Delhi District Court
State vs . : Harpreet Singh on 7 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER JIT SINGH : MM: ROHINI : DELHI
State Vs. : Harpreet Singh
FIR No. : 593/04
U/s : 279/304A IPC
PS : SP Badli
JUDGEMENT
A. Sl. No. of the case 238/2
B. Offence complained of
or proved U/s 279/304 A IPC
C. Date of Offence 18.11.2004
D. Name of the complainant SI Dhruv Narain,
No. D 2063,
PS Samaipur Badli, Delhi
E. Name of the accused Harpreet Singh
S/o Sh. Jasbir Singh
R/o House no. J-591, Gali no. 8,
Sardar colony, Sector -16,
Rohini, Delhi
F. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
G. Final order Acquitted
H. Date of Order 07.09.2011
FIR No. 593/04 State Vs Harpreet Singh 1 of 6
Brief reasons for the decision:
1. The accused has been forwarded by the police to face trial under Section 279/304A IPC on the allegations that on 18.11.2004 at about 1:25 PM, wireless operator has informed PS Badli that in front of Data Ram Society in Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi an old man has been struck. On receiving the information, SI Dhrov Narain went to the spot alongwtih Constable Devanand where they could not find any of eye witness. Injured was removed to Dr. Baba Sahib Ambedkar Hospital where it was learnt that vide MLC No. 6406 deceased, injured at that time was treated upon he was unfit for statement and has been referred to Truma Centre. On the basis of MLC and information received, commission of offence under Section 279/337 IPC was found to be commissioned and rukka was sent for registration of FIR. During investigation Head Constable revealed the registration number of offending vehicle as HR-26-5999 and stated that he witnessed the accident. On his instance, site plan was prepared and statement under Section 161 Cr. PC was recorded. Meanwhile, information received from Trauma Centre that injured has expired. Postmortem of injured was conducted. On 21.01.2005 vide DD no. 8B, information was received that FIR No. 46/05 under Section 379/411/34 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act in PS Prashant Vihar. Two accused persons have been arrested who had confessed that he FIR No. 593/04 State Vs Harpreet Singh 2 of 6 caused accident of an old man. At about 2/3 am papers were collected and the name of driver was learnt to be Harpreet Singh. Notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act was given to know ownership of vehicle in question, same could not ascertained. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
2. After procuring the presence of the accused and supplying him the copies of chargesheet alongwith annexing documents, notice under Section 279/304A IPC was served upon him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thus, the prosecution evidence.
3. The prosecution has examined twelve witnesses to bring home the guilt of accused. ASI Raj Kapoor was examined as PW-1 who has proved the copy of FIR no. 46/05 as Ex.PW-1/A. He was duly cross examined. Retired SI Dhrov Narain was examined as PW-2 who proved the proceeding carried out during investigation. He proved rukka as Ex. PW-2/A. His examination in chief was deferred but he did not turn up again for further examination. HC Yashpal was examined as PW-3 who stated that on 12.11.2004 at about 1.00 pm he saw one WagnaR car coming from Sector 19 at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner. It hit pedestrian near FIR No. 593/04 State Vs Harpreet Singh 3 of 6 footpath and fled away. He chased vehicle and noted down the number of said WagnaR Car as HR 26-5999. Meanwhile, PCR came to the spot. He was not cross examined despite opportunity. Jagbir Singh was examined as PW-4 who proved the identification memo of dead body as Ex. PW-4/A. Lady HC Dharshan was examined as PW-5 who proved the fact of registration of FIR and copy of same as Ex. PW-5/A. She proved endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW-5/B. Constable Dinesh Kumar was examined as PW-6 who proved the entry No. 1478/04 made in register no. 19 regarding deposit of one WagnaR Car with number plate and two false number plates. Copy of the same as Ex. PW-6/A. Constable Parveen Kumar was examined as PW-7 who had stated that at about 7.40 pm one blue colour car bearing no. DL-3C-F 5821 came from side of Sector-9 which was directed to be stop near barrigates but they tried to escape. They were apprehended and accused Harpreet was in driver seat. One loaded katta was recovered from Harpreet Singh who made his disclosure statement in his presence. He deposed that WagnaR car bearing no. HR-26-K-5999 was seized in his presence and seizure memo as Ex.PW-7/B. His examination was deferred for want of fake number plate and WagnaR car. All the witness were not cross examined despite opportunity. Constable Parveen Singh was examined as PW-8 who proved the proceeding carried out during investigation on the spot when he FIR No. 593/04 State Vs Harpreet Singh 4 of 6 went there alongwith IO SI Dhruv Narain. He was duly cross examined wherein he stated that he does not remember departure entry and time by which they proceeded from PS to area but stated that he received information at 1.30 pm reached the spot at 1:40 pm, reached the spot 2:30 pm and at 4:00 pm he went to PS for registration of FIR. Constable Jai Parkash was examined as PW-9 who proved the entry no. 593/04 in register no. 19 regarding depositing of case property by the then MHC(M). HC Ganesh was examined as PW-10 who stated that he cannot produced the WagnaR car and fake number plates as the same was deposited in PS Prashant Vihar and released to Constable Satbir Singh vide RC no. 162/21/05 qua case FIR bearing no. 998/04 under Section 394/397/34 IPC. Dr. Kuldeep Singh, was examined as PW-11 who proved MLC No. 6406/04 as Ex.PW-11/B and note on same as Ex. PW-11/A. Dr. B. N. Acharya was examined as PW-12 who proved the postmortem as Ex.PW-12/A. These witnesses were not cross examined despite opportunity. No other PW was examined.
4. After conclusion of evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC wherein accused pleaded innocence but chose not to lead any DE.
FIR No. 593/04 State Vs Harpreet Singh 5 of 6
5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and carefully perused the record. In the present case, to prove the allegations of Section 279/304A IPC prosecution was established the rashness /negligence on part of the accused. There is only one eye witness i.e. HC Yashpal. He stated that he saw one WagnaR car came from the side of Sector-19 at very high speed being driven in rash and negligent manner. He has not mentioned or stated that he saw the accused Harpreet as driver of the said car. Otherwise also, there are only allegations of driving the vehicle at very high speed. No other circumstances proving the negligence or rashness on part of accused person has been proved or brought on record. It is settled law that speed of vehicle is not to be judged in vacuum and is to be seen in context of the area where one is driving and density of traffic where one is driving but no such evidence could not brought on record on behalf of prosecution. All the other witnesses were corroborating in the nature of link evidence. Even the fake number plates were also not produced. The accumulative fact of anomalies / lacuna in the prosecution is that prosecution could not prove its case against the accused. Hence, he is acquitted of the offence under Section 279/304 IPC.
Announced in open Court (Chander Jit Singh)
on this day of 7th September , 2011 Metropolitan Magistrate
Rohini Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 593/04 State Vs Harpreet Singh 6 of 6