Delhi District Court
In Re: State vs Devender Singh on 25 October, 2010
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: DELHI
In Re: STATE VERSUS DEVENDER SINGH
F.I.R. No: 1264/05
U/s 279/337 IPC
P.S. Nangloi
Date of Institution of Case : 18.08.2006
Judgment Reserved for : 25.10.2010
Date of Judgment : 25.10.2010
JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 613/1/08
(b) The date of commission of offence : 24.12.05
(c) The name of complainant : Smt. Pooja W/o Sh. JagDev Singh, r/o 493, Village Tikari Kalan, Delhi.
(d) The name, parentage, of accused : Devender Singh, S/o Ram Chander, R/o Village & PO Baprolla, Nangloi, Delhi.
Present Address : As above (e) The offence complained of : U/s 279/337 IPC (f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty (g) The final order : Acquitted (h) The date of such order : 25.10.2010
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.05 at about FIR No. 1264/05 1/6 8:00 pm at Bus stop Ranhola near Bajaj Showroom, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Nangloi, accused Devender Singh was found driving bus bearing no. DL IP B-3792 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others and while driving so he hit against one Smt Pooja thereby causing simple injuries upon her and thus thereby the accused committed offence u/s 279/337 IPC.
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court and in compliance of Section 207 accused was supplied the documents. Thereafter vide order dated 14.03.2008 notice u/s 279/337 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined only one witness.
A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
4. PW1 HC Pradeep deposed that on 25.12.2005 while he was posted at PS Nangloi, on receipt of ruqqa given by SI Om Prakash he recorded case FIR no. 1264/05 as Ex. PW1/A.
5. This is so far as the prosecution evidence is concerned.
FIR No. 1264/05 2/66. I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by the learned defence counsel and also learned APP and have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and perused the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case.
7. In order to prove its case and establish the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to prove that complainant/injured Smt Pooja received injuries on account of rash and negligent driving by accused Devender Singh.
8. After hearing the rival contentions raised at bar as well as on careful scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused.
9. Record reveals that prosecution proposed to examine 09 witnesses in all which included the complainant/injured Pooja at whose instance the present prosecution was lodged however, despite numerous opportunities the prosecution failed to bring the said complainant in the witness box.
10. Deposition of the complainant Pooja W/o Jagdish Singh was sine qua non for establishing the charges against the accused as, as per the prosecution story it was she who was injured an accident dated 24.12.05 and thus she could have proved, as to because of FIR No. 1264/05 3/6 whose negligence the accident occurred i.e. whether the same occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the accused or otherwise. There is no other eye witness who might her witness the accident, who was driving the vehicle in what circumstances the accident occurred. Hence, complainant Pooja was the star/ material witness and her absence has proved fatal for the prosecution story.
11 Remaining witnesses are formal witnesses who came into the picture only after the alleged incident had occurred and information in this regard was received by them. None amongst them is the eye witness of the incident.
12 Therefore in the absence of any positive material/direct evidence there cannot be any presumption that the accident was caused by the accused while driving the offending bus in a rash and negligent manner. What is rash/negligence varies from case to case and has to be proved through direct/positive evidence. There cannot be any fixed parameters for judging rashness/negligence. At the same time, there cannot be any assumption/presumption of the same. Even if the accident is proved unless rash and negligent driving stands proved a person cannot be convicted U/s 279 IPC. Reliance can be placed upon "State of Rajasthan v. Joita (Rajasthan) 2002 Cri.L.J. 3514 and Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana, (P&H) 2000 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 571, K. Nageshwara Rao v. State of A.P. 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 588 and Niranjan FIR No. 1264/05 4/6 Singh v. State (Delhi Adminstration) (Delhi) 1997 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 320.
13. Prosecution case may be true but criminal jurisprudence says that prosecution case must be true. There is a long distance between "may be true" and "must be true".
14. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. (Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H)(DB) ,1997(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 662).
15. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. It was observed in Partap v. State of U.P., (SC) 1976 A.I.R. (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., (SC) FIR No. 1264/05 5/6 1990(3) S.C.C. 190 it was again held that in criminal cases burden is always is on prosecution and never shifts. In Nasir Sikander Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (SC) 2005 Cri.L.J. 2621 and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (SC) 1996(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 465 it was held that it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and burden lies on prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by the Statute. (AIR 1962 SC 605 relied). Accused is not expected to prove his innocence to the hilt. If prosecution story is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
16. Prosecution has failed to discharge its onus. Neither the accident nor the identity of the accused leave apart his negligent omission as alleged by the prosecution could be proved. Accused is entitled to acquittal.
17. I order accordingly.
Announced in the open Court on 25.10.2010 (Gaurav Rao) MM (W)/Delhi FIR No. 1264/05 6/6 25.10.2010 FIR No.1264/05 PS Nangloi Pr: Ld. APP for state.
Accused is present on bail.
No PW is present apart from IO/SI Om Prakash. Record perused.
I have also gone through my orders dated 12.10.09 as well as 16.03.10. Summons to witness/complainant/injured Pooja again received back with the report that she is not traceable. Same is also reflected in earlier summons dated 18.11.08, 12.10.09, 16.03.10 & 25.10.10. These summons have been duly forwarded by the SHO/IO concerned. Today, separate statement of the IO has been recorded in this regard.
The present complaint was lodged at the instance of complainant Pooja and there is no other eye witness.
Prosecution proposed to examine 09 witnesses in all. Remaining witnesses as 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.
Matter is 05 years old and prosecution was granted ample opportunity to examine all its witnesses, however, it failed to do so.
FIR No. 1264/05 7/6Accused has already suffered the agony of protracted trial for 05 long years. Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Speedy justice is the mandate of the Constitution. Every citizen has a right of speedy trial of the case pending against him. The speedy trial was considered also in public interest as it serves the social interest also. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall foul of Article 21. (1993 AIR SCW 248). Reliance may also be placed upon the law laid down in Sajeendraan v. Thalakulathoor Gram Panchayat, 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 611, Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991(3) RCR(Crl.) 182 (SC), : 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271, Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, 1999(3) RCR(Crl.) 440 (SC) : (1999)6 SCC 110, Moti Lal Saraf v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (SC) 2006(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 637 and Pankaj Kumar v. State Of Maharashtra , (SC) 2008(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 890.
In these facts and circumstances, PE stands closed. SA is dispensed with as the same shall be an empty formality as no worth incriminating material has been brought forward against the accused.
Vide my separate judgment announced today in the open court, accused Devender Singh has been acquitted of the charges in the present case.
Bail bond cancelled, surety discharged, endorsement if any be cancelled, original documents be returned as per rules and FIR No. 1264/05 8/6 procedure.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gaurav Rao) MM (w)/Delhi.
25.10.2010 FIR No. 1264/05 9/6