Delhi District Court
State vs Rajan Kumar on 18 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Shivaji Anand)
SC/53196/2016
STATE
Through Police Station Officer Sultan Puri
NORTH WEST DELHI
VERSUS
Rajan Kumar
S/o Sh. Jagdish Chand
R/o House No. Q-10/177, Mangolpuri Delhi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ld. Addl. PP for State : Sh. K D Pachauri, Ld. Addl. PP for the
State.
Ld. counsel for accused persons : Sh. Sachin Vats
FIR No. : 163/2016
Police Station : Mangolpuri
Under Section : 307/353/333/186 IPC & 185 M V Act
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 18.04.2026) Date of order : 18.04.2026
1. Facts of the case of prosecution in brief are that on 29.01.2016, at about 11.40 a.m., at Road No.43. from the side of Rani Bagh towards Mangol Puri. Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Mangol Puri, accused caused hurt by hitting vehicle LGV (Tata Chhota Hathi) against Ct. Vivek with such intention or SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 1 of 39 knowledge and under such circumstances and if by that act accused would have caused the death of said Ct. Vivek and accused would have been guilty of murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
Also, within the jurisdiction of PS Mangol Puri, accused voluntarily obstructed Ct. Vivek and the complainant ASI Ramesh Singh, both public servants in the commission of their public functions, while doing vehicle checking in the area, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 186 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
Also, accused within the jurisdiction of PS Mangol Puri used criminal force on Ct. Vivek, a public servant in discharge of his duties as such public servant, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 353 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
2. Thereafter, prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case.
3. PW1 ASI Veena deposed that he relied upon the FIR of the present case which is Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point A, endorsement made by him on the rukka Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point A and certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act given by him for the correctness of FIR Ex. PW1/D bears his signature at point A. SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 2 of 39
4. PW1 ASI Veena deposed that in addition to his earlier statement recorded on 20.09.2016, he deposed that on 29.01.2026, she was working as Duty Officer and his duty hourse were from 08.00 AM to 04.00 PM. On that day, at 11:56 AM, an information was received regarding an accident done by a vehicle "Chota Hathi" in which two police persons were injured and the said offending vehicle had been apprehended and that information was recorded as DD No. 19A and it was marked to SI Sandeep for further action. It was also submitted that on 12.03.2016, another information was received which was regarding a traffic constable hit by a vehicle bearing no. DL-1LM-1782 and that the injured had been shifted to a hospital. That information was also reduced into writing as DD No. 20A and that day, he had brought the DD register having said DD entries. The true attested copies of same were already on record. The copy of DD No. 19A was already Ex. PW15/DA(OSR) and copy of DD No. 20A was exhibited as Ex. PW1/E.
5. PW 2 Ct. Praveen deposed that on 29.01.2016 at Ashok Vihar Traffic Circle at Anukampa Point on Road no. 43 T Point, in front of DTC bus Depot at around 11:40 am, accused were driving a vehicle TATA Ace bearing DL 1LM 1782 and she were coming from the side of Rani Bagh in very dangerous and rough manner and when she were signalled by Ct. Vivek, who alongwith other staff members had departed from PS for checking vide DD no. 10 Ex PW 2/A (also Ex PW 11/B), to stop your vehicle for checking by waving his hand, accused initially slowed the vehicle and when Ct. Vivek tried to come near vehicle SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 3 of 39 to check out the papers, accused accelerated the vehicle and deliberately hit against Ct Vivek due to which his body tossed 2- 3 times and struck against left footpath and accused fled with his vehicle towards Anukampa Industrial Area.
6. PW3 Ct. Raj Kumar deposed that on 02.02.2016, he was posted at PS Mangol Puri and on that day, on the instructions of the IO SI Sandeep, he collected one sealed pulanda from the malkhana of PS Mangol Puri in the present case vide RC No. 25/21/16 and deposited the same at FSI. Rohini and on return, handed over the receipt to MHC(M).
On 12.04.2016, while posted as such, on the instructions of the IO SI Sandeep, he collected three sealed pulandas alongwith one sample seal from the malkhana of PS Mangol Puri in the present case vide RC No. 88/12/16 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini and on return, handed over the receipt to MHC(M). the exhibits were not tempered, as long as it remained in his custody.
7. PW4 Ct. Rakesh deposed that on 29.01.2016, he was posted at PS Mangol Puri and on that day, after attending a call vide DD No. 20-A, he was returning to the PS and SI Sandeep met him and Road No. 43 near Anukampa Chambri and on his instructions, he took accused Rajan, present in the court that day (correctly identified) to SGM Hospital where he medically examined and doctor handed over to him one sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of Hospital having the blood sample of the accused and on return, handed over the MLC and sealed pulanda SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 4 of 39 containing the blood sample of accused to Sl Sandeep. The sealed pulanda of the blood sample of accused was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A bearing his signature at point A.
8. PW5 Dr. Ajay Kumar deposed that on 29.01.2016, I was posted as CMO at SGM Hospitasl, Mangol Puri and on that day under his supervision, Rajan S/o Jagdish Chand, male, 39 years, brought by Ct. Rakesh, was medically examined by Dr. Praveen. No fresh injury was detected at the time of medical examination. Blood sample of Rajan was sealed and handed over to the police. MLC is Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A and that of Dr. Praveen at point B, whose signature and handwriting He identified having seen him writing and signing on many occasion in official capacity.
9. PW6 Pankaj Shah, CMO deposed that on 29.01.2016, at about 11.58 pm, patient Vivek Mathur S/o Ajeet Singh, presented with alleged history of road traffic accident, complained pain and bleeding from face, right knee unable to stand and walk, pain of upper teeth and mouth. After initial examination, he had mentioned the injuries that he found on the patient under the head, local examination CLW over chin, right eyebrow, lower lid, swelling and tenderness present around right knee, abrasion noted over the right temporal region and multiple abrasion over both hands. After giving initial treatment, patient was referred to Orthopedic, Surgical, Dental Surgeons respectively for further management and treatment. The said MLC is Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point A. SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 5 of 39 He had worked with Dr. Prabhat (Surgeon) who was working as Senior Resident, Surgery at that point of time and Dr. Ripu Daman, Senior Resident (Orthopedics). Dr. Prabhat examined the patient and after giving the treatment, he was referred by him for Higher Center for neurosurgical opinion. The endorsement on the said MLC bears the signatures of Dr. Prabhat at point B. Dr. Ripu Daman had made endorsement on the back side of the said MLC and after examining the X-ray plates of the patient, opined the injury to be grievous in nature (fracture of Patella-Knee cap). The said MLC bears his signatures at point C. He had worked with both the said doctors and had seen them writing and signing in the course of his official duties. As such, he recognize their signatures.
10. PW7 Mukesh came and stated that he was taxi driver. He stated himself on the spot for about 10.00 am to 10.25 AM. He also stated that he saw traffic police personnel being pushed off by the vehicle Tata Ace. He stated that he shifted injured traffic personnel in the private vehicle to some hospital but this witness failed to identify the accued, hence, prosecution declared the witness as hostile and cross examined him. In his cross, he admitted that the no. of the offending vehicle might be DL-1LM-1482 Tata Ace. He further stated that the driver had slowed down the vehicle but when the police official was going towards for checking the driver had accelerated the speed. He did not admit the fact that he told the police official that driver of offending had gone towards Anukampa Chambery. Counsel for SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 6 of 39 the accused also cross examined him wherein he state that he had seen the accident from a distance of about 100 meters. In his cross examination, he further stated that accused had run away from the spot.
11. PW8 Dr Ripudaman Sharma deposed that on 29.01.2016, at about 11.58 pm, patient Vivek Mathur S/o Ajeet Singh, was presented with alleged history of road traffic accident, complained pain and bleeding from face, right knee unable to stand and walk, pain of upper teeth and mouth. After initial examination, Dr. Pankaj Shah had mentioned the injuries that he found on the patient under the head, local examination CLW over chin, right eyebrow, lower lid, swelling and tenderness present around right knee, abrasion noted over the right temporal region and multiple abrasion over both hands. After giving initial treatment, patient was referred to Orthopedic, Surgical and Dental Surgeons respectively for further management and treatment. The said MLC is already Ex.PW6/A. He had worked with Dr. Prabhat (Surgeon) who was working as Senior Resident, Surgery at that point of time. Dr. Prabhat examined the patient. His endorsement on the said MLC bears the signatures of Dr. Prabhat at point B. He had examined the patient and made endorsement on the back side of the said MLC and after examining the X-ray plates of patient and opined nature of injury as grevious.
12. PW9 ASI Ramesh Singh deposed that on 29.01.2016, he was posted at Ashok Vihar Traffic Circle at Anukampa Point as SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 7 of 39 ZO, and on that day, he was on duty with other staff members namely HC Vijay, Ct. Dharmender and Ct. Vivek. They were busy in vehicle checking duty at the T-point on Road No. 43, in front of DTC Bus Depot. At about 11.40 am, a vehicle Tata bearing no. DL1LM-1782 came from the side of Rani Bagh and it was being driven by the accused whose name came to be known later on as Rajan Kumar. The driver of the said vehicle was come driving the said vehicle dangerously in a rough manner and he instructed Ct. Vivek to signal him to stop. Ct. Vivek signaled him to stop by waiving his hand and at this, firstly, the said driver slowed down the vehicle and at this Ct. Vivek moved ahead in order to check out the papers, but on seeing Ct. Vivek coming to his side, the said driver again speeded up the vehicle deliberately/voluntarily and hit against Ct. Vivek so badly that his body tossed up 2-3 times and after that he was thrown against the left footpath which was a bit higher in height than the road. As we got attentive and saw that after hitting Ct. Vivek, the accused Rajan Kumar speeded up the vehicle towards Anukampa, Industrial Area and fled the spot. Ct. Dharmender was also there and he alerted him to catch him up. Ct. Dharmender immediately took a lift on a two wheeler and followed him up. In the meantime, he got stopped a private vehicle/car and made Ct. Vivek to Bhagwan Mahavir hospital and while he was taking him to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, he received a call on his mobile that Ct. Dharmender had apprehended the said driver alongwith the offending vehicle near Anukampa Industrial Area after chasing him down. He instructed Ct. Dharmender not to let him go and the vehicle. He admitted SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 8 of 39 Ct. Vivek in the emergency of Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. In the meantime, he had also made a PCR call to the said effect so that the PCR may reach at the place where the driver was under
apprehension. After admitting Ct. Vivek in the hospital, he also left for the said place alongwith the IO SI Sandeep as SI Sandeep had arrived at the hospital in pursuance to the PCR call that he had made. He alongwith SI Sandeep reached at Anukampa Industrial Area where Ct. Dharmender had already apprehended the accused and the offending vehicle. After reaching there, SI Sandeep recorded his statement Ex.PW9/A bearing his signatures at point A. In the meantime, HC Vijay, PCR had already reached at the said place. One public witness who was also present when they were doing vehicle checking. IO SI Sandeep effected the arrest of accused Rajan Kumar vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/B bearing my signatures at point A and personal search of the accused was carried out vide memo Ex.PW9/C bearing his signatures at point A. The vehicle Tata Ace bearing no. DL1LM-1782 was seized vide Ex.PW9/D bearing his signatures at point A. Accused Rajan was sent to hospital and his blood sample was preserved in a pulanda sealed with the seal of SGMH MANGOL PURI and IO seized the same. He had also produced the broken side mirror of the offending vehicle which the IO seized vide the same seizure memo already Ex.PW9/D. Accused Rajan was present in the court that day (correctly identified). Accused Rajan had voluntarily struck against Ct. Vivek with the said speeding vehicle in order to cause his death. He can identify the said offending vehicle and the broken side mirror if shown to him. (At this stage. Ld. Defence counsel SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 9 of 39 submits that he does not dispute the identity of the said case property seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW9/D). In his cross examination, he deposed that no barricading was done at the spot. He voluntarily deposed that no barricading can be done at the T Point. They all team members went to the point by using public transport and not personal vehicles. The spot i.e. T Point was not a very busy place. It is correct that near about 500 meters to 1 kms, from the spot, there is a petrol pump, CNG station and DCP office. It is correct that the road was two sided and has a divider i.e. for both the ways. The road has such a width that two/three vehicles can pass over there at one time. No CCTV was installed at the spot. He don't know, if CCTV was installed at _CNG station, petrol pump or DCP office. It is correct that traffic was moving on the road at that time. He did not know the accused prior to the incident. At the time of accident, onlookers were there and they left the spot after some time. He did not inform the DCP office. He voluntarily deposed that he had already called at 100 number, therefore, there was no need to inform DCP office. He don't remember the exact time, when he made the call at 100 number. However, immediately after the incident, he called at 100 number. It is not in his knowledge, whether Ct. Dharmender also called at 100 number regarding the incident. He had stated the IO while recording his statement that the injured had gone to check the documents of the offending vehicle, confronted with his statement Ex. PW9/A, where it was not so recorded. He had stated the IO while recording his statement that the body of injured tossed up 2-3 times and after that he was thrown against the left footpath which was a bit SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 10 of 39 higher in height than the road, confronted with his. statement Ex. PW9/A, where it was not so recorded. He had stated the IO while recording his statement that Ct. Dharmender immediately took a lift on a two wheeler, confronted with his statement Ex. PW9/A, where it is not so recorded. He had not stated the IO while recording my statement that he got stopped a private vehicle/car and made Ct. Vivek to Bhagwan Mahavir hospital. He had stated the IO while recording his statement that Ct. Dharmender telephonically informed him that the accused has been apprehended while he was removing the injured to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, confronted with his statement Ex. PW9/A, where it was not so recorded. He had not stated the IO while recording his statement that he had also made a PCR call to the said effect so that PCR may reach at the spot. He had not stated to the IO in his statement that HC Vijay and PCR vehicle had already reached at the said place. He had also not stated to the IO in hi statement that one public person was also present when they were doing vehicle checking. His statement was recorded only once. He denied that since the injured is a police official, hence, he had deposed falsely to favour him at the instance of IO. He further denied that the accused did not try to flee away from the spot & denied that accused had voluntarily stopped his vehicle after the alleged accident & further denied that the injured is a police official, hence, he cooked up a false story and indulged him in a non-bailable offence to serve the accused a severe punishment, or that the alleged incident was a general incident and not an intentional one. He further denied that the accused had given a signal to the police official by blinking his left side SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 11 of 39 indicator of his vehicle for stopping & further denied that suddenly, another overspeeding vehicle came from the left hand side of the vehicle of the accused by overtaking his vehicle, or that all of a sudden, the victim tried to save himself from the said another vehicle and got in contact in front of the vehicle of the accused & denied that the accused applied the sudden brake of his vehicle, however, he could not be able to stop his vehicle due to less distance between his vehicle and the injured, hence, the injured received injury.
He deposed that he don't remember the exact time, during which the IO remained in the hospital and don't remember the time, when he left the hospital with the IO. His statement was recorded at the spot.
13. PW-10 Ct Dharmender deposed that on 29.01.2016, he was posted at Ashok VIhar Traffic Circle at Anukampa Point as Constable. He deposed that he chased vehicle of accused by taking lift on a two wheeler and injured Ct. Vivek was shifted to Mahavir Hospital by PW-9 with the help of PW -7 who had witnessed the incident, by taking lift in a car.
14. PW-10 stopped vehicle of accused near Anukampa Chowk Chambery as there was traffic and he apprehended accused and informed about his apprehension to his team. Meanwhile HC Vijay also arrived at spot. At the same time when PW-9 was taking Ct. Vivek to Hospital he received the information of his apprehension. Thereafter, he admitted Ct. Vivek in the hospital vide MLC Ex PW 6/A in which he was advised x-ray of knee SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 12 of 39 joint AP lateral view and PW-9 called at 100 number which was recorded vide DD no. 19A Ex PW 15/ DA and the report of admission of the injured was recorded vide DD no. 20 A EX PW 20/E on which PW-15 reached at the hospital and recorded statement of PW-9 Ex PW 9/A and PW 9 & PW 15 went to the spot where PW 15 prepared rukka Ex PW 15/A and sent Ct. Jaiveer for registration of FIR.
15. PW11 Inspector Sanjay Kumar deposed that on 29.01.2016, he was posted as Traffic Inspector and he was discharging the duty of Supervisory officer regarding the duties at different traffic points in the area of Ashok Vihar Circle. On that day, at traffic point, near Anukampa Banquet Hall, Parvana Road, Ct. Vivek Mathur, No. 6083/T was deputed alongwith other traffic staff at the said point.
That day, MHC(M), Ashok Vihar Circle had produced the duty roaster and the relevant entry in the said regard was at serial no. 10. The copy of Duty Roaster is Ex.PW11/A (running into two pages), bearing his signatures at point A (OSR).
That day, MHC(M) Traffic Circle Ashok Vihar also produced the DD register vide which departure of duty was made by the traffic police officials on 29.01.2016 at about 8.10 am, including Ct. Vivek, no. 6083/Traffic, vide DD No. 10. The copy of the said DD was Ex.PW11/B (OSR).
16. PW12 ASI Suresh Kumar deposed that on 29.01.2016, he was posted at PS Mangol Puri as MHC(M). On that day, SI Sandeep deposited with him one Tata Ace bearing no. DL-
SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 13 of 39 ILM-1782 with its key and blood sample of accused Rajan sealed with the seal of SGMH MANGOL PURI DELHI alongwith the sample seal which were deposited in malkhana vide entry no. 3299 in Register no. 19, copy of the same is Ex.PW12/A (running into two pages) (OSR).
On 01.02.2016, SI Sandeep deposited one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of SK vide entry no. 3305 of Register no. 19 which is Ex.PW12/B (OSR).
On 05.04.2016, SI Sandeep deposited one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of SGMH MANGOL PURI DELHI vide entry no. 3531 of Register no. 19 which is Ex.PW12/C (OSR).
On 22.12.2016, the said Tata Ace was released to Rajan Kumar on Superdari and he made entry against Entry no. 3299 in Ex.PW12/A. On 02.02.2016, vide RC No. 25/21/16 the sealed parcel was sent to FSL through Ct. Rajkumar having blood sample of accused Rajan and he made relevant entry in Register no. 19 against entry no. 3299. On 21.04.2016, the FSL result bearing no. 2016/Chemistry/849 was handed over to SI Sandeep.
On 12.04.2016, vide RC No. 88/21/16, three sealed parcels were sent to FSL vide FSL No. 2016/Bio-2708 and on 01.09.2016, Ct. Dinesh had brought back the FSL result and the sealed parcels. He made entry in Register no. 19 at the relevant place against entry no. 3305 already Ex.PW12/B. The result was handed over to the IO.
That day he had also brought Register no. 21 containing copies of the Road Certificates, 25/21/16 and 88/21/16, the said copies are Ex.PW12/D and Ex.PW12/E (OSR). Case property SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 14 of 39 remained intact and untempered while it remained in his custody.
17. PW13 Sh Devender Kumar deposed that on 04.02.2016, at the request of SI Sandeep Kumar, he conducted the mechanical inspection of Tata Ace Tempo bearing registration no. DLILM-1782 at PS Mangol Puri. During inspection, he found following fresh damages:
1. Front side extra fitted safety guard left side portion bended.
2. Front windscreen glass, left side portion broken.
The vehicle was found fit for road test. His detailed report in this regard is Ex.P13/A bearing his signatures at point A.
18. PW14 Ct. Vivek deposed that on 29.01.2016, he was posted at Ashok Vihar Traffic Circle at Anukampa Point at Road No. 43 and on that day, he was on duty with other staff members namely HC Vijay, Ct. Dharmender and ASI Ramesh. They were busy in Challaning the vehicles at Intersection on the road from Rani Bagh towards Bal Bharti School, Near Anukampa Chambery. At about 11.40 am, an LMV vehicle Tata Ace, he do not remember the registration number, came from the side of Rani Bagh and it was being driven by the driver of the said vehicle in such a manner as was driving Zig-Zag, rashly and was changing the lane while driving. He and ZO signaled the vehicle to stop at a distance of around 50-60 meters by waiving their hand and at this, the driver of the said vehicle slowed down the vehicle and he proceeded towards that vehicle sensing that he would stop the vehicle but he all of a sudden, gave acceleration to the vehicle and deliberately hit him , as a result of which, he SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 15 of 39 fell down. He received injuries and his teeth were also broken and knee patella crushed badly and he became unconscious. He regained his consciousness in Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. From the said hospital, he was shifted to MAX hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and he was kept in ICU. He was operated on 30.01.2016. His statement was recorded at his home on 01.02.2016. His blood stained uniform was taken into possession by the police in two pulandas.
Thereafter, Ld. Addl. PP for the state requests to put leading question to which he deposed that it is correct that seizure memo Ex.PW14/A bears his signatures at point A. (At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP requested to cross examine the witness as he is not revealing the complete facts to which witness states that it is correct that when his statement was recorded, he narrated the number of the offending vehicle as DL-1LM-1782. It is correct that the driver and the offending vehicle had been apprehended by that time and the number of the said vehicle, he came to know from the other police staff who came to see me in the hospital. That day, he had forgotten the number of the said vehicle due to lapse of time. It is correct that the number of the offending vehicle was DL1LM-1782.
He can identify the said offending vehicle and the uniform if shown to him. Thereafter, Ld. Defence counsel submits that he does not dispute the identity of the said vehicle.
Thereafter, MHC(M) had produced two sealed pulandas on which it is written Parcel no. 1 and Parcel no. 2 both having the seal of "FSL Am.R DELHI". Parcel no. 1 was opened and one pant and one shirt are taken out. From Parcel no. 2, one jacket SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 16 of 39 was taken out. All the said three articles were shown to the witness which the witness correctly identifies. All the said three articles are collectively Ex.P1. XXX by Sh. Sachin Vats, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
They were doing normal vehicle checking without erecting the barricades. It is correct that the point where they were doing checking was located on a two way road separated by a divider. One road as much wide as three vehicles can pass simultaneously. It is correct that our checking point was on the road nearby CNG Station, DCP Office and Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. The CCTV cameras may have been installed at CNG Station and at DCP Office. But he had not checked personally. The spot where they were doing checking is a busy road. It is correct that he had told the IO in his statement that the driver of the said vehicle was changing lane and driving in a Zig Zag manner. (Confronted with the statement Ex.PW14/DA where it was not so recorded in these words) had not stated in his statement to the IO that he had signaled the vehicle to stop from a distance about 50-60 meters He voluntarily deposed that he told that signalled from some distance.
The registration number of the offending vehicle was told to him by his companions who had come to meet him in MAX Hospital. The driver of the offending vehicle was not known to him prior to the incident Besides vehicle papers, they also check the load of the commercial vehicle. The offending vehicle was not over loaded. He denied that he had cooked up a false story and had leveled false allegations against the accused in order make him serve severe punishment. He denied that the incident SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 17 of 39 was a general incident and not an intentional one. He further denied that the accused had given a signal to him by blinking his left side indicator of his vehicle for stopping & further denied that suddenly, another over-speeding vehicle came from the left hand side of the vehicle of the accused by overtaking his vehicle, or that all of a sudden, he tried to save himself from the said another vehicle and came in front of the vehicle of the accused and the accused could not stop the vehicle. He denied that the accused applied the sudden brake of his vehicle, however, he was not able to stop his vehicle due to less distance between his vehicle and him, hence, he received injury. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
19. PW-15 SI Sandeep deposed that on 29.01.2026, he was posted at PS Mangolpuri as SI and ont hat day, on receipt of DD No. 19A, he alongwith Ct. Jaiveer went to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital wherein he met injured Vivek and ASI Ramesh, injured was declared unfit for statement by doctor and thereafter, he recorded statement of ASI Ramesh, who was in hospital and same was already Ex. PW9/A bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, he came to the spot i.e. Anukampa Chambry, Road No. 43, Delhi alongwith ASI Ramesh and Ct Jaiveer. At the spot, he met HC Vijay alongwith Ct. Dharmender who had already apprehended the accused Rajan, who was present in the court that day (correctly identified).
Immediately after reaching at the spot, he prepared the tehrir Ex. PW 15/A bearing his signatures at point A, on the statement already recorded Ex. PW9/A and handed it over to Ct.
SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 18 of 39 Jaiveer for the registration of the FIR. After that Ct. Rakesh came on the spot from PS Mangol Puri. He handed over the accused Rajan to him for his medical examination. He went away to get his medical examination conducted. He made local enquiries and prepared the site plan at the instance of ASI Ramesh, the site plan is Ex. PW15/B bearing his signatures at point A and Al on its back side. Thereafter, Ct. Rakesh came back to the spot after getting the medical examination conducted of accused Rajan and Ct. Jaiveer also arrived at the spot with the copy of FIR and original tehrir. Ct. Jaiveer handed over to him the copy of FIR and original tehrir to him and Ct. Rakesh handed over to him the MLC of accused Rajan alongwith the preserved blood sample of the accused which he seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/A bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Gt. Rakesh and relieved him. Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Rajan which is Ex. PW15/C bearing signatures of accused Rajan at point A and his signatures at point A1. Thereafter, he effected the arrest of accused Rajan vide arrest memo already Ex. PW9/B bearing his signatures at point. C and personal search of the accused was also carried out vide memo already Ex. PW9/C bearing his signatures at point C. Thereafter, he seized the vehicle make TATA Ace, number of which he do not remember alongwith its key vide seizure memo already Ex, PW9/D bearing his signatures at point C and he seized the RC of the said vehicle and the DL of the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/D bearing his signatures at point A (The said vehicle and the said documents have already been SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 19 of 39 released on superdari and Ld. Defence counsel has no objection, if the said vehicle was not produced before the court for identification purpose). He recorded the statement of one public witness namely Mukesh. He recorded the statement of other witnesses (police officials). He got deposited the said vehicle in the malkhana and deposited the case property in the malkhana. After bringing the accused to PS, he was lodged in the lock up. On the next day, the accused was sent to JC. He seized the torn uniform of Ct. Vivek, the injured vide seizure memo already Ex. PW14/A bearing his signatures at point B. He collected the blood sample of the victim vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/E bearing his signatures at point A. He recorded his statement as well. He sent the exhibits to the FSL. He collected the PCR form and obtained the final result on the MLC of the injured. He got done the mechanical inspection of the said vehicle done. He collected the previous challans of the said offending vehicle by making the request. Ex. PW15/F bearing his signatures at point A and filed it on record. The said previous challans were three in number and same are mark PW15/G (colly). He collected the certified copy of the duty roaster of the police staff that were on the duty at the time of incident on Road No. 43, Near Anukampa Chamery vide request Ex. PW15/H and the certified copy of the duty roaster is already Ex. PW11/A. He collected the 195 Cr.P.C complaint from ACP Sh. Madan Gopal and placed it on record. After completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheeet. Thereafter, he collected the FSL result and filed it in the court.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he cannot say if there was any interpolation or not in DD no. dated 29/1/2016.
SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 20 of 39 The attested copy of the said DD no. 19A is ExPW15/DA and the same was brought to the notice of the witness who that even after seeing this document, he cannot say if there was any interpolation or not in the original DD no. 19A. He deposed that he reached at the hospital along with Ct. Jaibir at around 12:15 p.m. He recorded the statement of ASI Ramesh at about 01:00 PM thereafter, he reached at the spot at about 01:35 PM recorded the statement of police officials at the spot at about 04:00-04:30 PM. He recorded the statement of Mukesh before 04:00 PM. Mukesh left the spot at about 03:45 PM and deposed that it is correct that name of Mukesh (PW7) and his presence at the spot does not find mention in the tehrir, statement of witnesses recorded at the spot or in the changesheet & denied that his name does not find mention in the said documents as he is a planted witness at that he was not at the spot. He recorded the statement of Ct. Dharmender twice but he do not remember on which he recorded his second statement. He denied that there is interpolation at point A on the statement recorded by him of Ct. Dharmender under Section 161 Cr.P.C which is mark PW15/DA1. He denied that no disclosure statement was given by the accused or that he was deposing falsely to favour the victim being police official or that he had filed the challan under non bailable section though the said incident is a normal incident.
20. PW16 Dr. Nageshwar Kumar Nagar deposed that he was working as Incharge of Radio Diagnosis Deptt in Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitam Pura, Delhi. He had been deputed by the MS of the said hospital in place of Dr. Ishaan, who has left the SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 21 of 39 hospital and his present whereabout are not available with the hospital. He deposed that he had perused MLC no. 300/16, CR No. 9454 of the patient Vivek dated 29/1/2016 and the said patient was advised X ray knee joint right AP lateral view and in pursuance to the same X Ray was conducted by the Radiographer and reported by Sr. resident Radio diagnosis Dr. Ishaan. He deposed that he had perused the 3 X Ray plates lying in record and the X Ray report number 76 dated 29/1/2016 and on the back side of it. Dr. Ishaan SR Radiology opined that the said patient was having fracture of right patella bone. The said X Ray report along with the X Ray plates are ExPW16/A bearing signatures of Dr. Ishaan at point A. The injury suffered by patient was grievous in nature. He further deposed that he can identify the signatures of Dr. Ishan as he had seen him writing and signing in the course of his official duties.
21. PW17 HC Vijay Kumar deposed that on 29.01.2016, he was posted at Ashok Vihar, Traffic Circle at Anukampa Point at Road no. 43. On that day, he was on duty with other staff members namely Ct. Vivek, Ct. Dharmender and ASI Ramesh who was ZO. They were busy in challing the vehicles near bus depot, T-point (Anuikampa Point). At about 11:40 AM one LMV (light motor vehicle, TATA Ace bearing no. DL 1LM 1782 came from the side of Rani Bagh and it was being driven by the driver of the said vehicle rashly in a zig zag manner frequently changing the lane while driving. ZO ASI Ramesh signaled Ct. Vivek to get the said vehicle stopped and Ct. Vivek waived towards the said vehicle to stop. The said vehicle was slowed SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 22 of 39 down by the driver at a distance of 15-20 meters from Ct. Vivek giving the impression that it was going to stop and when Ct. Vivek headed towards the said vehicle, the driver of the said vehicle gave acceleration to the said vehicle and hít Ct. Vivek. Ct. Vivek fell down and as a result of direct hit, from the said vehicle he was tossed at a distance and the said vehicle sped off from the spot. Ct. Dharmender took lift on a private motorcycle to chase the said vehicle. He saw him bleeding from his face all around. I helped other police officials in shifting him to the hospital in a private vehicle. A51 Ramesh went along with Ct. Vivek to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital which was nearby. He also followed Ct. Dharmender towards the side where the offending vehicle had sped off. When he reached near Anukamba Chambery, he found that Ct. Dharmender had already got stopped that vehicle and the driver of the said vehicle had been apprehended. After sometime, ASI Ramesh came to Anukampa Chambery and SI Sandeep along with other staff also arrived there. On inquiries, the name of the driver of the said vehicle came to be known as Rajan Kumar. Accused Rajan Kumar was present today in the court (Correctly identified by the witness). Accused Rajan Kumar was taken for medical examination by Ct. Rakesh. Ct. Rakesh had brought the pullanda, blood sample of the accused Rajan which he had handed over to SI Sandeep. SI Sandeep seized it vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/A bearing his signature at point C. SI Sandeep effected the arrest of accused Raja Kumar vide arrest memo already Ex. PW9/B and personal search of the accused was also carried out vide memo already Ex. PW9/C. Both bearing his signature at point D. The offending i.e. SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 23 of 39 TATA Ace, bearing no. DL 1LM 1782 was seized by the IO in their presence vide memo already Ex. PW9/D bearing his signatures at point D. IO recorded his statement. He can identify the said offending vehicle if shown to him (The identity of the said offending vehicle is in disputed by the ld. Defence counsel and it is given Ex. P-2).
He deposed that they all on duty on the said point on that day went through public transport upto the said point. On that day, they were intercepting the vehicles for checking without barricading. He denied that the T-point where they were doing vehicle checking was frequented by much traffic. He voluntarily deposed that only during the time when the nearby schools get on and off, the volume of traffic becomes high. It is correct that the place where the said incident had happened is surrounded by District DCP Office, CNG Pump and a Petrol Pump, Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital at varying distances. DCP office is at a distance of one kilometer and CNG Pump is at a distance of 500 meters from the said spot. It is correct that the spot is on a two sided road separated by a divider in between. It is correct that each road on each side of the divider is so wide so as to accommodate the vehicles at a time. It is correct that generally the CCTV cameras are put up at DCP office, CNG Pump and petrol pump. He voluntarily deposed that but he cannot say whether the CCTV cameras were put up or not at the said points so referred by him. He had no idea whether IO tried to collect any CCTV footage from the said points in the present case and denied that at the time when the said vehicle was signaled to stop, the road was frequented with heavy traffic. He and his SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 24 of 39 team members were not knowing the accused previously i.e. prior to the incident. After the incident, only 1-2 passersby got stopped. He voluntarily deposed that they had immediately shifted the injured to the hospital. As far as he know, he did not record the statement of any passersby in his presence or that of any public person. Regarding the said incident, they made the PCR call, but had not given the information to the nearby DCP office.
He had told the factum of Ct. Vivek being tossed over after the impact. (Confronted with his statement Ex. PW17/DA where it was not so recorded). He had told the IO that Ct. Dharmender went to chase the offending vehicle after taking lift on a private vehicle. (Confronted with his statement Ex. PW17/DA where it is not so recorded).
He and Ct. Dharmender had not noted down the name and number of the private vehicle on which Ct. Dharmender took lift. Neither he nor Ct. Dharmender asked the driver of private vehicle to join the investigation. He voluntarily deposed that the said driver of the private vehicle had already left when he reached to Ct. Dharmender.
He denied that the accused did not try to flee away from the spot or that the accused had voluntarily stopped his vehicle after the said incident. His statement was recorded by the IO in PS on the same day of incident at about 5:00 PM. They remained at the spot till 5:00 PM. He do not remember if IO had recorded the statement of any witness so long as we remained at the spot. He do not remember the exact time when IO effected the arrest of the accused, however, the same was effected before 5:00 PM. He SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 25 of 39 do not know whether IO got intimated the family members of the accused with regard to his arrest. He denied that since the injured is a police official, hence, he had deposed falsely to favour him at the instance of the IO. He denied that since the injured is a police official, hence, he cooked up a false story with IO and indulged the accused in a non-bailable offence to serve the sever punishment. He denied that the incident was a general accident and not an intentional one & further denied that the accused had given a signal to the police officials by blinking his left indicator of his vehicle for stopping. He further denied that suddenly another accelerating vehicle came from the left hand side of the vehicle of accused by over taking his vehicle & denied that all of a sudden, the victim tried to save himself from the said another vehicle and got in contact in front of the vehicle of the accused. He further denied that accused applied sudden breaks of his vehicle, however, he could not be able to stop his vehicle due to less distance between his vehicle and injured Ct Vivek, hence, the injured received injuries.
Defence Evidence
22. Accused has examined himself as DW1 to prove his case. In his examination, he deposed that on 29.01.2016, at about 11:30 am, he had driven his vehicle TATA Ace bearing no. DL ILM 1782. When he was coming from the side of Rani Bagh, he was going towards his home at Mangol Puri. Traffic police personnels were there and one of the police personnel gave him signal for stopping his vehicle. Thereafter, he had given the signal to the police official by blinking his left hand side indicator of his vehicle for stopping the same. Suddenly, another SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 26 of 39 over speedy vehicle came from the left hand side of his vehicle by over taking his vehicle, all on sudden, the victim police official tried to save himself from the another over speedy vehicle and came in front of his vehicle. however, he tried to save him and steered his vehicle to extreme right hand side but unfortunately, the said police official got contacted with his vehicle from the front left hand side of his vehicle. Otherwise, the victim could have come under his vehicle. Thereafter, he stopped his vehicle. The another police officer came there and snatched the keys of his vehicle and he gave him 2-3 slaps on his face. He told him that he had seen the incident that he tried to save the victim police official, however, he have no fault and the victim police official tried to save himself from the another over speedy vehicle and he came in front of his vehicle. But the said police official told him that because the victim police official had been hit by his vehicle, therefore, now he will ready to serve the severe punishment for about 6-7 years. He had not known to the victim police official previously and therefore, he had no knowledge or intention to hit him by his vehicle. He deposed that his mistake was that, he had taken 2-3 drinks on the night prior to the incident and he was smelling at the time of the incident. He did not hit the victim deliberately as stated earlier.
In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied that on 29.01.2016 at about 11:40 a.m, at Road No. 43 while coming from the side of Rani Bagh and going towards Mangolpuri, he deliberately and knowingly caused hurt by hitting his vehicle which was TATA Ace (Chhota Hathi) against police officer Ct. Vivek in order to run away from there. He further SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 27 of 39 denied that he was deposing a false story that he had given the signal to police officer by blinking his left hand side indicator of his vehicle for stopping the same. He further denied that he was deposing falsely that suddenly another over speedy vehicle came from the left side of his vehicle and by over taking his vehicle all on sudden, the victim police officer tried to save himself from the another over speedy vehicle and came in front of his vehicle. He further denied that he was deposing falsely that he tried to save him and steered his vehicle to extreme right hand side but unfortunately, the said vehicle got contacted with his vehicle from the front left hand side of his vehicle. He asserted to the fact that he had not given any written complaint to any police authority or to any Magistrate till date. He denied that he had not made any complaint because the incident had not taken in the manner as he alleged. He further denied that he had forcefully hit Ct. Vivek and due to that impact there was a damage on the front side extra fitted safety guard portion which was bented and due to that impact the front side wind screen glass left side portion broken. He further denied that the said damage occur due to the heavy impact caused by hitting the Ct. Vivek with a over speedy vehicle. He asserted that the vehicle TATA Ace Tempo was registered in his name & that he had filed several bail applications while he was running into police custody. He deposed that he cannot comment or deny to the suggestion that he had not narrated the version which he had given in his deposition as DW in any of his bail applications. He voluntarily deposed that these were filed by his counsel & asserted that he had signed the vakalatnama and put the thumb impression also.
SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 28 of 39 He denied that he was giving a false story of some speedy vehicle coming from his left side which he had never narrated before any authority or in any of his bail applications filed in the court. He further denied that he had deliberately and knowingly hit the Ct. Vivek in order to ran away from the spot & further denied that he was deposing fasely in order to save himself.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE Whether the victim was on the spot at the alleged time
23. The prosecution has produced the injured as PW14. PW14 stated that on 29.09.2016, he was posted at Ashok Kumar Traffic Circle at Anukampa point road no. 43 alongwith staff members namely HC Vijay, Ct Dharmender and ASI Ramesh. Witness has also stated that when they were busy in challaning the vehicle at the intersection at about 11.40 AM, an LMV Vehicle Tata Ace came in Zig zag and rash manner. PW14 & ZO signalled vehicle to stop at a distance of around 50-60 meters by waiving hands. The driver slowed down the vehicle as PW14 proceeded towards the vehicle the driver of the vehicle suddenly gave acceleration to the vehicle and deliberately hit PW14. PW14 further stated that he received injuries and his death were also broken and knee patella got crushed badly and he became unconscious. He stated that he regained consciousness at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital and subsequently he was shifted to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh where he was treated.
Prosecution has also produced the witnesses who have been named by PW14 as the officials who were on the spot as witnesses PW9 ASI Ramesh Singh, PW10 Ct. Dharmender and SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 29 of 39 PW17 HC Vijay Kumar. The testimony of these witnesses is also in the similar terms. The witnesses have also stated that they were at Ashok Kumar Traffic Circle at Anukampa point road no.
43. PW14 could not specify the number of the offending vehicle but the same does not make his testimony doubtful as he has become unconscious after being hit by the offending vehicle.
Prosecution has also produced PW11 Inspector Sanjay Kumar. This witness stated that he was working as Supervisory Officer on 29.01.2016 in the area of Ashok Vihar Circle. He stated that on 29.01.2016 at Traffic point near Anukampa point, Parwana road, Ct. Vivek Mathur no. 6083/T was deputed alongwith other traffic staff at the said point. PW11 also verified the duty roaster as PW11/A. Witness also verified the DD register of departure of duty of police officials dt. 29.01.2016 at about 08.00 PM including Ct. Vivek Mathur no. 6083/T vide DD No. 10. The same was exhibited as Ex. PW11/B(OSR). By the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, no doubt is left about the presence of the victim Ct. Vivek on 29.01.2016 at Traffic point near Anukampa point, Parwana road where the alleged incident took place. Hence, presence of the PW14 Ct. Vivek, PW9 ASI Ramesh Chand, PW10 Ct Dharmender & PW17 HC Vijay Kumar is sufficiently proved to be on the spot where the incident took place.
Identity of accused
24. PW14 Ct. Vivek was injured on the alleged date by the accused. PW14 Ct. Vivek has not identified the accused as driver of the offending vehicle in his testimony. He could also SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 30 of 39 not tell the number of the offending vehicle. In this regard, Ld. Addl. PP has also cross examined the witness. Even then, he merely stated that offending vehicle may be DL-1LM-1782. He stated that he has forgotten the number due to lapse of time. Thereafter, he stated that DL-1LM-1782 was the offending vehicle. Durign cross examination, he stated that number of offending vehicle was stated to him by his companions who had come to meet him in Max Hospital. Though this witness has not identified the driver of vehicle as well as the offending vehicle but the same is not sufficient to discard his testimony in whole. His version regarding the accident and the manner it took place gets sufficient corroboration from the other witnesses namely PW9 ASI Ramesh Singh, PW10 Ct. Dharmender & PW17 HC Vijay Kumar.
As presence of PW9 ASI Ramesh Singh, PW10 Ct.
Dharmender, PW14 HC Vivek Kumar & PW17 HC Vijay Kumar has already been established by prosecution, the identification made by PW9 ASI Ramesh Singh, PW10 Ct. Dharmender & PW17 HC Vijay Kumar becomes relevant. PW9 ASI Ram Singh identified accused Raju Kumar as person who had been driving offending vehicle at the time and also stated the manner in which he hit PW14 Ct. Vivek. Similarly, PW10 Ct. Dharmender & PW17 HC Vijay Kumar have identified the accused Rajan Kumar as the person who had been driving offending vehicle and hit PW14. These witnesses have also mentioned in testimony that accused was arrested on the spot. PW9 has authenticated his statement as Ex. PW9/A wherein the fact of apprehending the accused is mentioned. These witnesses have also proved their SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 31 of 39 signatures on the arrest memo Ex. PW9/B. PW15 IO Sandeep has also proved arrest memo Ex. PW9/B and the search memo of the accused as Ex.PW9/C. Prosecution had also produced one public witness as PW7 who was stated to be on the spot at the relevant time. In his chief examination, this PW7 Mukesh had stated about the incident at about 10-10.25 AM. He further stated in his chief examination that the police official was hit by Tata Ace & after hitting police personnel, the said vehicle had run away towards Piragarhi. This witness failed to identify the accused in the chief examination. Prosecution had cross examined him wherein he admitted about the vehicle once slowing down and then speeding up towards police personnel as a result traffic police personnel was thrown in the air and police personnel suffered injuries. Even in cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he did not identify the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. Though rest of the testimony of the witness corroborates the version of the prosecution.
As there is no reason to disbelieve testimony of PW10 Ct. Dharmender, PW9 ASI Ramesh Singh & PW17 HC Vijay Kumar, non identificaton by the PW7 Mukesh is not of much importance.
From the above witnesses namely PW10 Ct. Dharmender, PW9 ASI Ramesh Singh & PW17 HC Vijay Kumar, the identity of the accused who had hit PW14 Vivek is fully established.
Nature of injuries
25. To prove nature of injures, the prosecution has produced frour witnesses namely PW5 Dr. Ajay Kumar, PW6 CMO Pankaj SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 32 of 39 Shah, PW8 Dr. Ritu Daman Sharma & PW16 Dr. Nageshwar Kumar Nagar. PW5 Dr. Ajay Kumar testified that victim Rajan was brought by Ct. Rakesh and he was examined by Dr. Praveen. Witness also proved MLC Ex. PW5/A and also identified his signature as well as signature of Dr. Praveen at pt. A & B respectively. Though this witness has stated that no fresh injury has been detected at the time of medical examination.
26. PW6 Pankaj Shah, CMO Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital had stated that he had done initial examination of the injured (Ct. Vivek) & he had also mentioned the injuries as CLW/Chin, right eye brow, lower lid, swelling and tenderness around right knee, abrasion noted over the right temporal region and multiple abrasion over both hands. Witness has also approved MLC as Ex. PW6/A. Witness also testified that on the basis of endorsement made by Dr. Ripu Daman on the back side of MLC and after examination of X Ray plates of the patient, the nature of injuries were found to be grevious regarding fracture of patella knee cap. PW16 Dr. Nageshwar Kumar Nagar, Radio Diognosis Incharge Mahavir Hospital testified the X Ray conducted by radiographer and reported by Sr. Resident Radio Diaognosis Dr. Ishaan. Witness stated that he had himself perused three X Ray plates and X Ray report no. 76 dt. 21.01.2016 showed fracture of right patella bone. The X Ray was exhibited as Ex. PW16/A. This witness also testified that the injuries were of grevious in nature.
27. Similarly, PW8 Dr. Ripu Daman Sharma, Sr. Ortho Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital also proved the initial examination SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 33 of 39 by Dr. Pankaj Sharma, PW6. She also mentioned about the injuries similarly as PW6 has stated. She also approved MLC Ex. PW6/A and the X Ray Plates of the victim.
28. PW16 Dr. Nageshwar Kumar Nagar Incharge Radio Diaognosis Department, Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital also testified the MLC having been prepared by Dr. Ishan and also approved X Ray Plates as Ex. PW16/A. Perusal of MLC prepared by Dr. Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital Pitampura which is Ex. PW6/A mentions the injuries as following :- - CLW over chin 2.5cm x 0.5cm.
- CLW over right eyebrow 3 cm x0.5 cm
-CLW over lower limb
-CLW over left paricto temporal region 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm
-multiple abrasion over both hand.
In the Ex. PW6/A, there is mention of Dr. Prashad who has given the finding as nature of injuries as grevious regarding patella.
From the testimony of witnesses PW5 Dr. Ajay Kumar, PW6 CMO Dr. Pankaj Shah, PW8 Dr. Ripu Daman Sharma and PW16 Dr. Nageshwar Kumar Nagar alongwith the MLC Ex. PW6/A, the nature of injuries suffered by victim Ct. Vivek, PW14 are sufficiently proved to be grevious in nature.
Identity of vehicle
29. As already stated, PW14 Ct. Vivek has not mentioned regarding the number of offending vehicle but there are other witnesses who were on the spot namely PW9 ASI Raman Singh, SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 34 of 39 PW10 Ct. Dharmender and PW17 HC Vijay Kumar. These witnesses have specifically identified the driver of the vehicle as well as vehicle as TATA Ace bearing no. DL-1LM-1782.
30. In this regard, testimony of PW13 Sh. Devender Kumar is also material who has mechanically inspected the vehicle and prepared the report. This witness stated that he examined on 04.02.2016 vehicle TATA Ace bearing no. DL-1LM-1782 at PS Mangolpuri on the request of SI Sandeep Kumar. He has stated that after examination, he found that the vehicle TATA Ace bearing no. DL-1LM-1782 was damaged from one side front side extra fitted safety guard(left side portion bended) and front wind screen glass, left side portion broken. The vehicle was also stated to be fit for road test and PW13 approved his report as PW13/A. As this witness and PW13 witnesses have not been cross examined by the accused, the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW13/A stands proved. The testimony of PW9 ASI Raman Singh, PW10 Ct. Dharmender and PW17 HC Vijay Kumar alongwith the inspection report Ex. PW13/A sufficiently proved that the incident was caused by the vehicle TATA Ace bearing no. DL-1LM-1782. The accused has not produced any defence witnesses to disprove the fact that vehicle was not involved in the incident. Even in the cross examination, all the witnesses remained constant and averred about the driver being the accused Rajan Kumar and the offending vehicle as TATA Ace bearing no. DL-1LM-1782.
SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 35 of 39 Whether Injuries were voluntary caused
31. PW14 Ct. Vivek had suffered serious injuries in the incident. In his testimony, he has stated that the vehicle was being drive in zig zag and rash manner by changing lanes. It is also stated that the vehicle was signalled to stop by waiving hands. Though the vehicle slowed down but when PW14 went towards the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle suddenly gave acceleration to the vehicle and hit PW14.
Similarly, PW9 ASI Raman Singh, PW10 Ct. Dharmender and PW17 HC Vijay Kumar hands were waived to stop the vehicle but the accused first slowed down the vehicle and when PW14 went towards the driver suddenly accelerated the same and hit PW14 Ct. Vivek. Though there is some discrepancy with regard to distance for which hands were waived by police officials to stop vehicle but the same is not material discrepancy and in the version of different witnesses, some discrepancy is likely to occur. The manner in which PW14 Ct. Vivek was hit is specifically mentioned by the witnesses and despite cross examination, they remained constrained in this regard and there is no contrary view or defence from the side of accused in this regard. Hence, it s sufficiently proved that injuries were caused voluntarily by the accused.
Whether accused under influence of liquor at the relevant time
32. The case of prosecution is that at the time of accident, the accused was in inebriated state. PW17 HC Vijay Kumar has stated that after the accused had been apprehended near Anukampa Chambery, the accused was taken for medical SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 36 of 39 examination by Ct Rakesh. Subsequently, the blood sample of accused were handed over to accused. Prosecution has also produced one FSL examination report bearing no. 2016/C-849 dt. 07.03.2016. By this report, prosecution has averred that the accused was under the influence of alcohal. This report is prepared by Sr. Scientific Officer Dr. Adesh Kumar. The report is admissible under section 293 Cr. P.C without examination of scientific expert. Moreover, the accused by his stated dt. 04.12.18 has admitted this report as Ex. P-3. Hence, the fact that at the relevant time, accused was under influence of alcohol is sufficiently proved.
Whether section 307 IPC is made out
33. As already stated that victim PW14 Ct. Vivek, PW9 ASI Raman Singh, PW10 Ct. Dharmender and PW17 HC Vijay Kumar who were on the spot have given similar version with regard to the incident. It is stated by the witnesses that all these four witnesses were on the spot for vehicle challans. The vehicle of the accused was asked to stop by hands. The driver of the vehicle slowed down the vehicle but when PW14 Ct. Vivek went towards it, the driver of the vehicle suddenly accelerated speed and hit PW14 Ct. Vivek. These witnesses have stated that the impact of hit by vehicle was so forceful that PW14 Ct Vivek was flung for few meters resulting in various injuries including one patella knee fracture which was considered as grevious in nature by the witnesses PW6, PW8 & PW16. It is also stated by witnesses PW9 ASI Raman Singh, PW10 Ct. Dharmender and PW17 HC Vijay Kumar that after hitting PW14 Ct. Vivek, the SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 37 of 39 driver of the vehicle ran away with the vehicle. It was further stated by PW9 ASI Raman Singh, PW10 Ct. Dharmender and PW17 HC Vijay Kumar that the accused was chased by PW10 Ct Dharmender who apprehended the accused alongwith offending vehicle near Anukampa Industrial Area.
It was submitted by counsel for the accused that the ingredients of section 307 IPC are not mae out. Ld. counsel has relied upon judgment titled as Man Singh Vs. NCT 2016, Bisan Singh Vs. State , Supreme Court, 2008 and Sighara Vs. NCT, 2014.
Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the way accused had hit PW14 Ct. Vivek and instantly running away from the spot coupled with nature of injuries clearly make out a case of section 307 IPC.
This court has closely scrutinized evidence of witnesses. All the witnesses have stated that vehicle was coming towards them when it was asked to stop by waiving hands. The accused is stated to have slowed down the vehicle but suddenly accelerated the same when PW14 Ct. Vivek was approaching towards them. In such circumstances, the intention of the accused seems more to run away from the spot rather than the intention to cause such injury which could result in culpable homicide. It is a general tendancy of the people to fear police officials. Therefore, running away from the spot after the vehicle had hit PW14 Ct. Vivek cannot be given much weightage in context of intention to cause culpable homicide. Though nature of injury is not the basis for deciding section 307 IPC. In the given facts and circumstances, neither the intention nor knowledge of the degree SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 38 of 39 required for section 307 IPC is present. Undoubtedly, one of the injuries was found to be grevious in nature, but the same in itself cannot be a reason to attract section 307 IPC. Suddenly coming before a running vehicle may not give sufficient time for a driver of the vehicle to estimate the whole situation and if the person coming on the way is a police official, the driver of the vehicle may out of fear do rash act & may try to run away. For these reason, this Court is of the view that ingredients of section 307 IPC are not met.
Conclusion
34. From the above discussion, the case of the prosecution regarding 307 IPC is not proved but on the basis of the testimony of victim Ct. Vivek PW14 and eye witnesses namely PW9 ASI Raman Singh, PW10 Ct. Dharmender and PW17 HC Vijay Kumar & also in connection with the MLC Ex. PW6/A, FSL report, mechanical inspection report Ex. PW13/A, FSL report regarding blood sample Ex. P-3 etc, the prosecution has sufficiently proved case u/s 186/353/333 IPC.
Hence, accused is acquitted u/s 307 IPC but convicted u/s u/s 186/353/333 IPC.
35. File be consigned to Record Room.
Pronounced in open court today (Shivaji Anand) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/18.04.2026 SC No. 53196/16 State Vs. Rajan Kumar Page no. 39 of 39