Delhi District Court
State vs Lalit Yadav on 3 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH SANYAM JAIN:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04: NORTH-WEST
DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 817/2025
PS Keshav Puram
State Vs. Lalit Yadav
Date of Institution: 18.03.2017
Date of Judgment : 03.02.2026
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 1551/2017
(b) Date of commission of offence : 25.11.2015
(c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Surender Sharma
(d) Name of Accused persons, : Lalit Yadav their parentage & residence S/o Sh. Nago Yadav, R/o: H. No. N-86/15 T Huts Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Tri Nagar, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s: 279/338 IPC (f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty (g) Final order : Conviction FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 1 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 14:59:47 +0530
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT WITNESSES A) PROSECUTION RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE PW-1 Sh. Surender Sharma Complainant PW-2 Sh. Rajkumar Sahkla Owner of offending vehicle PW-2A Dr. Monika Consultant Radiologist PW-3 Dr. Hari Shankar CMO, Maharaja Aggresen Hospital Record clerk, Maharaja Aggresen PW-4 Sh. K.D. Sharma Hospital PW-5 Sh. Sandeep Gupta Witness PW-6 ASI Anand Kumar Accompanied the IO PW-6A ASI Bhujvir Duty Officer PW-7 Ms. Rakhi Sharma Owner of accidental motorcycle PW-8 SI Kalyan Singh IO PW-9 Retd. ASI/Tech. Devender Mechanical Inspector LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT EXHIBITS A) PROSECUTION Sr. No. EXHIBIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION Statement of complainant Sh. Surender
1. EXHIBIT No. PW1/A Sharma
2. EXHIBIT No. PW1/B Panchnama of accidental motorcycle
3. EXHIBIT No. PW2/A Reply to the Notice u/s 133 M.V. Act FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 2 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 14:59:55 +0530 Insurance, Permit, photocopy of RC of
4. Mark-2A, Mark-2B, Mark-2C offending vehicle
5. EXHIBIT No. PW2/B Superdarinama of offending vehicle
6. EXHIBIT No. PW2/C Panchnama of offending vehicle EXHIBIT No. PW2/A (now X-ray report of complainant Surender
7.
Ex.PW2A/A) Sharma
8. EXHIBIT No. PW3/A MLC No. 922/2015
9. EXHIBIT No. PW6/A Arrest memo of accused
10. EXHIBIT No. PW6/B Seizure memo of offending vehicle
Seizure memo of RC, Insurance,
11. EXHIBIT No. PW6/C
Fitness and Permit of offending vehicle Seizure memo of accidental
12. EXHIBIT No. PW6/D motorcycle
13. EXHIBIT No. PW6/E DL of accused Seizure memo of Aadhar Card of 14 EXHIBIT No. PW6/D accused EXHIBIT No. PW6/A (now
15. FIR Ex.PW6A/A) EXHIBIT No. PW6/B (now
16. Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW6A/B) EXHIBIT No. PW6/C (now Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence 17 Ex.PW6A/C) Act qua the FIR Copy of Indemnity Bond of accidental
18. EXHIBIT No. PW7/A motorcycle Order of Superdari of accidental
19. Mark-A motorcycle FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 3 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 14:59:59 +0530
20. EXHIBIT No. PW8/A Tehrir
21. EXHIBIT No. PW8/B Site Plan EXHIBIT No. PW9/A and Request applications for Mechanical
22.
PW9/C Inspection
EXHIBIT No. PW9/B and
23. Mechanical Inspection Reports
PW/D
24. EXHIBIT No. P-2 to P-9 Photographs of Offending Vehicle
23. EXHIBIT No. P-1 Photographs of accidental motorcycle
24. EXHIBIT No. P-4 Number Plate of Offending vehicle
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The accused Lalit Yadav S/o Nago Yadav had been sent to face trial for the commission of offences under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), on the allegations that on 25.11.2015, at about 06.00 pm, at Rampura Road, Near Indane Petrol Pump, Delhi, accused was driving one Tempo bearing registration no. DL-1LG-9304 in a manner so rashly and negligently and while driving so, the accused struck against the car bearing no. DL-4SND-7452, and cause grievous hurt on the person of Surender Sharma. Further, the accused did not take any step to take the above named injured persons to hospital and thus the accused thereby committed offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC.
2) After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 4 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:00:04 +0530 Court, cognizance of the offences were taken, the above said accused was summoned and after that, he entered appearance, copy of the chargesheet along with the documents was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) Notice was then framed against the accused Lalit Yadav on 28.11.2017 for the commission of offences under Section 279/338 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses.
5) PW-1 Sh. Surender Sharma deposed that he was a Government servant serving in MHA and on 22.11.2015, at about 6.00 pm, he was on his bike and was going to his home from Rohini and after crossing the Britania Underpass, he took left turn and at that time, one Truck came from back side and hit against his motorcycle bearing no. DL-4SND-7452 and he came under the front left tyre of the said truck. The front left tyre of the truck ran over my stomach. He also sustained injuries on his left hand. Thereafter, the said truck was stopped by the driver of the truck and the public persons gathered there and made the driver of the truck got down and he saw the driver. Surender Sharma called his friend namely Sandeep whose office was situated near the spot and Sandeep came to the spot and he took him to Maharaja Agresen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. He got treatment in the FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 5 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:00:08 +0530 hospital. Police officials came to the hospital and recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A.
6) He had told the place of incident to the police as he was not in a condition to go to the spot due to injuries sustained by him. He got treatment in Maharaja Agresen Hospital for one and half month and thereafter, he was on bed rest. His motorcycle was taken by the police on the day of incident. He identified the ac- cused in the court. He also identified 05 photographs of the acci- dental motorcycle which are Ex.P-1 (colly). Panchnama of the motorcycle bearing no. DL4SND-7452 which is Ex.PW1/B. Identity of the offending vehicle is not disputed by the accused vide order dated 05.03.2019. After being cross examined by Ld. APP, he deposed that he told to the police the number of offend- ing vehicle as DL-1LG-9304 and date of incident was 25.11.2015 and the offending vehicle was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against his bike from back side. The police officials came to the hospital alongwith the driver of the offending vehicle and that he identi- fied the driver of the offending vehicle in the hospital before the police. He also identified 08 photographs of offending vehicle and the said photographs are Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-9.
7) The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the ac-
cused about the driving license of the witness/complainant/in- jured. The witness deposed that he had given the driving license to the police in the Hospital, but no seizure memo was prepared for the same. The witness denied the suggestion that he did not FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 6 of 20 Digitally signed by SANYAM SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:00:12 +0530 have the valid driving license at the relevant time of accident. The witness noticed the speed and way of driving of accused from his side mirror. The witness further denied the suggestion that he was driving the vehicle in a wrong and negligent man- ner. He further deposed that the keys and driving license of the accused was taken by the public persons gathered at the spot and the same was given to the witness who later on gave it to the IO.
8) PW-2 Sh. Rajkumar deposed that he is the registered owner of vehicle bearing no. DL-1LG-9304. He had received the Notice u/s 133 M.V. Act from the Police on which he gave reply which is Ex.PW2/A. At the time of incident, said vehicle was being driven by the accused Lalit Yadav. The offending vehicle and the documents pertaining to the said vehicle were seized by the IO after the incident in question. The Insurance of that vehicle pertaining to the time of incident is Mark-2A. Certified copy of the permit of the said vehicle is Mark-2B. Photocopy of the RC of the said vehicle is Mark-2C. Thereafter, he got released the said vehicle on sapurdari vide Sapurdarinama Ex.PW2/B. Panchnama of the said vehicle is Ex. PW2/C. The identity of the offending vehicle was not disputed by the Ld. counsel for ac- cused.
9) On cross examination, witness mentioned that he was not present at the spot at the time of accident and had not seen the incident in question taking place.
FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 7 of 20 Digitally signed by SANYAM SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:00:17 +0530
10) Dr. Monika, MD Consultant Radiologist, Maharaja Aggresen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh (inadvertently given the identification as PW2 during examination, is now re-identified as PW2A) de- posed that on 25.11.2015, the Technician Radiographer took X- ray Chest AP, LS Spine AP/LAT and Left hand AP / OBL of one Surender Sharma and he prepared a detailed report on the said X-rays which is Ex.PW2/A. As per the report, there is no bone injury on any part on the given X-rays.
11) PW-3 Dr. Hari Shankar deposed that on 25.11.2015, he was present at Maharaja Aggresen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh as CMO, Casualty and on that day at about 6.45 pm, he examined one Surender Sharma and prepared his MLC no. 922/2015 which is Ex.PW3/A. During his examination, there were abrasions over left side of anterior wall of abdomen, abrasion over left shoul- der, deep CLW at dorsal space base of tongue abrasion over right hand forearm and the patient was complaining pain in lum- ber spine region. The injuries were found to be grievous in na- ture. The injured was referred to Plastic Surgery and was ad- vised admission in the hospital. The witness stated that he did not have any personal knowledge as on which criteria the plastic surgeon opined the nature of injury as grievous.
12) PW-4 Sh. K.D. Sharma, Record Clerk, Maharaja Aggresen Hos-
pital, Punjabi Bagh produce the relevant record pertaining to MLC No. 922/2015, on which Dr. Sudhir, Plastic Surgeon gave his result taking into consideration the injuries over the person / injured namely Surender Sharma as Dr. Sudhir is not working FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 8 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:00:21 +0530 with the hospital anymore. The nature of the injury has been mentioned at point B on MLC Ex.PW3/A and the signature of Dr. Sudhir is present at point C. He identified the signature of Dr. Sudhir at point C over Ex.PW3/A. I had also brought the copy of discharge summary (running into 02 pages) and the same is Mark-A bearing the signature of Dr Sudhir at point A.
13) PW-5 Sh. Sandeep Gupta deposed that on 25.11.2015, he was at his office bearing address 363, Aggarwal Modern Bazar, C-33, Lawrence Road, Delhi. At about 6.00 pm, he was in his office as above mentioned and he received the call from Surender Sharma / complainant who informed him that he met with an ac- cident just in front of his office i.e. Rampura-Keshav Puram Road. The accident occurred on one cut there on the road, in front of Aggarwal Modern Bazar Building. He went downstairs and towards the road where he saw that Surender Sharma / com- plainant (injured) was lying down on the road. The bike of the complainant was also lying on the road beside the complainant. The offending vehicle / Truck was also parked there on the road. Lot of public persons were also present there on the spot and they have caught hold the accused person / driver of the truck. Complainant was bleeding very badly from the front side of his body so witness took him to Maharaja Agresen hospital for im- mediate medical assistance. After that relatives of the com- plainant also arrived at the hospital and witnesses left the hospi- tal. The police officials called the witness in PS Keshav Puram for recording of his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. The accused who FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 9 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:00:25 +0530 was caught by the public persons i.e. the driver of the truck was identified by the accused in the Court.
14) The witness was then cross examined in which he stated that he had not seen the accident and only came to know about the acci- dent when injured PW1 called him. He had taken the com- plainant/PW1 to the hospital on bike. No investigation had taken place in the presence of the witness. He did not know the regis- tration numbers of either vehicle and he had not seen the same at the time of accident.
15) PW-6 ASI Anand Kumar deposed that on 25.11.2015, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram as Constable and on that day, he was on emergency duty along with IO/HC Kalyan Singh. IO/HC Kalyan Singh received a call vide DD no. 20-A regarding the in- formation that one accident had occurred near Rampura red light, petrol pump. Thereafter, he alongwith IO reached at the spot where they came to know that injured was taken by PCR van in Maharaja Agrasen hospital. The driver of the offending vehicle i.e. TATA 407 bearing no. DL-1LG-9304 was present at the spot and the offending vehicle as well as motorcycle bearing no. DL-4SND-7452 was found there. IO left Ct. Anand Kumar at the spot and he went to said hospital alongwith driver of of- fending vehicle. IO alongwith accused again reached at the spot with the medical document and statement of the complainant. Thereafter, IO prepared Tehrir and handed over the same to Ct. Anand Kumar for registration of FIR.
FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 10 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:00:30 +0530
16) After registration of FIR, he again went to the spot and handed over the original rukka/Tehrir and copy of FIR to IO. Thereafter, IO arrested accused vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW-6/A. IO also seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW-6/B. IO also seized the documents i.e. RC, photocopy of insurance, photocopy of fitness certificate and permit of offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW-6/C. The said documents of offend- ing vehicle are Ex.P-1 (colly). IO also seized motorcycle of complainant vide seizure memo Ex.PW-6/D. IO also seized the driving license of driver of offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW-6/E. IO also seized Aadhar Card of accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW-6/F. Aadhar card of accused is Ex.P-2. He identi- fied the accused in the Court. He also identified the 05 photo- graphs of accidental motorcycle and the said photograph are Ex.P-1 (colly.) He also identified the photographs of offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1LG-9304 in the Court. Said photo- graphs are Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-9 (colly).
17) The witness was then cross examined about the time of informa-
tion, time taken to reach the spot and what was the procedure followed by the IO. The accused was arrested at 10:00 PM. No public person was examined. The documents were executed at the spot.
18) ASI Bhujvir Singh (inadvertently given the identification as PW6 during examination, is now re-identified as PW6A) de- posed that he was the duty officer on the date of incident. He Exhibited FIR Ex. PW6/A (OSR), DD Entry no. 25-A dated FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 11 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:00:34 +0530 25.11.2015, Ex. PW6/B and issued Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW6/C.
19) PW-7 Ms. Rakhi Sharma deposed that on 10.03.2016, he got re-
leased motorcycle bearing no. DL-4SND-7452 on superdari on superdarinama of amount of Rs. 25,000/-, copy of the order re- garding release of above said vehicle is Mark-A and copy of In- demnity Bond dated 17.02.2016 is Ex.PW7/A (colly). IO recorded his statement. He identified five colour photographs of vehicle bearing no. DL-4SND-7452 and the said photographs are Ex.P-1 (colly).
20) PW-8 SI Kalyan Singh / IO deposed that on 25.11.2015, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Keshav Puram and on that day, upon receiving DD No. 20-A Mark-A, he alongwith Ct. Anand went to the spot i.e. at Rampura Turn, Delhi where one motorcy- cle bearing no. DL-4SND-7452 in accidental condition was found on the side of the road, and one Tempo bearing no. DL-1LG-9304 make Eicher 407, and also found driver namely Lalit Kumar of said Tempo Eicher 407. He also observed that one shoe was also lying near the said motorcycle, and came to know that injured was shifted to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. Thereafter, IO alongwith driver went to Bhagwan Mahavir Hos- pital and Ct. Anand remained at the spot. IO obtained the MLC of injured Surender Kumar and came to know that Surender is under treatment. IO met with injured Surender and recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A. IO alongwith driver Lalit went again to the spot and prepared tehrir which is Ex.PW8/A and FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 12 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:00:39 +0530 handed over the same to Ct. Anand for registration of FIR, and Ct. Anand went to PS and got registered the present FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Anand returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to IO, and at the hospi- tal, injured Surender had identified Lalit Kumar by stating that he was driving the offending vehicle i.e. said Tempo 407. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/ A, and accused was released on bail as offence was bailable in nature. On the next day, accused came at PS with documents pertaining to the offending vehicle. IO seized DL of accused vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW6/E. IO also seized the Insur- ance, photocopy of RC vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C. IO seized the Aadhar Card of accused which is Ex.PW6/F. Thereafter, IO got mechanically inspected the offending vehicle and accidental vehicle through Ex.Tech./ASI Devender Kumar. On 28.11.2015, injured was discharged from the hospital and IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant Surender, which is Ex.PW8/B. Thereafter, IO went Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital for obtaining result on MLC of injured, and doctor opined that in- jury as grievous. Thereafter, IO added Section 338 IPC. He identified the accused in the court. He also identified 05 colour photographs of accidental vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing no. DL-4S-7452 in the court and the said photographs are Ex.P-1 (colly). He also identified 08 colour photographs of offending vehicle i.e. Tempo-407 bearing no. DL-1LG-9304 and the said photographs are Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-9. Injured was shifted to Bhag- wan Mahavir Hospital through his friend. After being cross ex- amined by Ld. APP, he deposed that he had served Notice u/s FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 13 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:00:43 +0530 133 M.V. Act to the owner of offending vehicle namely Rajku- mar. Said notice is Ex.PW8/C. He also seized the offending ve- hicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/D. IO also seized accidental vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing no. DL-4SND-7452 vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/D. The witness was cross examined on the same lines as other police witness.
21) PW-9 Retd. ASI / Tech. Devender Kumar deposed that on 27.11.2015, on the request of the IO ASI Kalyan vide applica- tion dated 27.11.2015 which is Ex.PW9/A, he conducted me- chanical inspection of one EICHER Center Tempo bearing reg- istration no. DL-1LG-9304 and after the completion of the me- chanical inspection of the said vehicle, he gave his detailed re- port which is Ex.PW9/B. On the same day, on the request of the IO ASI Kalyan vide application dated 27.11.2015 which is Ex.PW9/C, he conducted mechanical inspection of one Discover motorcycle bearing no. DL-4SND-7452 and after the comple- tion of the mechanical inspection of the said vehicle, he gave his detailed report which is Ex.PW9/D. After mechanical inspec- tion, both the said vehicles were found fit for Road Test.
22) Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the state-
ment of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with Sec- tion 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused who main- tained his innocence stating that "I have been falsely implicated. I have not caused any accident. I was driving my vehicle in proper manner and carefully without any negligence." Accused FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 14 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:00:48 +0530 did not want to lead defence evidence and matter was fixed for final arguments.
23) Final arguments were then advanced on behalf of the State wherein it has been argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the ac- cused be found guilty in the case. On the other hand, Ld. coun- sel for the accused has argued that sufficient material has not been brought on record to prove that the accident took place due to rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. The Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that there's confusion with respect to the fact that who took the injured to the hospital, whether driving license of injured was there or not and about the signatures of the accused and other witnesses were proved on the documents or not.
24) The arguments as advanced by both the parties have been care-
fully considered along with the evidence on record.
25) It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by lead- ing reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prose- cution version.
FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 15 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:00:52 +0530 26) This court will first deal with the allegations under section
279/338 IPC. Before proceeding further, let us discuss the meaning of the expressions "rash" and "negligent". These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's fail- ure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary pru- dence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
27) The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1972 SC 685 as under:
"Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in par- ticular, which, having regard to all the circumstance out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted............Cul- pable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reason- able and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case".
28) To prove its case, it was imperative for the prosecution to prove that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused while he was driving the offending ve- hicle at the time of the accident. It has to be borne in mind that a rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliber- ate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 16 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:00:57 +0530 was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indif- ference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the fail- ure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precau- tion guarding against injury to the public generally or to any in- dividual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution (Ref: Mohd. Aynuddin alias Miyan v. State of A.P. (2000) 7 SCC 72).
29) The injured in this case has identified the accused in the court.
The accused was arrested on the spot and there is no dispute with respect to the presence of accused at the spot. Injured has categorically stated in his examination that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed. When the injured was asked during cross examination how he knew that the accused driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, the complainant has answered the questions satisfactorily. No doubt was raised over the testimony given by the complainant / injured / victim. No other eye-witness has been examined in this case who can testify rash and negligent driving of the accused.
30) The testimony of the injured witness has been held to have a special place in the Indian criminal jurisprudence. In the latest judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 17 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:01:01 +0530 "26. When the evidence of an injured eye- witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his depositions.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
31) There is no prior ill will that has been alleged between the ac-
cused and the injured. There is no motive for the complainant to falsely implicated the accused person. The contributory negli- gence on the part of the injured is not shown by the accused. The defence raised by the accused that the injured did not have driving licence does not find favour with the Court.
FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 18 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:01:06 +0530
32) The MLCs clearly show that the injury received by the injured is grievous in nature. The same are sufficient to prove that the injuries received grievous and were caused by the rash and neg- ligent act of the accused and due to the accident. Furthermore, the injured/witness PW1 had deposed that the offending vehicle had gone over his stomach. Perusal of the MLCs also show that there are abrasion marks over the similar areas of the body of the victim.
33) Court will remiss from his duties if it does not deal with the de-
fence raised by the accused pertaining to the inconsistencies seen in the prosecution case. These inconsistencies pertain to -
1. The nature of injuries wherein the PW5 stated that the victim was bleeding whereas such fact is not corroborated by the MLCs; 2. PW5 stated that he took the victim to the hospital on his motor vehicle whereas police witness stated that victim was taken in the PCR; 3. The name of the hospital has been men- tioned wrongly by the police witnesses. In the opinion of this court, these inconsistencies do not strike at the heart of the prosecution case and are minor in nature. Reliance is placed on the case of Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat", AIR 1988 SC 696.
34) On the basis of the above evidence, it is clearly established that the accused was driving the tempo in a rash and negligent man- ner, in violation of traffic rules, thereby causing the grievous in-
FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 19 of 20 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:01:11 +0530
juries to complainant / victim. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
35) Accordingly, the accused Lalit Yadav S/o Nago Yadav is held guilty and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC in FIR No. 817/2025 PS Keshav Puram.
36) Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence separately.
37) Copy of judgment be given to the accused free of cost.
Announced in the open Court on 03.02.2026.
Digitally signedSANYAM by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:01:20 +0530 (SANYAM JAIN) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 20 pages and each page bears my signature.
SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.03 15:01:23 +0530 (SANYAM JAIN) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 817/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs. Lalit Yadav Page No. 20 of 20