Delhi District Court
3.Title State vs . Umesh Jaiswal on 19 September, 2018
THE COURT OF MS ADITI GARG
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
1.FIR No. 135/2004 PS Seelampur
2.Unique Case no. 02402R0489482004
3.Title State Vs. Umesh Jaiswal
3(A).Name of complainant SI Sushil Kumar, D3741, PS Seelampur, Delhi.
3(B).Name of accused Umesh Jaiswal, s/o Bhagwat Jaiswal, r/o 183/3,
Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi.
4.Date of institution of challan 22.12.2004
5.Date of Reserving judgment 31.07.2018
6.Date of pronouncement 19.09.2018
7.Date of commission of offence 19.03.2004
8.Offence complained of U/s 279/304A IPC
9.Offence charged with U/s 279/304A IPC
10.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
11.Final order Acquitted U/s 279/304A IPC
12. Date of receiving of judicial file 05.05.2014
in this court
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the present case of prosecution is that on 19.03.2004 at 8:00 PM at Dharampura red light, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Seelampur the accused Umesh Jaiswal was driving bus bearing registration no. DL1PA4309 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. Thereafter, while driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner he hit the bus against Virender @ Binda thereby causing his death and so committed offences punishable under section 279/304A IPC. After arresting the accused and completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the present matter.
State Vs. Umesh Jaiswal Page 4 of 4 FIR No. : 135/2004
2. After preparing the site plan and completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed by the investigating officer under section 279/304A IPC.
3. On 20.03.2006, charge was framed U/s 279/304A IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution had named total 10 witnesses in the chargesheet.
5. I have perused the material on the record and have heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel.
6. PW1 is Ranjeet Singh. He has deposed as under : "I am the registered owner / superdar of vehicle bearing registration no. DL1PA4309. On 26.03.2004, I had received notice u/s 133 MV Act and I had replied to the same. The notice and reply is collectively Ex. PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. On the day of incident the abovementioned vehicle was in possession of accused Umesh Jaiswal, present today in the court and correctly identified and he was driving the abovementioned vehicle being the driver of the same. I had taken the abovementioned vehicle on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW1/B bearing my signature at point A. Today I have not brought the abovementioned vehicle. At this stage, accused and his counsel Shri Ashok Kumar Goel submit that identity of the vehicle is not disputed. At this stage, witness produced three photographs of bus bearing no. DL1PA4309. The same is taken on record and marked as mark A, B and C." He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
7. PW2 is Hariram. He identified the dead body of his son Virender at mortuary, GTB hospital, Delhi. His statement in this regard was recorded which is Ex. PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A. The witness correctly identified the photographs of his deceased son Ex. P1.
8. PW3 is Ram Kewal, brother of the accused. He identified the dead body of his brother Virender at mortuary, GTB hospital, Delhi. His statement in this regard was recorded which is Ex. PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A. The witness correctly identified the photographs of his deceased son Ex. P1.
9. PW4 is HC Jai Prakash. He has deposed as under : State Vs. Umesh Jaiswal Page 4 of 4 FIR No. : 135/2004 "On 19.03.2004, I was posted at PS Seelampur. On that day, I was on patrolling uty at Seelampur area, Dharampura beat. At about 08:15 PM, I came to know through the public persons as well as through the wireless transmission message an accident had been occurred at GT Road, Usmanpur thane wali road. Immediately, I rushed to the spot where I found a dead body of a person was lying on the road in a pool of blood. IO SI Sushil Kumar met me there. At about 10:10 PM, he handed over to me one rukka mark P4/A with the direction to get the case registered at PS Seelampur. Accordingly, I went to PS Seelampur and got the case registered and at about 11:30 PM, I came back to the PS alongwith the original rukka and copy of FIR. Same was handed over to IO for further action. At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards the photographs of the deceased already placed on record and exhibited P1 (colly 4). Same are correctly identified by the witness." He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
10. Admittedly, Om Prakash Verma, s/o Shri Jag Ram Verma is the only eye witness to the incident. It is upon him to prove that an accident had been caused by the accused Umesh Jaiswal due to which the victim Virender @ Binda died. The eye witness Om Prakash was summoned by the court but he remained untraceable even after being summoned through the DCP. In the absence of testimony of the eye witness Om Prakash, prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused Umesh Jaiswal was driving the bus bearing no. DL1PA4309 rashly and negligently and thereafter caused accident of the victim Virender @ Binda due to impact of which he expired. Remaining witnesses are police officials whose testimonies can at best prove that accused person was arrested and death of victim had taken place.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and others 1996 JCC 507 had held that "in a case where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date".
State Vs. Umesh Jaiswal Page 4 of 4 FIR No. : 135/2004
12. Considering the same, coupled with the absence of the eye witness, i.e. Mr. Om Prakash, the prosecution evidence stands closed. The statement of the accused Umesh Jaiswal stands dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against the accused.
13. It is a cardinal principle of criminal law that innocent be presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Further prosecution had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt which it failed to do so.
14. In view of the above, accused Umesh Jaiswal is hereby acquitted. His surety is discharged. Bail bonds cancelled. Documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement. Superdarinama, if any, stands cancelled.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the (ADITI GARG)
Open Court on 19.09.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate
KKD Courts, Delhi
19.09.2018
It is certified that this judgment contains four (4) pages and each page bears my signature.
ADITI GARG Metropolitan Magistrate NE/KKD Courts, Delhi 19.09.2018 Digitally signed by ADITI ADITI GARG Date:
GARG 2018.09.20
17:18:27
+0530
State Vs. Umesh Jaiswal Page 4 of 4 FIR No. : 135/2004