Delhi District Court
State vs . Dhanpat on 20 February, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHDEEP CHAHAL
M.M.01 : NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS :
NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 64/2007
P.S. : Delhi Cantonment
Under Section : 279/338/304A IPC
State Vs. Dhanpat
JUDGMENT
ID number of the case : New No. 49213/2016
DLND020009122009
Date of commission of offence : 02.03.2007.
Date of institution of the case : 20.10.2009.
Name of the complainant : Shri Vivek, S/o Shri Sudeep Chand,
R/o C37, Geeta Colony, Delhi.
Name of accused and address : Dhanpat, S/o Shri Bhajan Lal, R/o
Village Bhengai, Tehsil Tauru,
District Guru Gram, Haryana.
Offence Charged : Under Section : 279/338/304A
of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Offence Complained of : Under Section 279/338/304A
Or Proved of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted
Date of judgment : 20.02.2023.
FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat
2
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. By this judgment, this Court shall decide/disposeof case of the prosecution filed against accused Dhanpat, S/o Shri Bhajan Lal, for having committed the offence punishable under Section 279/338/304A of IPC (hereinafter referred as "Indian Penal Code, 1860").
2. It is case of the prosecution that on 02.03.2007 at about 10:50 p.m. complainant Vivek, who was working as constable in ITBP, along with his friend Mukim, was going towards his home at Najafgarh on the motor cycle bearing registration No. DL8SAG2660 which was being driven by his friend Mukim. At about 10:50 p.m. when they reached on the Gurgaon Road near RTR Parade Road, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi, the accused came up there driving his truck bearing registration No. HR55F 2066 from back side, in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person, and while doing so, he hit the motor cycle of the complainant from back side. As a result of this act, both the riders came underneath the truck. Complainant Vivek Dixit sustained grievous injuries on both his legs and pillion rider Mukim sustained fatal injuries. The truck was stopped and public persons gathered at the spot and lifted both of them underneath the truck. However, truck driver ran away from the spot. PCR Van reached at the spot and injured were admitted to Safdarjung Hospital and treated vide FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 3 MLC No. C38837 and C38843 respectively. I.O. recorded statement of injured Vivek Dixit in the hospital and on the next day i.e. 03.03.2007, he was discharged from the hospital. However, pillion rider Mukim succumbed during treatment in Safdarjung hospital.
3. On the complaint of complainant/injured, present case FIR was registered. The accused was apprehended. Later, he disclosed his name as Dhanpat, S/o Bhajan Lal, R/o Village Bango, Tehsil Tau Nagar, District Mewat, Haryana.
4. Thereafter, at the instance of complainant, a site plan was prepared by the I.O. During investigation offended motor cycle and offending truck were seized, photographs were clicked and both the vehicles were mechanically inspected and subsequently released on supardari.
5. After completion of investigation, chargesheet under Section 279/338/304A of IPC was filed in the Court concerned. Accused was summoned and requisite documents were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of Cr. P.C. FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 4
6. Thereafter, charge under Section 279/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. The trial was commenced and the matter proceeded to the stage of prosecution evidence. Prosecution examined following witnesses:
8. Head Constable Akbar Khan, No. 715 of DAP 3 rd Battalion, Vikaspuri, New Delhi was examined as PW1 who deposed on oath that on 02.03.2007 he was posted at Police Post Dhaula Kuan under Police Station Delhi Cantonment as Duty Officer. On that day, at about 11:05 p.m. he received an information regarding an accident near Gurgaon Road. Thereafter, he reduced the said information into D.D. Register Vide D.D. No. 45 and thereafter, the same was handed over to H.C. Tikoo Ram. He produced original D.D. Register. The attested copy of D.D. No. 45 is Ex. PW1/A (OSR).
9. PW1 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given to him.
10. Lady Constable Rajbai, No. 2226/SW, P.S. Jaffarpur Kalan, Delhi was examined as PW2. She deposed on oath that on 08.03.2007 FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 5 she was posted at Police Post Dhaula Kuan under the Police Station Delhi Cantonment as D.D. writer. On that day, at about 08:45 a.m. a call was received from duty constable from Safdarjung Hospital regarding death of injured. Thereafter, she reduced the said information into writing vide D.D. No.14 and handed over the same to ASI Akbar Ali for investigation. She produced original D.D. Register. The attested copy of the D.D. No.14 is Ex. PW2/A (OSR).
11. PW2 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given to him.
12. Head Constable Prahlad Singh, No. 314/SW, Posted at Police Station Bindapur, Delhi was examined as PW3. He deposed on oath that on 03.03.2007 he was posted at Police Post Dhaula Kuan under Police Station Delhi Cantonment as Constable. On that day, he joined the investigation in the present case along with Head Constable Tikoo Ram and reached at Gurgaon Road near RTR Parade Road where they found one truck bearing registration No. HR55F2066 and one Motor Cycle bearing registration No. DL8SAG2660 in accidental condition, however, no eye witness was present at the spot. On inquiry, it was revealed that the injured were taken to Safdarjung Hospital. Thereafter, Head Constable Tikoo Ram left him at the spot and went to Safdarjung Hospital. After sometime, I.O. came at the spot along with complainant FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 6 Vivek. He handed over one rukka for registration of the FIR. Thereafter, he went to Police Station and after sometime came back at the spot along with copy of FIR and asal tehrir and handed over the same to Head Constable Tikoo Ram. Thereafter, I.O. prepared site plan at the instance of complainant Vivek Dixit and got clicked the photographs of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, motor cycle was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A, bearing his signatures at point A. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Thereafter, both the vehicles were mechanically inspected. On the same day, I.O. gave notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the owner of offending truck, namely, Shri Satbir Singh. Thereafter, I.O. recorded his statement. He further deposed that on 05.03.2007, he again joined the investigation with Head Constable Tikoo Ram. On that day, the owner of the offending vehicle had produced its driver Dhanpat. The accused present in the Court was correctly identified by the witness. Thereafter, I.O. arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/D, both bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, the driving license of the accused was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/E, bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, the accused was released on police bail and I.O. recorded his statement.
13. Shri Satbir Singh, S/o Shri Balbir Singh, R/o Village & Post Office Khedi Dhaula, District Gurgaon, Haryana was examined as PW4.
FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 7 He deposed on oath that on 03.03.2007, he received a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act from P.S. Delhi Cantonment to produce the driver of his vehicle bearing registration No. HR55F2066 who was driving the truck on 02.03.2007. Thereafter, on 05.03.2007, he produced the accused Dhanpat before Police Station Delhi Cantonment and replied the notice vide reply Ex. PW4/A, bearing his signatures at point A. The accused present in the Court was correctly identified by the witness. He further deposed that on 06.03.2007, he got his vehicle released on supardari from the Court vide release order Ex. PW4/B.
14. PW4 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given to him.
15. Shri Vivek Dixit, S/o Shri Sudish Chand Dixit, R/o H. No. B33, Gali No. 4, PhaseX, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi110094 was examined as PW5. He deposed on oath that he was working as a constable in ITBP. On 02.03.2007 at night, he along with his friend Mukim Khan was going from Najafgarh to his home on motor cycle bearing registration No. DL8SAG2660. He further deposed that it was about 10:50 p.m. when they reached near Parade Road, Delhi Cantonment, Gurgaon Road, and one truck bearing registration No.HR55F2066 came from their behind in rash and negligent manner and in high speed and hit their motor cycle from the back side. As a FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 8 result, they both came underneath the truck. The truck was stopped and due to said accident he received injuries on both his legs and his friend also sustained fatal injuries. Public persons had gathered there and lifted them from underneath the truck. PCR Van came at the spot and they were admitted in the Safdarjung Hospital by PCR officials. Thereafter, his statement Ex. PW5/A, bearing his signatures at point A, was recorded by the I.O. in the hospital. However, the truck driver had ran away from the spot after causing the accident. He was discharged on the next date i.e. 03.03.2007 and went to Police Station at about 1:00 p.m. to see his motor cycle where it was revealed that I.O. had went to the spot. Thereafter, he reached at the spot where I.O. met him along with his motorcycle. I.O. prepared the site plan Ex. PW5/B, bearing my signatures at point A, at his instance. He further deposed that on 07.03.2007, he reached Patiala House Courts where I.O. met him along with accused Dhanpat where he correctly identified accused Dhanpat and told to I.O. that accused is the driver of the offending vehicle who had caused the accident on 02.03.2007 near Parade Road, Delhi Cantonment, Gurgaon Road. He further deposed that his friend died during treatment in the hospital. Thereafter, I.O. recorded his supplementary statement.
16. During his crossexamination PW5 Vivek Dixit deposed that deceased Mukim was riding the motor cycle at the time of accident. He further deposed that after accident the truck was stopped at the spot FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 9 and its driver came out from the truck. He further deposed that there was sufficient light on the spot. He further deposed that the truck was at the speed of 6080 Kilometer Per Hour, however, he could not judge the exact speed as the truck hit the motor cycle from its back side. He further deposed that the motor cycle came under the tyre of the truck just below its steering at the right side. He could not say about deceased Mukim, however, he was underneath the truck after the impact/accident. The public persons helped him to come out from there. He could not say whether there was any eye witness of the accident or not. He denied the suggestion that deceased Mukim was negligent while riding the motor cycle or that he overtook the truck by motor cycle or that he had deposed falsely.
17. Mr. Irfan, S/o Mr. Alla Nur, R/o C7/347, Brijpuri, Delhi 110094 was examined as PW6. He deposed on oath that on 08.03.2007, he came to know about the death of his brotherinlaw (Sala), namely, Mukim Khan in the Safdarjung Hospital. His brotherinlaw died on 02.03.2007 due to the accident. Thereafter, he reached at the mortuary and identified the dead body of his brotherinlaw Mukim Khan. His statement Ex. PW6/A, bearing his signatures at point A, regarding identification of the dead body was recorded and thereafter, dead body of Mukim Khan was handed over to them after post mortem by handing over memo Ex. PW6/B, bearing his signatures at point A. FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 10
18. PW6 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given to him.
19. Momin Khan, S/o Mr. Israil Khan, R/o Quarter No. 77, Police Station Geeta Colony, Delhi was examined as PW7. He deposed on oath that on 08.03.2007, he came to know about the death of his brother, namely, Mukim Khan in the Safdarjung Hospital. His brother died on 02.03.2007 due to the accident. Thereafter, he reached at the mortuary and identified the dead body of his brother Mukim Khan. The dead body of Mukim Khan was handed over to them after the post mortem by handing over memo, already Ex. PW6/B, bearing his signatures at point B.
20. PW7 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given to him.
21. Dr. Yogesh Tyagi, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, PG IMER & Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi was examined as PW8. He deposed on oath that on 08.03.2011, he was posted at Safdarjung Hospital as Senior Resident and conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Mukim, aged 22 years, at the request of ASI Akbar Ali of Police Station Delhi Cantonment. His detailed report in this regarding is Ex. PW8/A, bearing his signatures at FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 11 point A. He opined that the cause of death in this case was 'Hypovoumic Shock Due to Injury to Perineum, Multiple Long Bone Fracture and Injury to Spine produced by Blunt Force Impact'. He further deposed that time since death was about six hours.
22. PW8 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given to him.
23. Shri Hayat Singh, LDC Posted at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi was examined as PW9. He deposed on oath that he had been deputed by the Chief Medical Officer to depose before the Court in place of Dr. Amarnath who had left the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known to the hospital authority. He further deposed that he could identify the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Amarnath as he had seen him during the course of his duties in the department. The death report of deceased Mukim Khan dated 08.03.2007, prepared by Dr. Amarnath, is Ex. PW9/A, bearing signatures of Dr. Amarnath at point A.
24. PW9 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given to him.
25. Head Constable Mahinder Singh, No. 85/SW, Posted at P.S. Inder Puri, New Delhi was examined as PW10. He deposed on oath that FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 12 on 0203.03.2007 he was posted at South/West Zone PCR Z90. On that day, after receiving the call from the Control Room Z1, regarding an accident at Gurgaon Road near Parade Road, he along with PCR staff reached at the spot where they saw one motor cycle bearing registration No. DL8SAG2660 and one truck bearing registration No. HR55S2066 in accidental condition. He further deposed that rider of the said motor cycle was seriously injured and he took the injured to Safdarjung Hospital in the above said PCR and got him admitted there. Thereafter, he returned back to his duty.
26. PW10 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given to him.
27. ASI Tiku Ram, No. 6117/D, P.S. Connaught Place, New Delhi was examined as PW11. He deposed on oath that on 02.03.2007, he was posted at Police Post Dhaula Kuan under Police Station Delhi Cantonment as Head Constable. He further deposed that at about 11:05 p.m., he received the D.D. No. 45, already Ex. PW1/A, regarding an accident at Gurgaon Road. Thereafter, he along with Constable Prahlad reached near Parade Road coming from the side of Gurgaon where he saw one truck bearing registration No. HR55F2066 in stationed accidental condition. He further deposed that one motor cycle bearing registration No. DL8SAG2660 was lying with the left side front tyre of FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 13 the said truck in accidental condition. However, no eye witness was found at the spot. On inquiry, it was revealed that both the injured were already taken to Safdarjung Hospital by PCR. Thereafter, he left constable Prahlad at the spot and reached at Safdarjung Hospital. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that injured Mukim and Vivek were admitted by the PCR officials vide MLCs Nos. C38837/07 and C38843/07 respectively. Thereafter, he moved an application for recording of statement of the injured persons. However, the doctor declared the injured Mukim unfit for statement. Injured Vivek was declared fit for statement by the concerned doctor. Thereafter, he recorded statement of injured Vivek, Ex. PW5/A, bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, he came back at the spot and prepared the rukka Ex. PW11/A, bearing his signatures at point A and handed over the same to Constable Prahlad for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, constable Prahlad came back at the spot and handed over original rukka along with copy of FIR to him. Thereafter, he seized the motor cycle and offending vehicle vide seizure memo, already Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B. He also took photographs Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 of the offending vehicle and the motor cycle by his private camera, negatives thereof are Ex. P5 & Ex. P6 respectively. Thereafter, he along with constable Prahlad came back at the Police Station Delhi Cantonment along with case property and deposited the same in the Police Station. He further deposed that on 03.03.2007, owner of the offending vehicle, namely, Satbir Singh came FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 14 at Police Post Dhaula Kuan to inquire about the offending vehicle and he served him notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Ex. PW 11/B, bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, Satbir left the Police Post Dhaula Kuan. He further deposed that at about 08:30 a.m., injured Vivek also came at Police Post Dhaula Kuan to inquire regarding the case. Thereafter, he along with injured Vivek and constable Prahlad reached at the spot. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW11/C, bearing his signatures at point A, at the instance of injured. Thereafter, he recorded supplementary statement of Vivek and Constable Prahlad. On the same day, mechanical inspection of both the vehicles was conducted by the Mechanical Inspector. The detailed report in this regard is Ex. PW11/D and Ex. PW11/E, both bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that on 05.03.2007, Satbir along with one person, namely, Dhanpat came at Police Station. He further deposed that in pursuance of the notice, Satbir replied that at the time of accident, Dhanpat, S/o Bhajan Lal was driving the offending vehicle. Satbir also produced accused Dhanpat at that time. Thereafter, he interrogated accused Dhanpat and arrested him vide arrest memo, already Ex. PW 3/C, bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/D, bearing his signatures at point D. He also seized driving license of the accused vide seizure memo, already Ex. PW3/A, bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, accused was released on police bail. Thereafter, he moved an application FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 15 for TIP of the accused in the concerned Court, however, accused refused to join the TIP.
28. The TIP proceedings of the accused dated 07.03.2007 is already Ex. TIP1. He further deposed that on 08.03.2007, the case was transferred to ASI Akbar Ali vide D.D. No. 14/PP Dhaula Kuan, already Ex. D2 and Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, he handed over the file to ASI Akbar Ali. Subsequently, two photographs, Ex. P1 & Ex. P2, of the motor cycle bearing registration No. DL8SAG2660 and two photographs of the truck bearing registration No. HR55F2066, already on record, were shown to the witness and after seeing the photographs witness replied that the vehicles shown in the photographs were involved in the present case and seized by him during investigation.
29. During his crossexamination PW11 Retired SubInspector Tiku Ram deposed that he reached at the spot at about 11:15 p.m. He further deposed that he got the information through D.D. No. 45. He further deposed that no eye witness was found at the spot. He further deposed that truck was parked on the side of the road and motorcycle in accidental condition was lying on the road on the left side of the truck. Subsequently, both the vehicles were got mechanically inspected. He denied the suggestion that the negligence was on the part of the injured or that he did not conduct fair investigation in the present case or that FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 16 accused was falsely implicated in the present case or that accused was not involved in the present case or that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the Police Station or that he has deposed falsely.
30. Retired SubInspector Suraj Bhan, S/o Late Shri Pyare Lal, R/o Village Likaria, P.S. Beri, District Jhajjar, Haryana was examined as PW11 (wrongly numbered). He deposed on oath that on 02/03.03.2007, he was posted as InCharge at PCR Van Z37 and on that day, at about 11:05 p.m., on receipt of a call, he along with staff reached at the spot of occurrence at Gurgaon Road, Parade Road TPoint, where they found one truck bearing registration No. HR55F2066 and one motor cycle bearing registration No. DL8SAG2660 in accidental condition and one injured was reportedly shifted by PCR Van Z90. Thereafter, he shifted another injured Vivek to Safdarjung Hospital. He identified both the vehicles and spot of occurrence in photographs, already Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 respectively.
31. PW11 (wrongly numbered) was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given to him.
32. SubInspector Akbar Ali, No. 430D, MACT Cell, Dwarka, New Delhi was examined as PW12. He deposed on oath that on 08.03.2007 he was posted at Police Post Dhaula Kuan under Police FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 17 Station Delhi Cantonment as Assistant SubInspector. On that day, after receipt of D.D. No. 14 PP, Dhaula Kuan, already Ex. D2, he along with constable Ishwar went to Safdarjung Hospital and collected the documents pertaining to deceased Mukim Khan. He further deposed that post mortem of the dead body of deceased Mukim Khan was got conducted and dead body was handed over to his relatives. Thereafter, he recorded statement of his relatives and after that he returned back to Police Post Dhaula Kuan.
33. PW12 SubInspector Akbar Ali was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given to him.
34. In his statement recorded under Section 294 of Cr.PC, accused admitted genuineness of the documents (i) D.D. No. 14 dated 08.03.2007, Ex. D2, (ii) Mechanical Inspection Report, Ex. MI1, (iii) Supardginama of Vehicle No. DL8SAG2660, Ex. S1, (iv) copy of TIP proceedings, Ex. TIP1, (v) D.D. No. 45 dated 02.03.2007, Ex. D1 &
(vi) Copy of FIR dated 03.03.2007, Ex. F, without admitting contents thereof. He further admitted genuineness of the documents (i) TIP proceedings dated 07.03.2007, Ex. T1, conducted by Shri Gautam Manan, the then Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, (ii) XRay Report of Injured Vivek, Ex. X1, (iii) MLC No. 38837 of Mukim, Ex. M1, (iv) MLC No.38843 of injured Vivek, Ex. M2, (v) FIR No. 64/2009, Police FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 18 Station Delhi Cantonment, Ex. F1, (vi) D.D. No. 45 dated 02.03.2007, Ex. D1 and (vii) D.D No. 14 dated 08.03.2007, Ex. D2.
35. In view of the statement of accused, examination of the concerned witnesses was dispensedwith.
36. After completion of evidence of all the PWs, P.E. was closed.
37. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC on 30.05.2018. Accused stated that he was driving his dumper at the speed of 2022 Kilo Meter Per Hour. He further stated that motor cyclist was trying to overtake the dumper from the conductor side. He further stated that since the motor cycle was at the high speed, it struck against a car and due to the impact, the riders came under the wheel of my vehicle. Though, he admitted execution of the relevant documents by the police witnesses but denied having committed any accident, as alleged by the prosecution. He further stated that all the PWs are interested witnesses and he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused further submitted that he wish to lead evidence in his defence. However, he did not lead any defence evidence.
38. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 19
39. Final arguments were advanced by both the parties.
40. Ld. APP for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the witnesses have invariably supported the case of the prosecution.
41. Per contra, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the story of the prosecution suffers from material inconsistencies and the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
42. The fundamental rule of criminal law postulates that the burden of proving the case rests on the shoulders of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, was driving the offending vehicle in a manner so rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others, or likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person and while driving so, hit against the bike of complainant from its back side and caused injuries to the complainant/injured/Motor Cyclist and pillion rider, who succumbed to the injuries.
43. I may briefly lay down the ingredients required for proving the offences under question. For bringing home the charge under Section 279 IPC, it is essential that -
FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat
20
(a) The act done by the accused is rash or negligent;
(b) The act endangers human life or likely to cause hurt or
injury to any other person.
44. Moreover, for proving the offences under Sections 337 and 338 IPC, it is essential to establish that -
(a) Commission of a rash or negligent act in a manner that it endangers personal safety or human life of others;
(b) The act must have caused hurt to any person (for meeting the offence under Section 337 IPC) or must have caused grievous hurt to any person (for meeting the offence under Section 338 IPC)
45. For bringing home the charge under Section 304A IPC, it is essential that the rash and negligent act led to the causation of death of the victim.
46. It is the foremost requirement of criminal law that the prosecution must establish three essential attributes - actus reus, mens rea and causal link between the crime and accused on trial.
47. The prosecution has examined twelve witnesses in this case. The prosecution witnesses have primarily deposed that the accused was FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 21 driving the offending truck and found to be present at the spot. The uncontroverted testimonies of PW5 and PW11 confirm that it was the accused who was driving the offending truck on the fateful night. The accused has also been correctly identified by the PWs in the court. Furthermore, the owner of the vehicle has categorically testified that his truck was driven by the accused on that night. The same has not been disputed by the accused either in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The offending and offended vehicles have also been duly identified in the Court. The question that arises for consideration is whether the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. To prove the same, the testimony of PW5 i.e. the testimony of the injured himself is of utmost value. He has categorically deposed that the accused was driving the truck at a speed of 6080 km/hour and had hit the injured persons from the back side. The very fact that the truck was rammed into the bike from the back side is in itself a crucial indicator to show the manner of driving. The impact led to the injured, especially the rider, to be dragged underneath the truck. The testimony of the victim constitutes evidence of high quality and the same has stayed uncontroverted during the trial. Thus, I have no manner of doubt that the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused herein and in a manner having no regard for the safety of others i.e. in a rash and negligent manner. The witnesses have invariably supported the view that the truck hit from the back side. Considering that the victims were on a twowheeler, a greater degree of FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 22 care was required from the accused and the circumstances of the case indicate no regard for the safety of others. Furthermore, the MLCs reveal that the deceased Mustkim died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in this accident and the complainant sustained certain injuries. There is a direct link of causation between the injuries sustained by the victims and the accident.
48. Although it is true that there is no other eye witness or public witness of the case. However, the same, in my view, would not raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has successfully discharged its burden and the uncontroverted testimony of the victim himself is of utmost credibility which cannot be suppressed merely due to the absence of a public witness. No doubt, the legal position, as settled, is that as a matter of prudence, the investigating officers must look for independent witnesses to corroborate the factum of commission of offence, accident in this case. I may observe at the outset that mere absence of public witnesses may not go on to vitiate the entire case of the prosecution. However, if the absence of public witnesses goes to the root of the matter, then it can be fatal to the case of the prosecution. In the instant case, the absence of public witness is not fatal as the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden on the basis of available evidence, which inspires the confidence of this Court.
FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat 23
49. The underlying theme behind the law of evidence is the judicial satisfaction of the Court. There is no rigid rule of law that shuns the testimonies of police officials or victims, however, the evidence on record must inspire confidence of the Court and inconsistencies must be explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
50. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. The medicolegal reports do not indicate that the injury sustained by the complainant was grievous in nature and thus, charge under Section 338 could not be proved. Accordingly, the accused stands convicted for the commission of offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC.
51. Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence after complying with the mandate under Karan v. State (NCT) of Delhi.
52. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed byYASHDEEP YASHDEEP CHAHAL CHAHAL Date: 2023.02.20 16:02:57 +0530 Dictated directly on computer (YASHDEEP CHAHAL) and announced in the open Court, M.M.01 : New Delhi District On 20th February, 2023. Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No. 64/2007 State Vs. Dhanpat