Delhi District Court
State vs . : Prem Pal Singh on 14 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF VINOD KUMAR:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 03 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Prem Pal Singh
FIR No : 741/2015
U/s : 279/304A IPC & U/s 134 (a)/187, 104/177,56/192 M.V. Act
P.S. : I.P. Estate
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 300187/2016 2. Date of commission of offence : 26.11.2015 3. Date of institution of the case : 30.03.2016 4. Name of the complainant : State 5. Name of accused, parentage & : Prem Pal Singh S/o Sh. Dharamjit Singh 6. Offense complained or proved : U/s 279/304A IPC & U/s 134(a)/187, 104/177, 56/192 M.V. Act 7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 8. Date on which order was reserved : Not reserved 9. Final order : Acquitted 10. Date of final order : 14.11.2022 FIR No 741/2015 P.S. IP Estate State Vs. Prem Pal Singh Page 1 of 11
1. The accused is facing trial for offences u/s 279/304A IPC & U/s 134(a)/187, 104/177, 56/192 M.V. Act. The genesis of the prosecution story is that pursuant to receipt of information vide DD No.3A and 4A dated 26.11.2015 at about 01:45 am at Vikas Marg, Delhi Secretariat, the police went to spot of alleged occurrence where the alleged Tractor/Water Tanker bearing no. DL1E1743 and one car bearing No.DL12CE 9455 were found in accidental condition and it transpired that the accident was caused by the aforesaid Tractor/Water Tanker due to an accident occurred for changing lane without using any indicator. It also transpired that victim Suresh Chauhan (car driver) succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. During the course of investigation, the offending Tractor/Tanker alongwith the accidental were seized by the police. It also transpired that injuries sustained by victim Suresh Chauhan were grievous in nature. The postmortem of dead body of deceased Suresh Chauhan was also conducted and PMR was collected by the IO. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet for offences u/s 279/304A IPC & U/s 134(a)187, 104/177, 56/192 M.V. Act was submitted for trial of accused.
2. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offences was taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court and on the basis of material available on record, notice of accusation for offences u/s 279/304A IPC & U/s 134(a)187, 104/177, 56/192 M.V. Act was framed and served upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in all. The accused admitted DD No. 3A and 4 dated 26.11.2015, FIR No. 741/15, certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act, MLC of deceased, PM report of deceased photographs of spot, FSL report, notice u/s 133 M.V. Act to Lovekush Sharma and statement of Rakesh Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C. to the fact of identification of dead body.
4. Thereafter, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused. The accused did not lead FIR No 741/2015 P.S. IP Estate State Vs. Prem Pal Singh Page 2 of 11 evidence in his defence.
5. Ld. APP for State has contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts with the help of coherent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the alleged offences.
6. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the police. It has also been argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have not established either the identity of the accused as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle nor same has proved the commission of any rash or negligent driving by the accused. It has been contended that there exist serious doubts in the prosecution story and accused is liable to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
7. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the prosecution and defence and have also gone through the case record carefully.
8. Prior to delving into the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of par- ties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses.
8.1. PW1 Mr. Salim Khan is the eyewitness who deposed that at the time of accident, he was coming from Turkman Gate and was going towards his house at Ghaziabad. When he reached at ITO, he saw that crowd was gathered. He further deposed that he came to know that an accident had taken place and he called at 100 number. He further deposed that the driver of the Santro car was inside the car and he was stuck up badly. He further deposed that one water tanker was also standing near the spot.
8.2 PW 2 Sh. Ramesh Chander who was helper of the said tractor and deposed that on the intervening night on 25/26.11.2015 he was doing the irrigation work on the tractor-tanker driven by accused Prem Pal. He further deposed that they had taken the FIR No 741/2015 P.S. IP Estate State Vs. Prem Pal Singh Page 3 of 11 water from the submersible situated near Akshardham. He further deposed that they were coming from the side of Laxmi Nagar and going towards ITO. He further deposed that at about 01:45 AM one car had hit their tanker from back side and turned turtle. He further deposed that police reached at the spot after 15 - 20 minutes of the accident. He correctly identified the tractor by photographs shown to him in Court. At this stage he was cross examined by Ld. APP for state as he was resiling from the statement earlier made to police. He deposed that the accused was not driving the vehicle in zig zag manner and he did not ask him to drive in a responsible manner. He also deposed that the did not ask the accused to use indicator while changing lane. He was further cross examined by defence counsel and deposed that the accused was driving the vehicle at a slow speed.
8.3 PW-3 is SI Vijender Singh who deposed that on the intervening night of 25/26.11.2015, he was posted as ASI in PCR Central Zone. He further deposed that an information of road accident was received. He further deposed that he reached at the spot where one tractor number DL 1E 1743 with water tank and car number DL 12 CE 9455 was lying in accidental condition. He further deposed that the driver of the car was in injured condition. He further deposed that he took him to LNJP Hospital who was declared brought dead by the doctor.
8.4 PW4 Sh. Tasnimuddin Siddiqui who is mechanical inspector who deposed that on 26.01.2015, he mechanically inspected tractor bearing no. DL 1E 1743 alongwith water tank and one Santro car bearing number DL 12 CE 9455 at the request of IO SI Shri Kishan at PS I P Estate and he gave his detailed report Ex. PW 4/A and Ex. PW4/B. He further deposed that he found the damages on the body of both vehicles as mentioned in his reports and the vehicle was found fit for road test.
8.5 PW5 Sh. George Lal had deposed that the deceased Suresh Chauhan was his brother in law, who died in road accident. He further deposed that on 26.11.2015, he identified the dead body of his brother in law Suresh Chauhan vide statement Ex.
FIR No 741/2015 P.S. IP Estate State Vs. Prem Pal Singh Page 4 of 11PW5/A. He further deposed that after the postmortem, the dead body of Suresh Chauhan was handed over to him vide receipt Ex. PW5/B. 8.6 PW-6 Ct. Yogesh had deposed that on 26.11.2015, he alongwith Crime Team reached at spot i.e Vikas Marg near Delhi Sachivalaya where IO SI Amrish Giri met them. He further deposed that he got the photographs clicked at the spot from different angels on the instruction of IO and incharge crime team. He further deposed that the 16 photographs were got developed which he handed over the IO.
8.7 PW-7 Ct. Dharmender had deposed that on that day, he along with IO/SI Amrish Puri reached on spot i.e. near Delhi Sachivalaya, Vikas Marg, Delhi, where one tractor no. DL 1E 1743 and Santro car no. DL 12CE 9455 were lying in accidental condition. He further deposed that water tanker was annexed with the tanker. He further deposed that he came to know that injured had been taken to LNJP Hospital by PCR. He further deposed that IO prepared rukka and handed over to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to PS and got registered the case. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he again returned at spot alongwith copy of FIR and rukka and he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to IO. He further deposed that IO seized both the car and the tractor. He correctly identified both the vehicles in photographs in Court. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he denied the suggestions by the Ld. Defence counsel that he did not join the investigation with IO or he did not visit the spot.
8.8 PW-8 Rohit Kumar Sharma had deposed that in the month of December, 2015, he was working as Supervisor in M/s Smadhiya Construction Co. 4484/10, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, Delhi. He had further deposed that the tractor bearing no. DL 1E 1743 and its water tank carrier was involved being offending vehicle in present case and the same were seized by IO. He had further deposed that the company authorized be to get release the aforesaid vehicle on superdari vide authority letter. He had further deposed that on 03.12.2015, he got released the aforesaid tractor alongwith water tank carrier by the order of Hon'ble Court and at that time He had FIR No 741/2015 P.S. IP Estate State Vs. Prem Pal Singh Page 5 of 11 furnished the superdginama Ex. PW8/A. He had further deposed that he had submitted the photographs of tractor and water tanker carrier to the police. He had further deposed that the photographs of tractor no. Dl 1E 1743 alongwith water tank carrier already placed on record are shown to him and he correctly identified the same which is Ex. P2.
8.9 PW 9 is 1st IO/SI Amrish Giri had deposed that on 26.11.2015 he received DD No. 3A regarding road accident near ITO fly over in front of IP Estate police station. He had further deposed that he alongwith PW-7 Ct. Dharmender reached at the spot where one tractor DL 1E 1743 alongwith water tanker and car no. DL 12CE 9455 were lying in accidental condition. He had further deposed that the injured persons were already taken to the hospital. He had further deposed that he left PW-7 Ct. Dharmender at the spot and he reached at hospital and he collected the MLC of the injured. He had further deposed that the injured was declared brought dead. He had further deposed that he prepared rukka vide his endorsement Ex. PW9/A. He had further deposed that he returned at the spot and he handed over the rukka to PW-7 Ct. Dharmender for registration of FIR who went to PS. He had further deposed that he called crime team at the spot and photograph of the spot were clicked. He had further deposed that he inspected the site and prepared site plant Ex. PW9/C. He had further deposed that the tractor with water tanker and car were taken into the possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A. He had further deposed that the case property i.e. tractor with water tanker and car were deposited in malkhana. He had further deposed that further investigation of this case was transferred to MACT cell. He correctly identified the car and the tractor in photographs in Court. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he Deposed that no eyewitness met him on the spot and he did not record the statement of accused.
8.10 PW-10 Sh. Azad Anjum had deposed that he is registered owner of car no. DL 12CE 9455. He had further deposed that on 25.11.2015, he had given his aforesaid car to Suresh Chauhan who was going to attend a function of his friend. He had FIR No 741/2015 P.S. IP Estate State Vs. Prem Pal Singh Page 6 of 11 further deposed that on 26.11.2015, Sh. Suresh Chauhan was driving his aforesaid car. He further deposed that he came to know that one tractor trolley hit the car resulting of which the car got damged and Suresh Chauhan sustained injury and expired.
8.11 PW-11 is the 2nd IO/SI Shri Kishan had deposed that after registration of the FIR, the further investigation was marked to him. He went to mortuary and got conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased Suresh Chauhan. He collected the PM report. The dead body was identified by the LRs of deceased and it was handed over to them after recording their statement. He got mechanically inspected the tractor and car. He served notice to the tractor and car owner. He arrested the accused and recorded the statement of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed. He correctly identified the accused in Court. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that no CCTV camera was found to be installed at the spot or nearby.
9. I have carefully gone through the record and evidence. It is a settled law that Section 279 IPC punishes the act of a person driving or riding a vehicle on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. In the case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133(2006) DLT 562, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while discussing about the ingredients of section 279 has observed:-
"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".
Further, what would constitute rash and negligent act has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:-
FIR No 741/2015 P.S. IP Estate State Vs. Prem Pal Singh Page 7 of 11"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."
10. Besides this, it has also been upheld in various decisions that evidence of high speed simpliciter, is not ipso facto proof of rashness or negligence.
In the case of Rajiv Netra Panigrahi Vs. State of Orrisa decided on 20.07.1990, Hon'ble Orrisa High Court observed the following:-
"It is no doubt true, as contended on behalf of the petitioner and as supported by authorities, that high speed in driving of a vehicle does not by itself amount to rash and negligent driving. If the accused driver was driving the vehicle on the high- way and had negotiated the distance safely, it could not have been said that he was driving rashly or negligently because of the high speed."
In the case of Kishore Chand Joshi Vs. State decided on 12.11.2018 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed:-
"17. A witness can depose as to the manner of driving or speed at which the vehicle was being driven but not render an opinion on "rash and negligence". High speed by itself may not in each case be sufficient to hold that a driver is rash or neg- ligent. Speed alone is not the criterion for deciding the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan (Supra), also observed that: "The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court make it more than clear that a mere al- legation of high speed would not tantamount to rashness or negligence. In the present case also, I find that apart from the allegation that the truck was being driven at a very high speed there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner acted in a manner which could be regarded as rash or negligent."
FIR No 741/2015 P.S. IP Estate State Vs. Prem Pal Singh Page 8 of 11Further in Abdul Subhan (Supra), the decision of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish 1998 SCC (CRI) 1508 was also discussed in which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-
"3. Both the trial court and the appellate court held the respondent guilty for offences under Section 337, 338 and 304A IPC after recording a finding that the re- spondent was driving the truck at a "high speed". No specific finding has been recorded either by the trial court or by the first appellate court to the effect that the respondent was driving the truck either negligently or rashly. After holding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed", both the courts pressed into aid the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor to hold the respondent guilty.
4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what is meant by "high speed" in the facts and cir- cumstances of the case. 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 favor of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory excep- tions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitor".
10. 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 estab- lish the guilt of the accused.
FIR No 741/2015 P.S. IP Estate State Vs. Prem Pal Singh Page 9 of 1111. In the present case, it is note-worthy to point out the fact that in order to establish the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined as many only one eyewitness i.e. PW-2 Ramesh Chander to the alleged occurrence. PW-2 Ramesh Chander has turned hostile in Court and his testimony is of no avail to establish the prosecution story as he has deposed that the accused was not driving the vehicle in zig-zag manner and that the accused was driving the vehicle at a slow speed. Therefore, there is nothing as per the testimony of this witness so as to establish the existence of culpable rash or negligent act on the part of accused. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are either the formal witnesses or the official witnesses and as such their testimonies even if taken together are not sufficient in establishing the guilt of the accused. These facts constrain this Court to draw an inference that the investigation of the case was also not conducted in a proper manner and casts serious doubts on the story of prosecution and benefit of same deserves to be given to accused.
15. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the consid- ered view that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place, the accused was driving the vehicle no. DL 1E 1743 in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or public safety or others, therefore, accused deserves to be acquitted for offence u/s 279 IPC. The pros- ecution has also failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given, date, time and place, the accused dashed his vehicle with deceased Suresh Chauhan, thereby causing his death by doing rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, therefore, the accused also deserves to be acquitted for offence u/s 304A IPC. The accused is accordingly acquitted for offences u/s 279/304A IPC and 134(a)187 MV Act and 107/177 CMVR and 56/192 MV Act.
16. The bail bonds, if any furnished by accused at the time of commencement of trail stands canceled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be re- turned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands canceled. Case FIR No 741/2015 P.S. IP Estate State Vs. Prem Pal Singh Page 10 of 11 property if any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be con- signed to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court On 14th Day of November, 2022 (Vinod Kumar) MM-03(Central),THC,Delhi FIR No 741/2015 P.S. IP Estate State Vs. Prem Pal Singh Page 11 of 11