Delhi District Court
State vs Hari Om Pandey on 5 April, 2025
TC 509/2025
STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle)
IN THE COURT OF GOWRI REGHUNATH : JMFC-10
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURT : DELHI
TC 509/2025
STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle)
1. Case No. of the case : 509/2025
2. The date of offence : 15.01.2025
3. The name of the accused : (1) Hariom Pandey
persons s/o Devraj Pandey
(2) Gaurav Kumar
s/o Bhagwan Jha
4. The offence complained : u/s 185, 194C,
194D, 3/181, 179,
5/180 of M.V. Act
5. The plea of the accused persons : Not guilty
6. Date of institution of the case : 16.01.2025
7. Date of reserving the : 26.03.2025
order
8. The date of order : 05.04.2025
9. The final order : (1) Accused Hari
Om convicted u/s
185, 3/181, 194C,
194D M.V. Act and
acquitted u/s 179
M.V. Act.
(2) Accused Gaurav
convicted u/s 5/180
M. V. Act
Page No. 1 of 14
TC 509/2025
STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle)
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of traffic challans bearing no DL18349250115204455 issued on 15.01.2025 against the accused Hariom Pandey under Section 185, 194C, 194D, 3/181, and 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act) and challan bearing no. DL18349250115205336 issued on the same date against accused Gaurav Kumar under Section 5/180 M.V. Act
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.01.2025 at about 08:45 p.m. at Chhatta Rail, within jurisdiction of circle Kotwali, accused Hari Om Pandey was plying a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL6SBE5566 without driving license, without helmet, and he was triple riding on motorcycle, and also drunk driving having 46mg/100ml of alcohol, and he also committed misbehaviour with police officials. Further, the case against accused Gaurav Kumar who was a pillion rider on said vehicle, is that being the owner of the said vehicle, he permitted accused Hariom Pandey to drive the vehicle without license. Upon issuance of challans for the said offences, the vehicle of the accused was impounded on the spot.
3. The challan was taken up before this court on 16.01.2025 upon appearance of the accused persons. Cognizance was taken of the offences stated in the challan. As the said offences are bailable, the accused persons were admitted to bail. As per Section 274 BNSS, notices were framed on accused Hariom Pandey under Sections 185, 194C, 194D, 3/181, 179 MV Act and against accused Gaurav Kumar under Section 5/180 M.V. Act to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Page No. 2 of 14 TC 509/2025STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle)
4. Since both accused chose to contest the challan, an application for release of the vehicle was filed on the same date. Vide order dated 17.01.2025, the said vehicle was released on superdari to the registered owner namely Gaurav Kumar.
Prosecution Evidence
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined two witnesses, namely SI Vivek Chaudhary (PW-1) who is the challaning officer and HC Naveen (PW-2).
6. During examination in chief, both PW-1 and PW-2 deposed that on 15.01.2025 at about 8:30 PM when they were posted at Chhata Rail Red Light, within jurisdiction of Kotwali Circle, they spotted three persons riding on a Splendor bike bearing no. DL6SBE5566 without helmet and triple riding. Both witnesses further stated that PW-1 signalled them to stop, but they did not stop on seeing his signal, and tried to flee, however they were stopped with the assistance of additional staff. They further stated that name of the driver was ascertained to be Hari Om Pandey, and he argued with PW-1 and stated that he is working with the Indian Army on the post of a lieutenant.
7. PW-1 deposed that during discussion, he realized that accused Hari Om was smelling of alcohol and probably under its influence. PW-1 used an alcometer to verify his assumption, and the result of breath analysis examination was found to be 46mg/100ml of alcohol. Both witnesses further stated that PW-1 requested accused Hari Om to produce his driving license, however he failed to do so. Thereafter, PW-1 issued the present challans and impounded the motorcycle of the accused.
Page No. 3 of 14 TC 509/2025STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle) PW-1 further proved the result of the breath analysis test Ex. PW-1/A and the printout of the main challan Ex. PW-1/B, Ex. PW-1/C, and the pen drive containing videography of incident along-with certificate u/s 63(4)(C) BSA Ex. PW-1/D(colly). Both witnesses correctly identified the accused persons.
Statement of Accused
8. Vide order dated 31.01.2025 prosecution evidence was closed, thereafter statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 351 BNSS. In the said statement, both accused persons presented an alternate version of events leading up to the issuance of the present challans. Both accused persons admitted that they were triple riding the motorcycle, however they stated that it was actually accused Gaurav who was driving the motorcycle, and accused Hari Om was riding as a pillion rider.
9. They further stated that accused Gaurav being the owner and driver of the motorcycle, was also in possession of a valid driving license. Accused Hari Om further admitted that he was drunk, however he stated that he was not driving the said vehicle.
10. Both accused further stated that they were not signalled to stop by PW-1 or other traffic officials, rather they stopped on their own at the red light. Thereafter, a traffic official took out the keys of their motorcycle. The version of the accused is, that at this point accused Gaurav got off the motorcycle to speak to the said traffic official, and in the meantime, he asked accused Hari Om to move the motorcycle to one side. When accused Hari Om moved it, PW-1 approached him and thought that he was the one Page No. 4 of 14 TC 509/2025 STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle) driving the said vehicle, which led to the issuance of the present challans. Both accused persons opted not to lead DE.
Final Arguments
11. During final arguments, Ld. APP for State argued that testimony of both prosecution witnesses has been consistent, and establishes the ingredients of all offences that the accused have been charged with. It was further argued that with regard to the offence under Section 185 M.V. Act, the result of the breath analysis also corroborates the version of the prosecution. Ld. APP further placed reliance on the video filed by PW-1 Ex. PW-1/D and submitted that the same shows accused Hari Om admitting his guilt qua all offences, and further shows his examination by a breath analyser and the result of the same. Accordingly, it was submitted that the commission of offences under Section 185, 3/181, 5/180, 194C, 194D M.V. Act are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that version of events as recorded in the challan and as deposed by the prosecution witnesses is false. It was submitted that accused Gaurav was the one driving the vehicle, and he holds a valid driving license, and he was also not drunk. It was argued that accused Hari Om was driving as a pillion rider and he never misbehaved with the traffic officials, and the alleged incident of misbehaviour has also not been captured in the video filed by PW-1. Accordingly, it was prayed that the accused be acquitted.
Page No. 5 of 14 TC 509/2025STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle) Analysis of Evidence
13. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a criminal trial, accused is presumed to be innocent and the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the evidence led in support of each of the charges against the accused to evaluate whether the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof.
Drunk driving & Driving without license
14. Evidence with respect to both these offences shall be analysed together to avoid repetition of facts. To establish both these offences, the prosecution firstly must prove that accused Hari Om was the one driving the vehicle.
15. In their oral testimonies, both witnesses have categorically stated that the driver of the vehicle was Hari Om, and the owner of the vehicle namely Gaurav was riding as a pillion rider. Both witnesses have remained unrebutted on this point even during cross-examination. Further, both accused have been correctly identified in court by the said witnesses.
16. Even if the alternate version of events of the accused is accepted to be the truth, there is an evident admission on their part that at some point of time the vehicle was driven by accused Hari Om. As per accused Gaurav, when he asked accused Hari Om to move the bike to the side, he may have driven the same for a distance of less than 50 meters. The admission, though not sufficient in itself to convict the accused, corroborates the Page No. 6 of 14 TC 509/2025 STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle) version of the prosecution. Therefore, there appears to be a ring of truth to the prosecution story.
17. Accordingly, this court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved that accused Hari Om was the one driving the vehicle during the relevant point of time.
18. Now, this court shall consider the evidence in support of the offence under Section 185 M.V. Act. To prove the same, the prosecution must establish that firstly the accused was driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle, secondly while driving/attempting to drive the motor vehicle, the accused had in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml blood, thirdly such quantity of alcohol was detected in a test conducted by a breath analyser or any other laboratory test.
19. As per the oral evidence of both prosecution witnesses during discussion with the accused persons, PW-1 noticed accused Hari Om to be smelling of alcohol and examined him using an alcometer. The result of the said breath analysis is Ex PW-1/A which shows the level of alcohol to be 46 mg/100 ml. Further PW-1 has filed videography of the incident Ex.PW-1/D (colly) which shows accused Hari Om blowing into the alcometer and a reading of 46 mg/100 ml being generated.
20. It is not the case of the accused that the alcometer was faulty or that false readings were obtained by tampering with the machine. Rather, consideration of the statement of accused Hari Om under Section 351 BNSS reveals that he himself admitted that he was drunk at the time of issuance of the present challans.
Page No. 7 of 14 TC 509/2025STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle) Accordingly, this court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused Hari Om was drunk driving the vehicle with 46mg alcohol per 100 ml blood.
21. Now this court shall evaluate the evidence relating to the offence of driving without license. PW-1 stated in his testimony before this court that he requested accused Hari Om to produce his driving license, but the accused did not show it to him and angrily stated that he does not have a driving license. He further deposed in his cross examination that accused Hari Om stated that he did not have a driving license, and none of the other persons riding on the bike had a driving license. The same is corroborated by the version of PW-2 who stated that when PW-1 requested the accused Hari Om to produce his driving license he stated he does not have it.
22. During his examination under Section 351 BNSS, accused Hari Om admitted that he does not have a driving license, however he stated that accused Gaurav has a driving license, but Gaurav was not asked to produce his license by the prosecution witnesses.
23. The oral testimony of both prosecution witnesses is sufficient in itself to establish the commission of the present offence. Moreover, the unequivocal admission by the accused also corroborates the story of the prosecution. Therefore, it is proved that accused Hari Om was driving without license.
24. As far the challan against accused Gaurav is concerned, there is no dispute to the fact that accused Gaurav is the Page No. 8 of 14 TC 509/2025 STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle) registered owner of the vehicle bearing no. DL6SBE5566 as the same is admitted by him. Moreover, in his examination under Section 351 BNSS, both accused stated that accused Gaurav got off the bike, and while doing so, he requested accused Hari Om to move the motorcycle to one side. Accused Gaurav also admitted that on his request, accused Hari Om drove the motorcycle to a distance slightly short of 50 meters. These admissions further lend credence to the version of the prosecution, and clearly establish that accused Gaurav being the owner of the said vehicle, allowed an unauthorised person to drive the vehicle.
Triple riding and driving without helmet
25. For the sake of convenience, this court shall appreciate the evidence led to prove the offences under Section 194C and 194D M.V. Act together. The following provisions of the M.V. Act are relevant in this context.
Section 128. Safety measures for drivers and pillion riders. (1) No driver of a two-wheeled motorcycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motorcycle and no such person shall be carried otherwise than sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to the motorcycle behind the driver's seat with appropriate safety measures.
(2) In addition to the safety measures mentioned in sub- section (1), the Central Government may, prescribe other safety measures for the drivers of two-wheeled motorcycles and pillion riders thereon.
194C. Penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion riders.- Whoever drives a motorcycle or causes or allows a motorcycle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of section 128 or the rules or regulations made thereunder shall be punishable with a fine of one thousand rupees and he shall be Page No. 9 of 14 TC 509/2025 STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle) disqualified for holding licence for a period of three months.
129. Wearing of protective headgear- Every person, above four years of age, driving or riding or being carried on a motorcycle of any class or description shall, while in a public place, wear protective headgear conforming to such standards as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to a person who is a Sikh, if, while driving or riding on the motorcycle, in a public place, he is wearing a turban:
Provided further that the Central Government may by rules provide for measures for the safety of children below four years of age riding or being carried on a motorcycle. Explanation.-- "Protective headgear" means a helmet which,
(a) by virtue of its shape, material and construction, could reasonably be expected to afford to the person driving or riding on a motorcycle a degree of protection from injury in the event of an accident; and
(b) is securely fastened to the head of the wearer by means of straps or other fastenings provided on the headgear.
194D. Penalty for not wearing protective headgear.-- Whoever drives a motor cycle or causes or allows a motor cycle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of section 129 or the rules or regulations made thereunder shall be punishable with a fine of one thousand rupees and he shall be disqualified for holding licence for a period of three months.
26. Coming to the evidence relating to these offences, PW-1 and 2 stated that they noticed three persons riding on a splendor bike without helmet. In their examination under Section 351 BNSS the accused Hari Om also admitted that they were triple riding on a motorcycle and only two of them were wearing helmets. Accused Gaurav also admitted the fact of triple riding, and further stated that he was wearing his helmet.
Page No. 10 of 14 TC 509/2025STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle)
27. As per Section 129 M.V. Act, the offence under Section 194D is made out even if a rider of a motorcycle fails to wear a protective headgear. Therefore, even if the version of the accused is accepted to be correct, at least one of the three riders was not wearing a helmet at the relevant point of time. There is no reason to doubt the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses on this point, as the same is unrebutted. Moreover, the admissions of the accused also corroborate the same.
28. Therefore, this court finds that the prosecution has proved that while driving the motorcycle, accused Hari Om was carrying two persons in addition to himself on the motorcycle , and that at least one of them was not wearing a protective headgear as defined under Section 129 M.V. Act.
Misbehaviour with police officials
29. It would be appropriate to revisit Section 179 M.V. Act before delving into the appreciation of the evidence relating to the said offence.
Section 179 Disobedience of orders, obstruction and refusal of information.
(1) Whoever wilfully disobeys any direction lawfully given by any person or authority empowered under this Act to give such direction, or obstructs any person or authority in the discharge of any functions which such person or authority is required or empowered under this Act to discharge, shall, if no other penalty is provided for the offence be punishable with fine which may extend to 1[two thousand rupees].
(2) Whoever, being required by or under this Act to supply any information, wilfully withholds such information or gives information which he known to be false or which he does not believe to be true, shall, if no other penalty is provided for the offence, be punishable with imprisonment Page No. 11 of 14 TC 509/2025 STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle) for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to 1[two thousand rupees], or with both.
30. There are two limbs of Section 179 M.V. Act, while Section 179(1) covers acts of wilful disobedience of a direction lawfully given by a person empowered under M.V. Act, Section 179(2) applies to a person who either wilfully withholds information or gives false information when required to supply information.
31. As per the oral evidence of both PWs, when they spotted the accused triple riding on a bike, PW-1 signalled them to stop but they did not stop and tried to flee. It was further stated that PW-1 stopped them with the assistance of additional staff.
32. However, an omission to stop the vehicle in these circumstances may not necessarily amount to wilful disobedience under Section 179(1) M.V. Act. It is pertinent to note that apart from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, both of whom are traffic officials, no other evidence has been led to prove the said fact. In the absence of any independent witnesses, the fact of wilful disobedience to a direction of a traffic official cannot be said to be proved.
33. Consideration of the oral testimony of both prosecution witnesses further reveals that both of them stated that the accused Hari Om misbehaved with PW-1 by stating that he is a lieutenant in the Indian Army, and questioned the authority of PW-1 to issue a challan against a lieutenant. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that accused Hari Om kept shouting and fighting with him Page No. 12 of 14 TC 509/2025 STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle) and other staff present at the spot, and stated that he could not be challaned as he is a lieutenant in the Indian Army.
34. In support of the same, PW-1 filed a video clip of the incident- Ex. PW1/D. In the said video recording, PW-1 is heard to be asking accused Hari Om as to where he works, to which he replies he works at the security department of Le Meridian. Thereafter PW-1 questions him as to why he claimed to be a lieutenant in the Indian Army and whose ID card had he showed, to which accused Hari Om replies that the ID card was that of his brother. At this point PW-1 asks him why he showed the ID card of his brother, and accused Hari Om states ' Saab, bachne ke liye har koi karta hei' (i.e. everyone does it to save oneself).
35. Apart from this implied admission by accused Hari Om, at no point of time in the said video recording can the accused be seen either misbehaving with or disobeying the directions of the traffic police. The implied admission given by the accused is in the nature of a confession given to a police officer and is hit by Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and hence the same is not admissible in evidence before this court.
36. During cross-examination, PW-1 also admitted that the video recordings have not captured any incident of misbehaviour. Therefore, there is no independent evidence to show that the accused Hari om wilfully concealed his identity and gave false information to PW-1 about his identity by claiming to be a lieutenant in the Indian Army.
Page No. 13 of 14 TC 509/2025STATE Vs. HARI OM PANDEY & Anr.
(Kotwali Traffic Circle)
37. Accordingly, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 179 M.V. Act beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
38. From the above-mentioned discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused Hari Om under Section 185, 3/181, 194C, 194D M.V. Act and accused Gaurav under Section 5/180MV Act. However, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused Hari Om with respect to the offence under Section 179 M.V. Act. Accordingly, the accused Hari Om stands convicted for the offences under Section 185, 3/181, 194C, 194D M.V. Act and acquitted for the offence under Section 179 M.V. Act. Further accused Gaurav stands convicted for the offence under Section 5/180 M. V. Act.
Announced in open court today i.e. 05.04.2025.
Digitally signed by
GOWRI
GOWRI REGHUNATH
REGHUNATH Date: 2025.04.05
16:19:31 +0530
(GOWRI REGHUNATH)
JMFC-10/Central/THC
05.04.2025
It is certified that this judgment contains 14 pages and Digitally signed each page bears my signatures. GOWRI by GOWRI REGHUNATH REGHUNATH Date: 2025.04.05 16:19:36 +0530 (GOWRI REGHUNATH) JMFC-10/Central/THC 05.04.2025 Page No. 14 of 14