Delhi District Court
State vs . Umed Singh on 26 May, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PAWAN KUMAR: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
02 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI
State Vs. Umed Singh
FIR No. 424/2002
U/s: 279/337 IPC
P.S. Timar Pur
Serial No. of the Case : 12/G/14
Unique Identification No. : 02401R0650452003
Date of Institution : 29.08.2003
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : 26.05.2016
Date of judgment : 26.05.2016
Name of the complainant : Sh. Pappu Shah
Date of the commission of : 13.09.2002
offence
Name of accused : Umed Singh S/o Sh. Dware Lal,
R/o B113, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
Offence complained of : u/s 279/337 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 279/337 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquitted
1.The accused Umed Singh has been facing the trial for commission of FIR No. 424/2002, State v. Umed Singh 2 offences U/s 279/337 IPC. The present case FIR was registered on the statement of Sh.Pappu Shah (hereinafter to be referred as the complainant). Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 13.09.2002 the complainant was driving TSR bearing registration No. DL 1 RD 7342. At about 2:00 pm, when he reached in the middle of Wazirabad bridge, one bus bearing registration No. DL 1 PA 3730( hereinafter referred an offending vehicle) of route no. 259 came at a fast speed and rash and negligent manner and hit the TSR on its right side. The complainant sustained simple injuries. The accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of incident. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had caused the incident by driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present case FIR under Section 279/337 IPC was registered and investigation was conducted.
2. On conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed under Section 173 Cr.PC. for the offences under Section 279/337 IPC. The copy of the challan was supplied to the accused in compliance of provision under Section 207 Cr.PC.
3. On the basis of the contents of the chargesheet and after hearing both the parties, notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused for the commission of offences under Section 279/337 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined four witnesses in order to establish the case against the accused.
PW1 Retired SI Layak Ram deposed that on 13.09.2002 he was FIR No. 424/2002, State v. Umed Singh 3 on duty as Incharge of PCR Van. At about 2:00 pm after receiving information regarding an accident he alongwith the PCR staff reached at the spot and found one TSR and offending bus in accidental condition. One person namely Pappu Shah was found in injured condition and the witness took him to the Trauma centre.
PW2 HC Bijender deposed that on 12.09.2002, on receiving DD No. 17A he alongwith SI Chander Bhan reached at the spot and found TSR and offending bus in accidental condition. The IO went to the hospital and the witness remained at the spot. IO returned back and handed over the Tehrir to the witness. The witness took the Tehrir to the PS and got the FIR registered. PW2 is the witness of seizure of both the vehicles vide memos EXPW 2/A and EXPW 2/B . PW2 is also the witness of arrest and personal search of the accused on memos EXPW 2/C & EXPW 2/B. The IO seized the documents of offending bus and driving licence of the accused vide memos EXPW 2/E and EXPW 2/F. The witness identified the accused in the court.
PW3 HC Manraj deposed that on 13.09.2002, he registered the FIR on receiving the rukka brought by Ct. Bijender as sent by SI Chander Bhan. The copy of the FIR is EXPW 3/A and endorsement on the rukka is EXPW 3/B. PW4 Dr. Satender Kumar deposed that on 13.09.2002, he medically examined one patient and prepared the MLC EXPW 4/A.
5. The complainant/injured was the eye witness of the incident and on his statement the FIR was registered. The prosecution could not examine the complainant/ injured. The witness was summoned through IO as well as through concerned DCP but he was reported to be unserved. The witness was dropped by the court order dated 26.05.2016. In the eventuality of non FIR No. 424/2002, State v. Umed Singh 4 examination of the sole eye witness, there was no purpose to examine the remaining formal witnesses and hence, the remaining witnesses were also dropped. The prosecution evidence was closed. The statement of the accused as mandated by Section 313 r/w 281 Cr. PC was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances came in evidence were put to the accused for explanation. The accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments put forth by the Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also perused the materials available on record.
7. In the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr.(1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 766, it was observed in Para No. 15 " But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the curt should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date."
8. In the present case, the complainant/injured was the only witness who could have proved the fact that the accused was driver of the offending vehicle and further he was driving in rash and negligent manner. The complainant/injured was the only eye witness who could have identified the accused in the court. It is settled proposition that the identification of the accused in the court is a substantive piece of evidence.
9. In view of nonexamination of the complainant/injured, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused the incident. Since, the complainant is not examined, therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the case against the FIR No. 424/2002, State v. Umed Singh 5 accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Umed Singh is acquitted of offences punishable U/s 279/337 IPC.
Pronounced in open court (PAWAN KUMAR) on 26.05.2016. MM02 (Central): Tis Hazari Courts:
New Delhi: 26.05.2016 FIR No. 424/2002, State v. Umed Singh