Delhi District Court
State vs Wazir Singh on 15 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Wazir Singh
FIR No : 65/2017
U/s : 279/337/338 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020171172017
2. Date of commission of offence : 29.03.2017
3. Date of institution of the case : 01.07.2017
4. Name of the complainant : Urmila
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Wazir Singh
address S/o Samay Ram
R/o H. no.316,
Mohalla Subhash Pana,
Kablana. Jhajjar,
Haryana
6. Offence complained of : 279/337/338 IPC and
39/192 MV Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
: Convicted u/S
279/337/338 IPC and
8. Final order
acquitted u/S 39/192
MV Act
9. Date of final order : 15.02.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Pankaj Gulia, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Mukesh Narain, Ld. LAC for accused.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 1 of 31 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.15
14:46:20 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2017 at about 09:35 AM, Rawta Mor near Mid Field School, New Delhi, accused was driving RTV bearing registration no.DL-1VA-9384 (hereinafter, "offending vehicle") in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the said vehicle rammed his vehicle against one truck which was parked on the road side, thereby causing grievous injuries to Urmila, Atar Singh, Devender, Naresh and Rajbir and simple injuries to Sujata, Sunita, Sushma, Brijviri, Rameshwar, Jyoti, Gyan, Manisha and Reena and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 of IPC, for which FIR no.65/2017 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, notice under Sections 279/337/338 of IPC and Section 39/192 MV Act was served Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Page 2 of 31 Date:
FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:46:30 +0530 upon the accused on 03.05.2018. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Urmila PW-2 Sujata PW-3 Sunita PW-4 Naresh PW-5 Devender PW-6 Vijaybiri PW-7 Jyoti PW-8 Rajbir PW-9 Sushma PW-10 Ct. Moneder Kumar PW-11 HC Praveen PW-12 Renu PW-13 Reena PW-14 Manisha DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant Ex.PW4/P1 Photographs of offending vehicle Ex.PW10/A Seizure memo qua badge Ex.PW10/B Seizure memo qua DL of accused Ex.PW10/C Seizure memo qua photocopies of documents of truck Ex.PW10/D Seizure memo qua offending vehilce Ex.PW10/E Seizure memo qua truck Ex.PW11/A Tehrir Ex.PW11/B Arrest memo Ex.PW11/C Personal search memo Ex.PW11/D Site plan Ex.PW11/E Notice u/S 133 MV Act Ex.PW11/F Mechanical inspection report qua truck Ex.PW11/G Mechanical inspection report qua RTV Ex.PW11/H Panchnama qua tuck Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 3 of 31 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:46:35 +0530 Ex.PW11/I Panchnama qua RTV Ex.PW12/A Reply to notice u/S 133 MV Act Ex.PW12/B Statement regarding receiving RTV ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.65/2017 alongwith certificate u/S 65B of IEA Ex.A2 MLC no.1410/2017, 1410/2018, 1410/2019, 1410/2020, 1410/2021, 1410/2022, 1410/2023 and 1410/2024 Ex.A3 X-ray result vide MLC no.1411/2017 Ex.A4 Entry in register no.19
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows.
PW1 Urmila deposed that on 29.03.2017 at about 09:00 pm, she alongwith her daughter in law namely Reena were going to RTRM hospital from their house and they took RTV from the bus stand and when they reached near Mid Field School Ravata Mor, they told the driver to drive the RTV carefully as he was driving the offending RTV at a very high speed and was overtaking. She stated that he did not pay any heed to their words and further accelerated the RTV and at about 9:30 am, the said RTV hit one truck which was parked on the side of the road. She stated that she sustained injuries and she made a call to 100 number and police reached the spot and took her to RTRM hospital where she was operated and a rod was fixed in her left leg. She stated that the name of the driver was Wazir Singh and police recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A. The witness identified photographs of the RTV bearing registration no.DL-1VA-9384 and truck bearing registration no.HR-55T-5599 and the spot as Mark A(colly). The offending vehicle was being driven by accused Wazir Singh in a negligent manner. In the cross-
Digitally signed by ABHINAVFIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 4 of 31 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:46:40 +0530 examination, she stated that police met her at the spot for the first time and her statement was recorded at the hospital. She stated that she was sitting on the bonnet near the gear box of the RTV as there was huge rush in the RTV, she was not able to get a proper seat and that was the reason she sat on the bonnet. She stated that there were about 20-25 passengers in the RTV at the time of accident and the road on which the accident took place was 10 feet wide. She stated that RTV was going on its own side of the road and her daughter in law Reena was also sitting on the bonnet. She stated that she had not made any call at 100 number and she had not told to the police the registration number of the RTV and the truck.
5. PW2 Sujata deposed that on 29.03.2017 at about 09:10 am, she alongwith her sister Manisha were going to Najafgarh for stitching classes and they boarded a RTV bearing no. DL1VA- 9384 from Dhansa Bus Stand which was plying on route no. F-
809. She stated that after they crossed Dhansa village, the driver of the RTV speed up the RTV and started driving the RTV in a rash and negligent manner and in a wrong manner. She stated that there were about 18-20 passengers in the said RTV and she, her sister alongwith other passengers told the driver to drive the RTV carefully and in a right manner to which driver replied that his name was Wazir Singh and he knew driving very well. She stated that he did not listen to the passengers and at about 09:35 AM, near Mid Field School, Ravta Mor, accused Wazir Singh hit the RTV in the truck bearing no. HR-55T-5599 from the conductor side which was parked on the side of the road, due to which she and her sister alongwith other passengers received injuries. She stated that police shifted them to the hospital and Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 5 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:46:46 +0530 accused Wazir Singh was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the court.
6. PW3 Sunita deposed on the lines of PW2. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the court.
7. PW4 Naresh deposed that on 29.03.2017, he was going to RTRM hospital to bring medicine in a RTV vehicle and the bus was route from Dhansa Border to Dhansa Stand. He stated that it was about 09:30 am when he was in the said bus and the driver of the RTV was driving the bus at high speed and as per his view, the driver of RTV hit the truck which was standing on the left to the road within a second and that is why he was saying that driver of the RTV was at high speed for that moment and the RTV got damaged badly. He stated that police inquired from him about the incident. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the court and RTV through photographs Ex.PW4/P-1 (colly). She stated that he sustained injuries in his hand and he got his treatment at Govt. hospital and driver of RTV also sustained injuries. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the court and the RTV through photographs Ex.PW4/P1. In the cross-examination, he stated that in his opinion, the speed of the bus at the time of the accident would have been around 100 kmph and at the time of the accident, there were around 40 passengers traveling by the said bus.
8. PW5 Devender deposed that he did not remember the date, month and year. He stated that on the day of incident, he was going to his job and he boarded RTV bus from Dhansa Border but he did do not remember the registration number of said RTV. He stated Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 6 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:46:52 +0530 that when he was in the said bus, the driver hit a truck which was parked on the left side of the road and the driver of the RTV was driving the said vehicle out of his control and hit the truck. He stated that the driver of the said RTV was driving at a very high speed to pick each and every passenger in his bus and the driver of RTV was not driving the vehicle in rightful manner at that moment. He stated that the time of accident was about 09:00- 09:30 am and he sustained multiple injuries in his body in the said accident and got his primary treatment at RTRM hospital and later on got his treatment in private hospital but he did not remember the name of hospital due to lapse of time. He stated that police had inquired from him about the incident. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the court and the RTV through photographs Ex.PW4/P1. In the cross-examination, he stated that in his opinion, the speed of the bus at the time of the accident would have been around 100 kmph and at that time there were around 60 to 70 passengers traveling by the said bus as the bus was overload and he lost his consciousness after the incident.
9. PW6 Vijaybiri deposed that he did not remember anything about the incident except that he was traveling by a RTV Bus which met with an accident near Village Jaffarpur and he along with other injured persons were taken to RTRM Hospital. The witness could not identify the driver of the said bus as more than five years had elapsed since the accident took place. As PW6 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-
examination, wherein he stated that at about 09:20 am, he boarded RTV Bus from village Dhansa bus stand to come to Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 7 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:46:58 +0530 Dwarka, however, he could not say whether the date of the incident was 29.03.2017.
10. PW7 Jyoti deposed that she did not remember anything about the incident except that she was traveling by a RTV Bus which met with an accident near Village Jaffarpur and she along with other injured persons were taken to RTRM Hospital. The witness could not identify the driver of the said bus as more than five years had elapsed since the accident took place. She did not even remember the date of the accident. As PW7 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put her questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein she stated that she could not say whether the date of the incident was 29.03.2017 and she could not say whether the accused present in the court was driving the offending bus on the date of the incident.
11. PW8 Rajbir deposed that he did not remember anything about the incident except that the RTV Bus on which he worked as a helper which was being driven by the accused on the day of incident. He stated that he did not remember the date of incident and the said RTV Bus bearing no.9384 met with an accident near Rawta Mor and he got injured. Thereafter, he along with other injured persons were taken to RTRM Hospital. He stated that the accident took place near Rawta Mor where the RTV Bus hit a truck which was parked by the road side. The witness correctly identified the offending vehicle through photographs but he could not identify the truck which was hit by the bus as he fell unconscious soon after the incident. As PW8 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT
ABHINAV FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 8 of 31 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.15 14:47:03 +0530 examination, wherein he stated that the date of the incident was 29.03.2017. He stated that at about 09:35am when they reached near Midfield School near Rawta Mor the RTV Bus hit a truck parked on the road from behind due to which he along with fellow passengers and the accused driver sustained injuries. He stated that PCR vehicle took him along with other injured passengers to RTRM Hospital and he was referred to DDU Hospital. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the truck as he had been one over by the accused.
12. PW9 Sushma deposed that about 4 to 5 years ago, she was traveling by a RTV Bus which met with an accident as the driver of the RTV rammed the vehicle in a truck which was parked by the road side. She stated that she sustained injuries in the said accident and the accident took place near Midfield School, Rawta Mor and the RTV was being driven by the accused. The witness correctly identified accused present in the court, spot, offending vehicle bearing No. DL1VA9384 and the truck bearing registration No. HR55T5599 through photographs Ex.PW9/A (colly). She stated that the incident took place at about 9:40am and after the incident, she along with other injured persons were taken to RTRM Hospital by the PCR. She stated that she along with other passengers asked the accused driver to drive the RTV in a proper manner but he did not pay any heed to their request and continued to drive the RTV at a fast speed. As PW9 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put her questions in the nature of cross-
examination, wherein she stated that the date of incident was 29.03.2017 and she along with one fellow villager namely Naresh @ Pappe had boarded the RTV Bus from the bus stand of Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 9 of 31 AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:47:08 +0530 village Issapur plying on the route F809. In the cross- examination, she stated that at the time of the incident there were about 20/25 passengers in the said RTV Bus and she got unconscious after the RTV Bus hit the back of the truck. She stated that speed of the RTV Bus at the time of the accident might have been about 80 to 90 kmph as it was plying at a very high speed but she did not remember the exact registration number of the offending vehicle.
13. PW10 Ct. Monedar Kumar deposed that on 29.03.2017, he was on emergency duty with HC Praveen Kumar and upon receiving information regarding PCR call, he along with HC Praveen went to the spot of incident i.e. at Rawta Mor, near Midfield School in front of Shiv Shankar Dharam Kanta where two vehicles i.e. one truck bearing no. HR-55T-5599 and one RTV bearing no.DL- 1VA-9384 were found in accidental condition. He stated that no eye witness was found at the spot and upon inquiry, the injured were found to be taken by the PCR to the hospital and IO HC Praveen left him at the spot and went to RTRM hospital. He stated that after sometime, HC Praveen along with Ct. Azad, Ct. Rajesh and the injured Devender came to the spot and the IO HC Praveen took photographs of the spot of incident by his mobile phone. He stated that IO prepared the site plan at the instance of injured Devender and thereafter, IO recorded statement of injured Devender. He stated that during that time, accused i.e. driver of the RTV namely Wazir also came to the spot and handed over the documents of the RTV along with his badge and driving licence to the IO. He stated that the RTV does not have RC and IO seized the said documents vide seizure memos Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B and also seized the photocopies of the documents of Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 10 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:47:12 +0530 the truck vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/C. He stated that IO seized both the vehicles involved in the incident vide separate seizure memos Ex.PW10/D and Ex.PW10/E. He stated that IO recorded statement of Shiv Kumar i.e the driver of the Truck and thereafter, he was discharged and thereafter, both the vehicles involved in the incident were brought to the PS with the help of crane and submitted to malkhana. He stated that the owner of the RTV namely Ms. Renu came to the PS and notice U/s 133 MV Act was served upon her and she stated that the offending vehicle was being driven by accused Wazir Singh and Rajbir Singh was helper on the said vehicle. The witness correctly identified accused present in the court and the vehicles involved in the incident through photographs. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember the time at which they left the PS. He stated that public persons were present at the spot when he reached there but none of the public persons stated themself as an eye witness.
14. PW11 HC Praveen deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in the present case. He additionally tendered tehrir Ex.PW11/A, arrest memo Ex.PW11/B, personal search memo Ex.PW11/C, site plan Ex.PW11/D, notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act Ex.PW11/E, mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles Ex.PW11/F and Ex.PW11/G and panchnama of both the vehicles Ex.PW11/H and Ex.PW11/I. In the cross- examination, he stated that he did not remember as to by which vehicle he went to the spot of incident. He stated that no public persons was present at the spot when he reached there and no attendance register, or salary receipt, travel documents/ticket of the accused was provided as no such record was stated to be Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 11 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:47:17 +0530 maintained by the owner of the RTV. He stated that he did not call mobile crime team at the spot nor uplift chance prints, finger prints and videography of the alleged spot. He stated that the photographs annexed with the case file does not have any date and time mentioned upon the same, it was also not accompany with certificate under Section 65B IEA. He stated that he could not say as to how many seats were there in the offending RTV vehicle and also not remember alleged vehicle have fire fighter cylinder and medical kit.
15. PW12 Renu deposed that on 29.03.2017, notice U/s 133 MV Act was served upon her and she gave my reply upon the back side of the notice itself Ex.PW12/A. She stated that she was the owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1VA-9384 make TATA RTV and on the day of the incident, accused Wazir Singh was the driver on her above said vehicle. She stated that she had got her above said vehicle released on superdari and she proved her statement regarding the receiving of the offending vehicle as Ex.PW12/B.
16. PW13 Reena deposed that she did not remember anything about the present case due to lapse of time. She stated that she did not remember if she gave any statement to anyone regarding the present case. She stated that she could not identify the driver of RTV due to lapse of time. As PW13 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put her questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein she denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely to save the accused as she had already compounded the matter u/S 337/338 IPC with the accused and she deliberately failed to identify the accused.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 12 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:47:21 +0530
17. PW14 Manisha deposed that she did not remember anything about the present case due to lapse of time and she did not remember if she gave any statement to anyone regarding the present case. She stated that she could not identify the driver of RTV due to lapse of time. As PW14 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put her questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein she denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely to save the accused as she had already compounded the matter u/S 337/338 IPC with the accused and she deliberately failed to identify the accused.
18. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining witnesses in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined; hence, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
19. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 14.02.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further stated that although he was driving the said vehicle on the date of incident but he had been falsely implicated. He further stated that he did not want to lead defence evidence.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT Page 13 of 31 Date:
FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:47:25 +0530 FINAL ARGUMENTS
20. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
21. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
22. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle is not established and prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it . As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
23. The allegations against the accused are segregated into two parts, first pertaining to offences under Section 279/337/338 IPC with the allegation that on the given date, time and place, the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 14 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:47:31 +0530 so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and due to his rash and negligent driving, the accident was caused by him in which multiple persons who were the passengers of his RTV vehicle sustained injuries. Secondly, the allegations against the accused are that the offending RTV vehicle as driven by accused was not registered from the competent authority and accordingly, accused committed the offence punishable under Section 39/192 MV Act.
24. Let us deal with the first set of allegations levelled against the accused person under Section 279/337/338 IPC.
Section 279 IPC proscribes the driving of vehicle on a public way in such a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. Section 337 IPC prescribes punishment for causing simple hurt to any person by such rash or negligent act. Section 338 IPC prescribes punishment for causing grievous hurt to any person by such rash or negligent act.
25. The position of law with respect to offence u/s 279 IPC is discussed in the case of case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133(2006) DLT 562, wherein it was held that;
"In Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under Section 279 or Section 304A, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved".
26. Further, what would constitute rash and negligent act has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 15 of 31 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.15 14:47:36 +0530 Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of An- dra Pradesh decided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:-
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with reckless- ness and with indifference as to the consequences.
Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against in- jury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
27. Besides, the ingredients mentioned above, the identity of the accused as driver of the vehicle must also be established separately by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused.
It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
28. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution was under the obligation to prove the following for establishing the case against the accused person:
a. Identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle.Digitally signed by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 16 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:47:42 +0530 b. That the alleged accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place which caused injuries to the injured persons.
RE: IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED;
29. Material witness to prove the identity of accused are PW1 Urmila, PW2 Sujata, PW3 Sunita, PW4 Naresh, PW5 Devender, PW8 Rajbir and PW9 Sushma. The other witnesses i.e. PW6, PW7, PW13 and PW14 were unable to identify the accused person due to lapse of time. Further, injured namely Jyoti, Vijay, Rajbir, Rina and Manisha had compounded the matter under Section 337/338 IPC with accused as they all stated that they had forgiven the accused voluntarily. All the abovementioned PW1 to PW5, PW8 and PW9 have clearly stated that they have boarded the RTV bus from Dhansa border at around 09:30 am and on the day of incident which had already 15-20 passengers and while accused being driver of said RTV crashed into a truck which was parked on the side of the road.
30. Further, in the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC, accused stated that he was driving the vehicle in question on the date of incident and he had been falsely implicated in the present case. Thus, in view of the identification by the abovesaid PWs and admission on the part of accused himself, it stands proved that accused was the driver of the offending RTV on the date of incident.
RE: ALLEGED ACCIDENT BEING THE RESULT OF RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING OF THE ACCUSED AT A PUBLIC PLACE.
31. For establishing the rash and negligent act of driving the offending vehicle by the accused, the main testimony is again of Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 17 of 31 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.15 14:47:47 +0530 witness PW1 Urmila, PW2 Sujata, PW3 Sunita, PW4 Naresh, PW5 Devender, PW8 Rajbir and PW9 Sushma.
32. PW1 stated that she boarded the RTV as driven by the accused on the date of accident and that while the accused was driving the RTV she told him to drive the RTV carefully as he was driving the RTV at a very high speed and also overtaking but accused did not pay any heed to her words and at about 9:30 am, he hit one truck from behind which was parked on the side of the road due to which she sustained injuries on her leg. Similarly, PW2 stated that on the day of incident when she boarded the RTV in question with her sister, all the passengers told the driver accused to drive carefully and in right manner to which accused replied he is Wazir Singh and he knows how to drive and that he did not listen to the grievances of passengers whereafter he crashed the RTV from the conductor side into a truck which was parked on the side of the road. Similarly, PW3 also deposed on the similar lines as stated by PW1 and PW2 qua the fact of collision with stationary truck while they were travelling in the offending RTV driven by accused. Further, PW4 stated that when he was in the RTV, the driver of the RTV was driving the same at a very high speed and PW4 categorically stated that driver of RTV hit the truck which was standing on the left side of the road. PW5 also deposed on the same lines as that of PW4. He also stated that accused being driver of RTV was driving the said vehicle at a high speed and lost control and hit the truck. PW5 further stated that driver of RTV was driving at high speed and hit the truck. PW5 further stated that driver of RTV was driving RTV at high speed as he wanted to pick all the passengers on the road in his bus and he further stated that the driver was not driving the same in a rightful manner. PW8 who stated that he was working as Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 18 of 31 AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:47:52 +0530 helper on the RTV which was driven by accused on the date of incident and that he did not remember anything about the incident as he got injured whereafter he alongwith other injured persons were taken to RTRM hospital and he had fallen unconscious soon after the accident. Similarly, PW9 who was also one of the passenger stated that he sustained injuries in the said incident as the driver of RTV rammed his RTV into a truck which was parked on the road side. PW9 further stated that she alongwith other passengers had asked the accused driver to drive his RTV in a proper manner but he did not pay any heed to their request and continued to drive the offending RTV at a very fast speed.
33. Although some of the injured persons namely Jyoti, Vijay, Rajbir, Rina and Manisha had compounded the matter with accused and accused was acquitted for Section 337/338 IPC and their separate statements were recorded. The remaining witnesses i.e. PW10 Ct. Monedar Kumar and PW9 HC Praveen are formal witnesses and not the witness of the incident in question or the injured.
34. From the ocular testimony of above injured witnesses, it is clear that the offending RTV was being driven by the accused and the accident happened wherein the offending RTV was being driven by the accused crashed into a truck bearing no.HR-55T-5599 from the back side when the said truck was parked on the left side of the road. The ocular testimony of witnesses is corroborated by the photographs Ex.PW9/A (colly) (07 photographs) which clearly shows the state of both the vehicles after the incident. Upon pursuing the said photographs, it is clear that the truck in question was parked on the extreme left side of the road and the offending RTV crashed into the rear side of Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 19 of 31 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.15 14:48:00 +0530 stationary truck causing massive damage on the offending RTV. As stated by PW1 in her cross-examination that she was sitting on the bonnet near the gear box of the RTV as there was huge rush in the RTV, therefore, it is clear that she was not able to get a proper seat due to passengers in RTV beyond its capacity and for the same reason she sat on the bonnet of RTV. Further, the other injured witness i.e. PW4 and PW5 who stated in their cross-examination that there were about 60-70 passengers traveling in the offending RTV which was running at the time of incident at a speed of 100 kmph. Further, as evident from the MLC of injured Devender, Naresh, Urmila who sustained grievous injuries and other injured received simple injuries denoting that the impact between the two vehicles was such that the injured received fractures on their legs.
35. PW1 further stated that she made a call to 100 number and police reached the spot and took her to RTRM hospital where she was operated and a rod was fixed in her left leg. She stated that the name of the driver was Wazir Singh and police recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A. The witness identified photographs of the RTV bearing registration no.DL-1VA-9384 and truck bearing registration no.HR-55T-5599 and the spot as Mark A(colly). The offending vehicle was being driven by accused Wazir Singh in a negligent manner.
36. Here, it is relevant to highlight that it was held in Niranjan Singh vs. The State (Delhi Administration) 1977 Cri LJ 333, held that rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 20 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:48:07 +0530 Criminal negligence on the other hand is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable or proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
37. Thus, the main criterion for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard to the obligation of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a risk indifference as to the harmful consequences resulting from it. In a case of this nature, the test is whether the prosecution has proved that :
(i) the accused was driving the vehicle in such a manner as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to some other person who might happen to be using the road or doing substantial damage to the property;
(ii) in driving the vehicle in that manner, the accused did so without having given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or, having recognized that there was some risk involved, had nonetheless gone on to take it; and
(iii) the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of the injuries to the injured person.
38. The ocular testimony of the witnesses who sustained grievous injuries finds corroboration from their respective MLCs. Furthermore, it is relevant to mention DD no.14A dated 29.03.2017 which records the accident between RTV and truck as informed by one of the injured person. Thereby the version of injured PWs finds corroboration not only from the MLC but also from the reporting of the matter to the police. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of injured/witnesses qua the circumstances Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 21 of 31 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.15 14:48:12 +0530 under which the incident happened despite the fact that some of the injured compounded the matter with accused.
39. At this stage, it is relevant to mention the matter as decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Balu Sudamkhalde and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra Crl. Appeal No. 1910 of 2010 decided on 29.03.2023, laid down the principles for the evaluation of the testimony of injured eye witness, where it was observed as under: -
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind.
The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eye witnesses, two principal considerations are whether in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 22 of 31 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.15 14:48:17 +0530 respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence."
40. The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness/ eye witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
41. Ld. defence counsel submits that there are major contradictions and discrepancies in the investigation and thereby the testimony of injured witnesses cannot be relied upon as accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
42. Perusal of the prosecution evidence reveals that injured witnesses had all stated that same facts as to how the accused being the driver of offending RTV caused collission with the truck which was stationary at the spot. Furthermore, the accident in question had occurred at a public road and it can be curled out from the testimony of injured/ witnesses and the photographs that other persons must have been present at the spot after the incident. However, for reasons best known to the IO, no public person Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 23 of 31 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:48:22 +0530 apart from the injured persons were joined in the investigation. It is a settled law that a defective investigation is not always fatal to the prosecution where ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses is found credible and cogent. While in such a case the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence, a faulty investigation cannot in all cases be a determinative factor to throw out a credible prosecution version.
43. In addition to the above, even the investigation in the present matter appears to have been conducted in a callous and lackadaisical manner. First and foremost, the site plan seems to have been prepared by the IO in a very perfunctory manner, without disclosing the actual state of affairs as seen by him at the accidental spot. Nowhere does the site plan Ex.PW11/D shows any skid marks if any around the stationary truck in question. Further, any skid mark of the tyres of offending RTV, if any, which could have been made due to the sudden braking of RTV before the impact with the stationary truck were not mentioned in the said site plan.
44. At this stage it is further pertinent to state in here that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan vs State (NCT of Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562 had laid down guidelines with regard to the investigation to be conducted in the offence of accident:
13.1. In most cases I find that the site plans are not produced. Even the site plan that is produced is of a very unsatisfactory nature. It is, therefore, imperative that the investigating officer should be provided with maps of the roads drawn to scale so that accurate site plans can be produced in evidence for the appreciation of courts.
The exact point of impact as well as tyre skid marks and the point at which the vehicles come to rest after the collision should be demarcated clearly. The observations with regard to the length of the tyre skid marks of the vehicles involved in the impact go a long way in indicating the speeds at which the vehicles were traveling.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVFIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 24 of 31 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:48:27 +0530 This would enable the courts to examine the evidence in a much more objective manner and the courts would not be faced with vague and subjective expressions such as high speed". 13.2. The mechanical inspection reports that are prepared are also, I find, in a majority of cases, of a very superficial and cursory nature.
The inspection ought to be carried out by qualified personnel who are able to indicate in their reports the exact physical conditions of the vehicles. They should be able to point out with exactitude the damage suffered by the vehicles as a result of the impact. The mechanical inspection report should indicate all the telltale signs of the collision such as the paint of one vehicle rubbing off on the other. It should also indicate as to whether the vehicles were mechanically sound or not prior to the impact so as to enable the court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the collision took place due to human rashness or negligence or mechanical failure beyond human control.
13.3. As a rule, photographs ought to be taken not only of the vehicles involved in the collision but also of the site and surrounding areas so that the exact topography can be easily discerned by courts.
13.4. The prevalent weather conditions must be noted by the investigating officer. This would go to establish as to whether the road was slippery due to rain; whether there was poor visibility due to fog or mist etc. 13.5. Furthermore, the path of movement of the vehicles must be sought to be established in the course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt as in the present case. 13.6. The drivers of the vehicle involved must also be subjected to tests to reveal whether they had consumed any intoxicants. 13.7. Proper investigation of such accidents would go a long way in aiding the criminal justice system in convicting those who are guilty and acquitting those who are innocent. A shoddy investigation will only point in one direction and that is in the acquittal of all whether they are guilty or whether they are innocent. Because, no criminal court would (and ought not to) convict any person merely on the basis of conjectures, assumptions, probabilities. All elements of subjectivity need to be eliminated and the investigation should be such that, when a charge sheet is filed, the court is presented with a case which when taken objectively would lead to the inescapable conclusion that a conviction is maintainable.
19. The site plan so placed on record is neither scaled site plan nor is proved by the prosecution. Furthermore, no photographs of the surrounding sites has been taken and placed on record by IO. As such the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that alleged accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of accused."
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 25 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:48:32 +0530 Therefore, it is clear that the site plan is not prepared as per the guidelines and it is nowhere highlighting the complete state of affairs of the surroundings of the spot in question.
45. It is further pertinent to examine the state of affairs of two vehicles after the incident as per the mechanical report of both vehicles. As per mechanical inspection report of offending RTV bearing no. DL-1VA-9384 which is Ex.PW11/G, the following damages were found which are as follows:
1. Front portion from left side complete damage.
2. Left side body, roof , notch freshly damaged and front three glass were also broken.
3. Front bumper, bumper grill, bumber support guard freshly damaged and front mirror also broken.
4. Left side head light and indicator freshly damaged
5. Engine and rediator freshly damaged.
46. Similarly, the mechanical inspection report of truck bearing no.
HR-55T-5599 which is Ex.PW11/F, the following damages were found which are as follows:
1. Right side back bumper, bumper grill and three phate freshly damaged.
2. Right side back light and indicator freshly broken.
47. Therefore, it is clear there was considerable damage on the front portion of offending RTV as it collided with the rear portion of the truck which was stationary at the point of impact between two vehicles. The said damages also tallies with the version of injured PWs and photographs Ex.PW9/A (colly).
48. Here, it is to be mentioned that driver of public transport bus holds hightend sense of duty unlike the private drivers. The bus drivers are responsible for well being of multiple individuals who are travelling as passengers who rely on the duty of driver for Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 26 of 31 ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.15 14:48:37 +0530 their safe transit. This responsibility include adhering to prevent traffic regulations, maintaining control of the vehicle under all conditions and ensuring that passengers board/travel and dis- embark safely. The drivers of such passengers vehicle must exercise extra caution to prevent accidents, sudden breaking or reckless maneuver that could endanger life of passengers not only elderly person but also women and children. The rule of driver of such passenger vehicles is not merely to operate the bus but to prioritize the safety of passengers at all times.
49. After careful perusal of the testimonies as mentioned above, it is crystal clear that accused was driving his vehicle in a manner which would clearly amount to rash driving. Rashness has been established against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is also established that the accused was negligent for not taking the reasonable care towards his surroundings. The fact the accused was driving the offending RTV in such a manner that he not only allowed passengers into the RTV beyond the capacity of vehicle but also made passengers made sit on the bonnet on the front portion of RTV. Accused was not only driving the RTV at a fast speed but also overtaking in a rash manner. It has been the specific version of injured PW that despite being asked by various passengers, accused did not pay heed to their requests and alarm felt by them and continued to drive the RTV in a fast and negligent manner.
50. Negligent act means failure to take proper care and precautions jeopardizing the lives of other persons. It means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affair would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 27 of 31 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:48:41 +0530 guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one, it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the Court.
51. It is amply clear from the above, that the rash or negligent driving has to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of the given case. In fact, it is incapable of being construed or seen in isolation, it must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a public passenger vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. Likewise in the instant case, keeping in view the testimony of injured PWs, who are independent public persons, it is crystal clear that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner. Injured PWs have deposed empathetically on oath that the accused despite being asked not to drive in a rash manner continued to drive the same in a manner which ultimately let to the collision of offending RTV with a truck which was parked on the side of the road. Crashing into the back side of a stationary vehicle in itself is a clear indication on the negligence on the part of accused. It demonstrate failure to maintain proper lookout, control and speed of the vehicle to prevent collision. A reasonably careful driver is expected to anticipate obstacles on the road including stationary vehicles to avoid accidents. Such incidents often result from unattentiveness, Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 28 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:48:47 +0530 speeding or reckless driving, all of which constitute a breach of duty of care required to ensure road safety. All the injured witnesses have stuck to their stand and merely the fact that some injured witnesses compounded the matter with accused cannot jeopardize the entire prosecution case. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Singh Versus The State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2015, wherein it was held that, "As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eye witness provided, he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise."
52. In these circumstances, based on the testimony of injured PWs which are not only reliable but also inspires confidence, rash and negligent act of driving of the offending vehicle by the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
53. As far as the contention of the counsel for accused that there are certain discrepancies in the testimony of PWs, here it needs to be highlighted that that minor discrepancies on trivial matter not touching the core of the matter cannot bring discredit to the story of the prosecution. Giving undue importance to them would amount to adopting a hyper-technical approach. It has been held in Thoti Manoher Vs. State of A.P. (2012) 7, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, while appreciating the evidence, Court should not attach much significance to minor discrepancies, for the discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 29 of 31 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.15 14:48:52 +0530 prosecution case are to be ignored. Giving undue importance to them would amount to adopting a hyper-technical approach.
54. Based upon the above discussion, it is clear that ocular evidence of injured witnesses finds corroboration from medical evidence of the injured persons. There are no reasons to doubt the same.
Accused is not alleging any enemy ill will or grudge against injured witnesses. Thereby ingredients of Sections 279/337/338 of IPC against accused are made out.
55. Secondly, the accused is charged under Section 39/192 MV Act.
The provision of the same is as under.
192 Using vehicle without registration - (1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of section 39 shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees and for a second or subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.
56. Perusal of the seizure memo of the documents of offending RTV Ex.PW10/A reveals that the certificate of fitness of the offending RTV was valid till 05.04.2017 and the stage carriage permit certificate of the offending RTV was valid till 16.04.2017. The present incident happened on 29.03.2017 thereby on the date of incident the offending RTV had the valid fitness certificate as well as valid permit. Further, as per the online record the offending RTV was validly registered in accordance with rules of Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, charges under Section 39/192 of Motor Vehicles Act are not made out.Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT
ABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 30 of 31 2025.02.15 14:48:57 +0530 CONCLUSION
57. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution evidence, both oral and documentary, including the surrounding circumstances leads to only conclusion that the incident could not have happened but for the fault of the accused only. The prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubts all the basic ingredients of the offence of section 279/337/338 IPC.
58. Thus, it is held that that accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life and that because of such act of accused, he caused grievous injury upon the injured. Resultantly, the accused Wazir Singh S/o Samay Ram is hereby convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and acquitted under Section 39/192 of Motor Vehicles Act.
59. Let the convict be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Digitally signed
Announced in the open court
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
ABHINAV Date:
on 15.02.2025 in the presence AHLAWAT 2025.02.15
14:49:02
of the accused.
+0530
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/15.02.2025
Note:- This judgment contains 31 pages and each page has been signed by me. ABHINAV Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.15 14:49:07 +0530(Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/15.02.2025 FIR No.65/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Wazir Singh Page 31 of 31