Delhi District Court
In Re: State vs Prakash on 16 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARVIND BANSAL: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
In Re: STATE VERSUS PRAKASH
F.I.R. No: 357/02
U/s 279/337/338 IPC
P.S. Sarita Vihar
Date of Institution of Case : 23.11.2002
Judgment Reserved for : 16.01.2014
Date of Judgment : 16.01.2014
JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 02403R0262532003
(b) The date of commission of offence : 01.09.2002
(c)The name of complainant : Chandan Singh s/o Raja Ram
(d) The name, parentage, of accused : Prakash s/o Rampal, R/o Vill.
Sabnapur P.S. Karaili Distt.
Pilibhit, UP.
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 279/337/338 IPC
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Acquitted
(h) The date of such order : 16.01.2014
FIR No. 357/02 St. Vs. Prakash 1/9
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. The case of the prosecution as stated in the charge sheet is that on 01.09.2002 at about 01.15 p.m. at Mathura Road, near Sarita Vihar flyover, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Sarita Vihar, accused Prakash was found driving a jeep bearing no. DED8871 in a rash and/ or negligent manner thereby endangering human life and safety of others and while so driving, he hit against two cycles which resulted in simple injury upon the person of Chandan Singh and grievous injury upon the person of Shankar Yadav and Ashok Yadav and thereby the accused committed offence punishable u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
2. Charge sheet was filed in the Court and in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. accused was supplied the documents. Thereafter, vide orders dated 24.06.2005, notice u/s 279/337/338 IPC was served and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined three witnesses and after closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case.
A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under:
4. PW1 SI Nand Lal Dua proved the mechanical inspection report of Jeep FIR No. 357/02 St. Vs. Prakash 2/9 bearing no. DED8871 as Ex. PW1/A.
5. PW2 Chandan Singh deposed that on 01.09.2002 he was working in Loan Finance Company at khel Goan and on that day he was coming on cycle after doing work and at about 01.45 p.m. when he reached near Sarita Vihar Mathura Road a jeep came from his backside and hit his cycle as a result of which he became unconscious. He deposed that he did not remember the number of said jeep. He deposed that PCR Van came at spot and took him to AIIMS hospital. He deposed that police recorded his statement in hospital which is Ex. PW2/A.
6. Since the witness did not disclose the complete facts before the court, Ld. APP cross examined the witness. In his cross examination by Ld. APP, contents of statement Ex. PW2/A were read over to the witness which he accepted to be correct and stated that accused Parkash was the same person who caused the accident.
7. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he admitted that after loss of his consciousness, he did not know as to what happened. He stated that he gained his consciousness in the evening.
8. PW3 Palwainder Singh deposed that he was the superdar of jeep bearing no. DED8871 and took the said vehicle on superdari vide superdiginama Ex.
FIR No. 357/02 St. Vs. Prakash 3/9 PW3/A.
9. PW4 SI Anant Kumar deposed that on 01.09.2002, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as SI and on that day DD no. 9A was received by him in the police station regarding an accident occurred at Sarita Vihar Flyover, Mathura road opp. Maruti Showroom, New Delhi. Thereafter, he along with Constable Dinesh reached at the abovesaid place where he found that one Jeep bearing no. DED8871 and two cycles of Atlas and Hero company were lying on the road in the accidental condition. He deposed that he came to know that injured persons had been removed to AIIMS hospital and he left constable Dinesh at the spot and went to AIIMS where he met with the injured persons namely Chandan Singh, Ashok Yadav and Shankar Yadav. He deposed that he collected MLC of the all injured persons and with the permission of doctor, recorded the statement of Chandan Singh. He deposed that after recording the statement of Chandan Singh, he prepared rukka and went to the PS and got the FIR registered. He deposed that he returned back at the spot and prepared site plan on the basis of scene of occurrence. He deposed that he seized the Jeep and both the cycles vide two separate seizure memos which are Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. He deposed that he sent Constable Dinesh to bring the copy of FIR from PS and he returned back from PS and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He deposed that in the meanwhile, driver of the Jeep met him whose name was disclosed as Parkash. He deposed that he seized his DL vide seizure memo Ex.
FIR No. 357/02 St. Vs. Prakash 4/9 PW4/C and he also seized photocopies of RC, pollution certificate of the Jeep vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/D. He deposed that accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW4/E and F. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel wherein he admitted that the alleged incident did not happen in his presence.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by Ld. Counsel for the accused as also Ld. APP and have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case.
11. After going through the rival contentions of parties as well as the evidence led by the prosecution and the material on record, Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused.
12. In order to prove its case and establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove that the accident dated 01.09.2002 was caused on account of rash or negligent driving by accused Prakash.
13. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution was heavily relying upon the testimony of complainant/eye witness/injured persons Chandan FIR No. 357/02 St. Vs. Prakash 5/9 Singh, Ashok Yadav and Shankar Yadav. It was the prosecution case that Chandan Singh, Ashok Yadav and Shankar Yadav had received injuries in the accident. However, PW Chandan Singh who was examined as PW2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story on any material count during his examination in chief. His testimony instead of helping the prosecution case casted serious doubts upon the prosecution claim that it was the rash/negligent act/driving of accused Prakash which led to the accident and injuries upon Chandan Singh, Ashok Yadav and Shankar Yadav.
14. During his testimony, complainant Chandan Singh specifically stated that a jeep hit his bicycle from back side as a result of which he became unconscious. He also stated that a PCR Van took him to hospital where he regained consciousness. The careful scrutiny of the statement of PW2 recorded by IO which is Ex. PW2/A and the statement on oath made before Court provides that there are explicit contradictions in the statement of witness made before Court.
It is hard to understand as to how can a victim/injured who was hit by a vehicle from behind and lost his consciousness as an impact thereof can know the registration number of the offending vehicle. It is also observed that complainant/injured in his statement Ex. PW2/A has mentioned the name and address of the accused who was allegedly driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. The knowledge of complainant to this effect is falsified by his statement before the court wherein he stated to have gained consciousness FIR No. 357/02 St. Vs. Prakash 6/9 only in the hospital. There are clear doubts that the information like registration number of the vehicle, name of the driver and his address were informed to the complainant/injured by the IO who recorded his statement. In such circumstances, the admission of the witness during his cross examination by Ld. APP regarding the truthfulness of his statement Ex. PW2/A appears unreliable. Similarly the identification of the accused as the person who caused the accident also does not appear convincing and is certainly tutored.
Relying upon such a witness to hold an accused guilty of an offence on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt may be a dangerous proposition and cannot be acted upon.
The observations of the court are further strengthened by the fact that witness during his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel admitted that after loss of his consciousness, he did not know as to what happened. In such situation, witness cannot be expected to know or remember the particulars of the vehicle and identification of the driver of offending vehicle. As such, the testimony of PW2 Chandan Singh does not support the prosecution case being uncertain, ambiguous and vague.
15. The two other injured persons namely Shankar Yadav and Ashok Yadav remained unserved and untraceable despite repeated issuance of process. In the absence of reliable testimony of PW2, these two witnesses could have supported the prosecution version against the accused. However, their absence FIR No. 357/02 St. Vs. Prakash 7/9 has fatally affected the prosecution case as no other public witness has either been cited or produced before the court to depose against the accused. The prosecution case cannot be considered to be standing on its own legs without the reliable and corroborative testimonies of the public witnesses including the injured.
16. Hence, neither the accident nor the identity of the accused could be established through the available testimonies and record. The argument of Ld. APP that deposition of PW2 that the offending jeep hit his cycle from back side can be relied upon to ascertain the rashness/negligence of accused Parkash. In the opinion of Court, the said argument cannot be considered due to the vagueness and generality of the deposition of PW2 in respect of the exact fact situation. Further, the exact circumstances in which accident occurred could not be proved through his deposition nor any responsibility/liability could be fixed upon the accused. The basic ingredient of 'rash or negligent driving' which was sine qua non for bringing home the guilt against the accused could not be brought on record in any manner. PW2 was the star/material prosecution witness however, his hostile testimony and non appearance/non examination of remaining public witnesses/injured proved fatal and sounded death knell for the prosecution case as admittedly there was no other eye witness of the accident apart from three injured persons.
FIR No. 357/02 St. Vs. Prakash 8/9
17. Prosecution proposed to examine 11 witnesses in all and those who left to be examined are formal/official witnesses who came into the picture only after the alleged accident had occurred and information in this regard was received by them.
18. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. The prosecution is under a legal obligation and burden to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts and always rests on the prosecution. Similarly, criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. It was observed in Partap v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1976 (SC) 966 that while prosecution required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability. In Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., 1990(3) S.C.C. 190 it was again held that in criminal cases, burden is always is on prosecution and never shifts. If prosecution story is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
19. Prosecution has failed to discharge its onus. Accordingly, accused Parkash is acquitted of the offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
Dictated and announced in the open (Arvind Bansal)
Court on 16.01.2014 MM05 (SE)/Delhi
FIR No. 357/02 St. Vs. Prakash 9/9