proper FIR no. 241/2011 Page 17 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish way to cross the road as the same cannot be termed as designated place to cross the road. That designated place to cross the road was at the traffic signal, which was about 100 meters from the place of the accident, where there would have been zebra-crossing. The purpose of providing zebra- crossing is to provide for a designated path for the pedestrians to cross the road. Any other place carved out and used by the public persons cannot be said to be the proper path to cross the road. As a prudent person, when a person crosses a road, he is bound to look both sides of the road so as to ensure that no vehicle is coming. It is more so required to be done at places, which are not the designated place to cross the road. There is not even an iota of evidence of record to even remotely suggest that the deceased was crossing the road through zebra-crossing. In fact, the deceased was not justified in crossing the road from undesignated place. In the circumstances of the case, a portion of blame and negligence would have to be shared by the deceased. Such conduct of any pedestrian in fact jeopardizes the movement of motor vehicle on the road and many times results into unfortunate accident. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the negligence on part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High court in case titled as "State v Rajesh Kumar, Crl. L.P. 431/2016 ", passed on 05.09.2019.
30. In the name of rashness or negligence the only allegation made by PW3 was that the accused was the driver of the offending car which had hit the deceased and had fled away from the FIR no. 241/2011 Page 18 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish spot. Therefore, in the absence of material facts it cannot be said that the accused driver was driving in a rash and negligent manner, merely because there is an allegation that the accused had hit an pedestrian while she was crossing the road. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the offending Santro Car bearing number DL- 1CG -6674 in a rash and negligent manner, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. This will inexorably result in the acquittal of the accused in respect of the charges under section 279/ 304A IPC levelled against him.
31. At the same time, it is important to underscore the established canon of criminal law that in order to pass a conviction in a criminal case, the accused ''must be'' guilty and not merely ''may be'' guilty. The mental distance between ''may be'' guilty to ''must be'' guilty is a long one and must be travel not on surmises and conjectures, but by cogent evidence. In this case, after the accused successfully created a doubt in the story of the prosecution in respect of the fact that he was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. And as per the settled law, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The material on record does not suggest that the accused ''must be'' guilty whichever way one looks at it.
32. In view of the above discussions, the present case appears to be a fit case where benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused qua offences under section 279/ 304A IPC.
FIR no. 241/2011 Page 19 of 21P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish
33. However, at the same time, as discussed above, the prosecution has successfully proved the fact(s) that the vehicle bearing No. DL-1CG-6674 was involved in the accident in question and that the accused was behind the wheels at the time of the accident and that he had fled from the spot after hitting the deceased, leaving the injured/ deceased to her fate. This conduct of the accused is in violation of the mandate/ duty cast upon the driver of a vehicle under section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which enjoins the driver to take steps to secure immediate medical attention for the injured, in case of an accident.
34. The decision that follows from the discussions made above is that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt in respect of section 279/ 304A IPC. However, the prosecution has successfully established that accused has committed offence under section 134 r/w 187 of the M.V. Act, 1988.
35. Consequently, the accused Dev Ashish is hereby acquitted of the offences u/s 279/304-A IPC. At the same time, the accused stands convicted for the offence punishable under section 134 r/w 187 M.V. Act, 1988.
36. Copy of judgment be placed on case file and a copy of the same be supplied to the convict.
37. Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence.
FIR no. 241/2011 Page 20 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish Digitally signed PUNEET by PUNEET NAGPAL Decided on 24.09.2020 Announced through VC (Cisco Webex) NAGPAL Date: 2020.09.24 16:51:33 +05'30' (PUNEET NAGPAL) MM-7, West District THC/Delhi FIR no. 241/2011 Page 21 of 21 P.S. Paschim Vihar State Vs. Dev Ashish