Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/352/2000 on 9 November, 2011
FIR No. 352/2000 1 Police Station Alipur
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH GUPTA, ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (OUTER DISTRICT), ROHINI
COURTS , DELHI
FIR No. 352/2000
Unique Case ID No. 02401R0082242000
Police Station Alipur
Under Section 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code
State v. Satpal
JUDGEMENT
(a) Serial number of the case :1910/2
(b)Date of the commission of the offence :06.09.2000
(c)Name of the complainant :Amrik Singh, S/o Shri Dasonda Singh, R/o WZ65A, Gali No. 2 Guru Nanak Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
(d)Name of the accused & address :Satpal S/o Shri Nahar Singh, R/o Village Farmana, PS Kharkhoda, District Sonepat, Haryana.
(e)Charge against the accused :279/337 IPC (f)Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty (g)Final order :Accused convicted Contd..... FIR No. 352/2000 2 Police Station Alipur (h)Date of such order :09.11.2011 Date of Institution :27.11.2000 Date on which arguments heard and Judgment reserved. :09.11.2011 Date of Judgement :09.11.2011 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Chargesheet in the present case was filed on behalf of the state on 27.11.2000 and after taking cognizance of the offence, the copies of challan and documents were supplied to the accused and on 20.5.2002 a formal notice of accusation u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused.
2. The allegations against the accused Satpal S/o Nahar Singh are that on 6.9.2000 at about 6:00 PM at Jindpur crossing, GTK Road, Delhi the accused was found driving the vehicle No. HR469519 (Bus) in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving the said vehicle in the aforesaid manner at the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused caused simple injuries on the person of Amrik Singh and Malkit Singh and thus the accused committed an offence punishable u/s Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 3 Police Station Alipur 279/337 IPC. The contents of the notice were read over and
explained to the accused and after understanding the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. I have already heard final arguments and perused the record.
4. The prosecution has cited sixteen witnesses as per list of witnesses, however, the prosecution has been able to examine PW1 HC Hargobind Singh, PW2 Inspector Ved Singh, PW3 Shri Narender Sonkar S/o Shri Babu Lal, PW4 Shri Amrik Singh, PW5 Shri Malkiat Singh, PW6 Retd. ASI Devender Kumar, PW6 Dr. Sanjay Kumar (It seems that inadvertently the same number has been given as PW6 to two different witnesses), PW7 Ct. Harpal and PW8 SI Joginder Singh. No other prosecution witness has been examined in this case.
5. After closing of PE, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has examined only one witness in his defence i.e. Shri Krishan S/o Shri Chattar Singh as DW1.
6. PW1 deposed that on 6.9.2000 he was posted at police station Alipur as Head Constable/Duty Officer and on that day he recorded FIR No. Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 4 Police Station Alipur 352/2000 on the basis of rukka sent by SI Joginder through Ct. Harpal. The carbon copy of FIR is Ex. PW1/A (Original seen and returned). He stated that after recording the FIR he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Harpal for handing over the same to the IO. Cross examination of PW1 is nil despite opportunity given.
7. PW2 Inspector Ved Singh from Haryana Roadways, Sonepat deposed that on 8.9.2000 he was informed that Haryana Roadways Bus No. HR469519 has caused the accident and the same has been seized by police of police station Alipur. He stated that General Managar of Depot of Haryana Roadways, Sonepat gave him authority letter to take the aforesaid Bus on superdari on behalf of Haryana Roadways and was also handed over the duty slip of the driver accused Satpal who was the driver of the said bus on the date of accident. Witness stated that he reached police station Alipur where he handed over the duty slip of accused Satpal which is Ex. PW2/A and thereafter after mechanical inspection he obtained the said bus on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW2/B. Witness correctly identified the accused present in the court. The authority letter is Ex. PW2/C. PW2 stated that he also handed over the copy of RC, Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 5 Police Station Alipur permit and insurance which are Mark A, B and C. Cross examination of this witness is nil despite opportunity given.
8. PW3 Shri Narender Sonkar S/o Shri Babu Lal stated that he is registered owner of truck no. HR474601 and on 6.9.2000 he was himself driving the said truck and moving from lower GTK Road to upper GTK Road near Jindpur crossing GTK Road on green light and meanwhile one bus, the number of which he do not remember, of Haryana Roadways came from the side of Haryana at a very high speed without blowing horn without using dipper and in a zig zag manner and it struck against one scooterist who sustained injuries and then struck against his truck also at the back portion. Witness stated that the scooterist/injured was removed to hospital and the police also reached at the spot and his truck was seized. Witness correctly identified the accused Satpal present in the court who was driving the offending bus which caused the accident. He stated that he obtained his truck on superdari after mechanical inspection and the accused present in the court ran away from the spot after causing the accident as number of public persons started gathering there and police made inquiry from him and his statement was recorded. In cross examination on behalf of accused, PW3 stated that there is red light on the crossing. Witness volunteered that there was a green signal Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 6 Police Station Alipur from his side. Witness admitted that when there was green light for him, there was red light for other side and the speed of his vehicle was 20 to 30 km/hr and the speed of offending vehicle might be 70 to 80 km/hr. He stated that he told the police about the speed of vehicle, however he cannot say whether police had recorded the same or not. Witness stated that he had not seen whether the driver of the bus ran away from the spot or not at the time of accident. Witness stated that he did not see the driver of the bus except in the court. He stated he had sustained minor injuries but no medical examination was conducted. He admitted that his statement was recorded in the police station and he had signed the statement in the police station. Ld. APP for state has also reexamined this witness and in the said re examination the witness has stated that he had seen the accused at the time of accident and whatever he had stated in his chief examination is correct. No further cross examination of this witness was conducted on behalf of accused despite opportunity given.
9. PW4 Shri Amrik Singh S/o Shri Dasonda Singh stated that he resides in Tilak Nagar, New Delhi with his family and on 6.9.2000 he was coming to Delhi from Narela side on a two wheeler scooter no. 1433 and one Malkiat Singh was also with him. He stated that he i.e. PW4 was driving the two wheeler scooter and Malkiat Singh was the Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 7 Police Station Alipur pillion rider and at about 5:30 PM or 6:00 PM when they reached near Alipur, a truck was moving infront of them and suddenly the truck driver applied brakes at the red light and he also slowed down his scooter. He stated that he do not remember the truck number and one bus was following them which was of Haryana Roadways and was being driven at a very high speed and the said bus struck against their scooter from behind and he do not remember the number of the Bus. He stated that he and Malkiat Singh alongwith two wheeler scooter were pushed under the truck due to hitting by the Bus from behind. He stated that both of them sustained injuries and the scooter was damaged and one PCR van was present there and they were taken to hospital at Jahangir Puri by PCR van. Witness stated that accused present in the court was driving the bus which struck against their scooter. He stated that his statement was recorded by the police at the hospital and same is Ex. PW4/A bearing his signatures at Point A. In cross examination PW4 stated that he was looking in the front side while driving the scooter and he cannot say as to which side Malkiat Singh was looking while he was driving the scooter. He stated that 15 to 20 passersby had gathered at the spot of accident after the accident and police officials from police station Alipur had reached at the spot in his presence and statement of none of the public persons at the spot was recorded by the police in his presence and none of the Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 8 Police Station Alipur public persons were requested to join the investigation in his presence. He stated that he sustained injuries on both of his hands and on both of his legs. He stated that he had stated to the police that he had sustained injuries on both of his hands and legs, however, he do not know whether the police had mentioned this fact in his statement or not and he had gone through his statement before signing the same. He denied the suggestion that he had not sustained any injury or that he is deposing falsely.
10.PW5 Shri Malkiat Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh stated that on 6.9.2000 he was coming to Delhi from Narela side on a two wheeler scooter, the number of which he do not remember and it was being driving by Amrik Singh and he was the pillion rider and at about 5:30 PM or 5:45 PM when they reached near Alipur crossing, there was one truck which was standing on the road and he do not remember its number. Witness further deposed that on seeing the truck, Amrik Singh slowed down the speed of scooter and then one truck came from behind and he do not remember its number and it struck against their two wheeler scooter and their scooter was pushed under the truck standing in their front side. He stated that he had sustained injuries and got unconscious and he regained his consciousness at the hospital at Jahangir Puri. He stated that police met him at the hospital Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 9 Police Station Alipur and recorded his statement. He stated that he had not seen the driver of the vehicle which had struck against their scooter. Ld. APP for state also cross examined this witness and the witness stated that he cannot say whether their scooter was hit by the truck or by the bus from behind. In said cross examination, PW5 stated that he had not seen the driver of offending vehicle so he cannot identify the accused present in the court. He denied the suggestion that he has compromised the matter with the accused or that he has been won over by the accused. He further denied the suggestion that he is not stating the true facts before the court. Counsel for the accused also cross examined this witness wherein the witness stated that while travelling on the scooter he was looking in the front side and he had not stated to the police as to on which part of his body he sustained injuries. He stated that he do not know whether police had recorded his statement to the effect that as to on which part of his body he had sustained injuries. The witness stated that he is illiterate, however, he had put his signatures on his statement. He further deposed that his statement was not read over to him before obtaining his signatures. He denied the suggestion that he was not travelling on the scooter being driven by Amrik Singh or that he is deposing falsely.
Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 10 Police Station Alipur
11.PW6 Retd. ASI Devender Kumar stated that on 7.9.2000 he mechanically inspected the Bus No. HR46 9519, Truck No. HR454601 and Scooter No. DL1SM1433 at police station Alipur at request of SI Joginder Singh i.e. IO of the case and after examination he prepared detailed report vide Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C, all bearing his signatures at PointA. He deposed that the bus and the scooter were not roadworthy due to the damages occurred in the accident and the truck was found fit for road test. In cross examination on behalf of accused, PW6 Shri Devender Kumar stated that he was called telephonically from police station Alipur by SI Joginder Singh and on his request he conducted mechanical inspection of the vehicles.
12.Another witness Dr. Sanjay Kumar, CMO, BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi was also examined as PW6 in this case. It seems that inadvertently the same witness number has been given to both the witnesses i.e. PW6. He deposed that he is working as CMO in BJRM Hospital since 2000 and on 6.9.2000, Shri Amrik Singh and Shri Malkiyat Singh were examined at their hospital vide MLC bearing No. 1986 and 0560 by Dr. Naveen Gupta, Junior Resident. He stated that Dr. Naveen Gupta had left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. He deposed that he is acquainted Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 11 Police Station Alipur with his hand writing and signatures and the MLC of Amrik Singh is Ex. PW6/A and that of Malkiyat Singh is Ex. PW6/B and the same has been prepared by Dr. Naveen Gupta bearing his signatures at Point A and B respectively. He further stated that he has seen the Ex. PW6/A which bears the date at Point X as 6.8.2000 which appears to be incorrect as the date mentioned on the left hand corner of MLC and near the opinion column is 6.9.2000. He stated that he is qualified medical expert and he has seen MLC Ex. PW6/A and can say that the patient had suffered multiple abrasion over both forearms and over left leg and it is also observed that there is swelling and tenderness and lower end of his right forearm and was having CLW of about 2 x .5 cm over left leg below knee joint and the patient was advised for Xray of right wrist (A.P. and lateral view). He stated that on seeing the MLC Ex. PW6/B, it is observed that patient had suffered CLW of 3 x .5 cm over left frontal region and CLW of 2 x .5 cm and 1 x .5 cm over left parietal region, CLW on left leg about 3 x .5 cm, CLW on left foot below little toe of about 2 x .5 cm and multiple abrasions on left leg and left hand. The witness further deposed that from the record he is unable to opine the nature of the injuries suffered by both the patients. In cross examination the witness stated it is correct that he had not prepared the MLC Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B and stated that he was CMO at that time. He denied the suggestion that the Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 12 Police Station Alipur MLC does not mention that the patient had met with road traffic accident. He stated that orthopedic department was very much functioning at that time in their hospital and radiologist was also available at that time in their hospital. He stated that the opinion on Ex. PW6/B is mentioned as simple injury by Dr. Narender Gupta but there is no such opinion on Ex. PW6/A. He denied the suggestion that the nature of the injuries as mentioned in both the MLCs can be suffered by simple fall or slip.
13.PW7 Ct. Harpal who was under suspension and in J.C. when his statement was recorded on 29.4.2010 before the court stated that he do not remember anything about the incident and he cannot recollect the facts despite refreshing his memory and stated that he is in J.C. in some other case and he is mentally disturbed. PW7 was cross examined by Ld. APP for state wherein the witness admitted that on 6.9.2000 he was posted at police station Alipur. He stated that he do not recollect whether he had accompanied SI Joginder Singh on receipt of DD No. 42B to Jindpur crossing, GTK Road and he do not recollect whether there he had noticed Bus No. HR469519 of Haryana Roadways and one Truck No. HR474601 alongwith one scooter bearing No. DL1SM1443 in accidental condition. The statement Ex. PW7/A was read over and explained to the witness and Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 13 Police Station Alipur his attention was drawn towards portion A to A1 to which he stated that he do not recollect anything. He stated that he do not recollect whether SI Jogender Singh had left him at the spot on that day and gone to BJRM Hospital and returned with the accused Satpal present in the court and complainant Amrik Singh. He stated that he do not collect whether SI Jogender Singh sent him to get the FIR registered after preparing Tehrir. The witness was again confronted with the portion A to A1 on Ex. PW7/A wherein it was so recorded. PW7 stated that he do not recollect whether the above numbered vehicles were seized by IO. He stated that his signatures are at Point A respectively on seizure memos Ex. PW7/B to Ex. PW7/D and stated that he do not recollect whether the above numbered vehicles were seized vide these memos. He stated that he do not recollect whether the accused Satpal was ever arrested on 6.9.2000 vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/E, however, the witness identified his signatures at Point A on it. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not disclosing the complete and true facts and also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in order to shield the accused. The cross examination of this witness, on behalf of accused is nil despite opportunity given.
Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 14 Police Station Alipur
14.PW8 SI Joginder Singh stated that on 6.9.2000 he was posted at police station Alipur and on that day on receiving DD No. 42B he alongwith Ct. Harpal reached at Jindpur Crossing, GTK Road where they found one Haryana Roadways Bus bearing No. HR469519 and one Truck bearing No. HR474601 in accidental condition. He stated that they also noticed one scooter bearing No. DL1SN1433 which was just under the above mentioned truck in the accidental condition and stated that after leaving Ct. Harpal at the spot he went to BJRM Hospital where he found injured Amrik Singh and Malkeet Singh who were admitted over there and he collected the relevant MLCs and recorded the statement of PW Amrik Singh which is already Ex. PW4/A bearing his signatures at PointB. He stated that in the hospital the driver of the said bus i.e. accused Satpal (present in the court) also met him. He stated that thereafter he alongwith complainant Amrik Singh and accused Satpal reached at the spot where he prepared a rukka upon the statement of Amrik Singh and the rukka is Ex. PW8/A bearing his signatures at PointA. He further stated that he sent Ct. Harpal for getting the FIR registered and thereafter at the instance of injured Amrik Singh he prepared the site plan of the spot which is Ex. PW8/B and the photographs of the spot were also got clicked by private photographer namely Kewal Krishan Arora and the photographs are Mark A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5. He Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 15 Police Station Alipur stated that meanwhile Ct. Harpal returned back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to him and he i.e. witness seized the above mentioned scooter vide seizure memo already Ex. PW7/B bearing his signatures at Point B and he seized the said truck vide seizure memo already Ex. PW7/C bearing his signatures at Point B and the said bus was seized vide memo already Ex. PW7/D bearing his signatures at Point B. He stated that he seized one cycle also about which he forgot to disclose earlier and the cycle was also found under the truck with the scooter in accidental condition but the rider of the cycle was not found at the spot. The seizure memo of cycle is Ex. PW8/C. He further stated that it bears his signatures at Point A and he also seized driving license of the accused Satpal vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/D bearing his signatures at Point A and he also recorded the statement of truck driver Suraj Bhan. Witness again stated that he recorded the statement of truck driver Jagdish S/o Suraj Bhan who reached at the spot. PW8 further stated that upon the pointing out of injured Amrik Singh he arrested the accused Satpal vide arrest memo already Ex. PW7/E bearing his signatures at Point B and stated that thereafter they reached the police station and he deposited the case property in the malkhana and he recorded statements of all the witnesses of the case and got conducted the mechanical inspection of the above mentioned truck, bus and scooter Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 16 Police Station Alipur through ASI Devender Singh and also collected the result upon the MLCs and filed the chargesheet after completion of the investigation. In cross examination witness stated that he cannot recollect the name of the official who handed over the relevant DD to him, however, he stated that it must be the duty officer. He further stated that he was present in the police station when the above mentioned DD was received in the police station and stated that the DD was marked to him at about 6:00 PM and he immediately left the police station after receiving the same and further stated that the place of accident is near about 1½ to 2 km away from the police station. He stated that he could not recollect that in what manner they commuted to the spot and stated that they reached at the spot in about 10 minutes and no eye witness met on the spot when they reached there and there was no gathering at the spot. The witness admitted that GTK Road is a very busy road. He stated that he requested 23 passersby about the accident but no one was ready to join the investigation and they left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He admitted that no written notice was served upon the public persons who refused to join the investigation. He stated that he reached at the hospital in half an hour and the injured persons were admitted in the casualty of the hospital and he recorded the statement of the injured in the casualty. He stated that he cannot recollect the exact directions of Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 17 Police Station Alipur the site plan as it is very old matter. He denied the suggestion that the site plan which was prepared by him is imperfect according to the geographical condition of Delhi. Witness stated that he do not remember whether the conductor of the truck and of the bus and any other passenger of the bus were present on the spot or not. He stated that he did not make any effort to trace out the passengers of the bus as no one was available and witness admitted that he did not try to trace out the conductor of the above mentioned truck. Witness stated that in the meanwhile when Ct. Harpal left for getting the FIR registered, he prepared the site plan and got clicked the photographs and he prepared the seizure memo when Ct. Harpal came back at the spot after getting the FIR registered. Witness stated that he cannot comment upon the suggestion that when the accident took place, about 55 passengers alongwith conductor were present at the spot. The witness volunteered that he is not the eye witness of the incident. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely or that all the proceedings were conducted in the police station or that accused Satpal is falsely implicated in this case. No other prosecution witness was examined in this case.
15.After closing of PE, the statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 C Cr.P.C. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused Satpal S/o Sh.
Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 18 Police Station Alipur Nahar Singh admitted that he was driving the bus no. HR469519 on 6.9.2000 at about 6:00 PM near Jind Pur Crossing, GTK Road but the accused stated that he was not driving the said bus in rash and negligent manner. Accused denied that while driving the said bus in rash and negligent manner at very high speed without blowing horn and in zigzag manner, he struck it against the scooter bearing no. DL1SN1433 and then struck against truck bearing no. HR474601. Accused stated that he do not know that due to the accident caused by him injuries were sustained by Amrik Singh and Malkeet Singh. Accused stated that the case against him is false and denied that SI Joginder Singh had prepared site plan at the instance of Amrik Singh which is Ex. PW8/B and had got the photographs Mark A1 to Mark A5 clicked through Kewal Kishan Arora i.e. photographer. Accused denied that SI Joginder Singh had seized the scooter as well as the truck and also his bus vide memo Ex. PW7/B to Ex. PW7/D respectively. Accused denied that while hitting the scooter and the truck, he had also victimized the cycle which was seized by IO vide memo Ex. PW8/C. Accused denied that on 7.9.2000 ASI Davender Kumar had mechanically inspected the bus, truck and the scooter and submitted his report Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/C. Accused also denied that the MLC Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B of Amrik Singh and Malkeet Singh were prepared at BJRM Hospital. He stated that Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 19 Police Station Alipur the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely against him being interested witnesses. The accused stated that he is innocent and while he was crossing the traffic signal at Jindpur Crossing, he tried to apply brakes of the bus but due to leakage of the pressure the brakes could not function properly. He further stated that he tried to stop the bus to best of his wisdom and avoided it from colliding with small vehicles which had halted at the traffic signal and decided to struck his bus against a truck with intention to stop his bus. The accused further stated that the accident had not taken place due to his negligence but for the reasons beyond his control. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he was not present at the spot at that time. The accused opted to lead defence evidence. The accused has examined only one witness in his defence i.e. DW1Shri Krishan S/o Shri Chattar Singh. DW1 stated that about 10 or 11 years back he used to go to Daruhera, Haryana. DW1 has been examined on 13.5.2011. Witness stated that there is one Hero Honda Factory and he do not remember the date, month and the year, however, about 10 or 11 years ago he started from Sonepat in a bus to go to Delhi and when the bus reached near Alipur, Delhi then he heard the voice of the driver saying that the brakes of the bus have failed. DW1 stated that he alerted the Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 20 Police Station Alipur passengers and the bus halted after travelling a considerable distance thereafter and the passengers were saying that they have been saved and all the passengers got down from the bus and he also got down and saw a scooterist in injured condition. He stated that the scooterist was having slight injuries. Witness stated that then he got busy to catch another bus. Cross examination of this witness is nil despite opportunity given.
16.Ld. APP for state argued that DW1 Shri Krishan was not cross examined by him as DW1 has failed to give any specification regarding date, place and time of the incident. Ld. APP also highlighted the mechanical inspection report of the bus in question which is Ex. PW6/A. Ld. APP also submitted that the accused has taken contradictory stand which strengthens the case of the prosecution. It is relevant to note here that in the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has stated in the answer to question no. 14 that while he was crossing the traffic signal at Jindpur Crossing, he tried to apply brakes of the bus but due to leakage of the pressure the brakes could not function properly and he decided to struck his bus against a truck with intention to stop his bus and the accident took place due to the reasons beyond his control and not due to his negligence. This clarifies that infact the accident took place on the Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 21 Police Station Alipur date, place and time in question and the accused was infact driving the bus in question and struck the same against the truck in question. It is most important to note that in the answer to this very question no. 14, the accused stated at last that he was not present at the spot at that time which is totally contradictory stand. It is also relevant to point out that statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 17.3.2011 in the presence of Shri B.S. Solanki, Ld. counsel for the accused.
17.Counsel for accused highlighted the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and submitted that PW7 has turned hostile.
18.Ld. APP has highlighted Ex. PW6/A which is the mechanical inspection report of bus no. HR469519 in which it is mentioned that there is fresh damage on front right side body and bumper is damaged, headlight damaged, front right side windscreen glass broken, clutch and brake pedal system damaged, dashboard bracket damaged. It is further mentioned in the said report that engine is O.K., brake pedal system damaged (pedal not working and air pressure O.K.), steering system O.K., left side headlight and horn O.K. It is most important to note that in the report it is mentioned that the vehicle is not fit for road test due to brake pedal system damaged Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 22 Police Station Alipur due to accident. The said report is dated 7.9.2000. Here it is once again clarified that inadvertently two prosecution witnesses have been given the same prosecution witness number i.e. PW6 and those witnesses are namely Retd. ASI Devender Kumar and Dr. Sanjay Kumar.
19.Ld. APP has also highlighted the provisions of Section 81 of IPC as well as provisions of Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act. I have perused the said provisions. The same are attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. The accused has failed to discharge his burden of proving that the case of the accused comes within exceptions as mentioned in Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act.
20.In view of above detailed facts and circumstances and reasons given and observations made and also in the light of the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as well as in the light of the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW6/A with respect to bus in question bearing no. HR46 9519, it is clear that the prosecution has proved the present case beyond reasonable doubts. It is proved on record that the accident in question took place on the given date, time and place due to driving of the bus in question by the accused in the rash and negligent manner and the injured persons sustained simple injuries Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 23 Police Station Alipur due to that accident due to the fault of the accused. Hence, accused Satpal S/o Shri Nahar Singh is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s 279/337 IPC. Ordered accordingly. Passed and announced in the open court today i.e. 09.11.2011 (MANISH GUPTA) ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (OUTER DISTRICT) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 24 Police Station Alipur IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH GUPTA, ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (OUTER DISTRICT), ROHINI COURTS , DELHI FIR No. 352/2000 Unique Case ID No. 02401R0082242000 Police Station Alipur Under Section 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Satpal ORDER ON SENTENCE 9.11.2011 Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Convict Satpal S/o Shri Nahar Singh in person with Shri B.S. Solanki, Advocate.
Arguments heard on the point of sentence. Record perused.
Convict prays for lenient view.
The conviction in this case is u/s 279/337 IPC. The counsel for the convict submits that the convict is aged about 58 years and has family to support.
Ld. APP for the state submits that any reasonable sentence which may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances may be awarded to the convict.
Contd.....
FIR No. 352/2000 25 Police Station Alipur Convict submits that he has already retired from the services. Convict submits that he is not a previous convict.
In view of above facts and circumstances the convict is hereby sentenced to deposit a fine of Rs. 1000/ for the offence punishable u/s 279 IPC failing which he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and convict is further sentenced to deposit a fine of Rs. 500/ for the offence punishable u/s 337 IPC failing which he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
Total fine of Rs. 1500/ deposited by the convict. Copy of judgement and order on sentence, both passed today, be given dasti to convict free of cost.
File be consigned to record room after completing the necessary formalities.
Passed and announced in the open court today i.e. 09.11.2011 (MANISH GUPTA) ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (OUTER DISTRICT) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI Contd.....