Delhi District Court
Sate vs . Rati Ram on 1 May, 2010
!#"
$
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:ROHINI COURT: DELHI.
Sate Vs. Rati Ram
FIR No. 17/98
U/s. 279/338 IPC
PS Narela
Date of Institution of case:- 15.04.98
Date of Judgment reserved:- 01.05.10
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 01.05.10
JUDGMENT
Sl. No of Case :926/2 Date of commission of offence :14.01.98 Name of complainant :Sh. Randir Singh, S/o. Sh. Ram
Narayan, R/o. Village Khera Khurd, Delhi.
Name and address of accused :Rati Ram, S/o. Ram Kishan, R/o. House No. 588, Pana Udhayan, Narela, Delhi.
Offence complained of :279/338 IPC Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty Final order :Convicted Date of order :01.05.2010 BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
Contd.../-
% & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 ( 2 3 4 5 2 6!7#8 ) *:9 The accused has been sent to face trial under Section 279/338 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) on the facts that on 14.01.98 at about 2.15 p.m., at Shafiabad Road, near nala Tubewell of Kartara, Narela, Delhi, he was found driving the vehicle i.e truck (half body) having registration no. DHG-526 in rash and negligent manner and by doing so, he had struck against Maruti car bearing no. HRU-3770 and caused grievous injuries to Bhim Singh and on the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR bearing no.17/98 was registered at Police station Narela and the accused has been charged with the offences under Section 279/338 IPC.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. The copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and notice for the offence U/s. 279/338 IPC was served against the accused to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution has examined all the seven witnesses.
4. PW 1 is Sh. Randhir Singh. He is a public witness.
Contd.../-
; < = > ?
@ A B C D E F G > H I J K H L!M#N ?
@PO
5. PW 2 is Sh. Bhim Singh. He is the injured in the present matter.
6. PW 3 is Additional Sub-Inspector Jagdish. He has proved the FIR as Ex. PW 3/A.
7. PW 4 is Constable Rajesh. He has accompanied the IO during the investigation of the present case and has deposed regarding the proceedings conducted by the IO.
8. PW 5 is Sh. D.K. Chabra, Record Clerk, Jaipur Golden Hospital. He has proved the MLC of the injured Bhim Singh as Ex. PW 5/A.
9. PW 6 is Additional Sub-Inspector Gurdeep. He has proved the mechanical inspection report of Maruti car bearing no. HRU-3770 and truck bearing no. DHG-526 as Ex. PW 6/A and Ex. PW 6/B.
10. PW 7 is Head Constable Aijaz Khan. He is the IO of the case and has deposed that on 14.0198 after receiving DD no.15A, he alongwith Ct. Rajesh reached at the spot i.e Safia Contd.../-
Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] T ^ _ ` a ^ b!c#d U V e Road, near nala, tubewell of Sh. Kartara, Narela, Delhi and found one half body truck bearing no. HDG-526 and one Maruti car bearing no. HRU-3770 in an accidental condition. He has further deposed that the accused was present at the spot. He has further deposed that he came to know that the injured was taken to Narela Nursing Home, Narela Delhi upon which he left the constable at the spot and went to the Nursing home. He has further deposed that there he came to know that injured was referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital. He has further deposed that he found injured Bhim Singh admitted in the hospital who was declared unfit for statement. He has further deposed that he met his friend Sh. Randhir Singh and recorded his statement. He has further deposed that thereafter he alongwith Sh. Randhir Singh came at the spot and prepared rukka Ex. PW 7/A, got the FIR registered through Ct. Rajesh, prepared the site plan Ex. PW 7/B, seized both the vehicles vide memos Ex. PW 7/C and Ex. PW 4/B, seized the driving licence of the accused vide memo Ex. PW 4/D, collected insurance paper of the truck, arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW 7/D and deposited the vehicles in malkhana. He has further deposed that he has got both the vehicles mechanically inspected, deposited the MLC for result for opinion and recorded the statement of injured Bhim Singh.
It is matter of record that none of these witnesses Contd.../-
f g h i j k l m n o p q r i s t u v s w!x#y j k z have been cross examined by the accused.
12. After examining all the prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dt. 07.01.10.
13. Subsequent to the recording of statement of witnesses, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused in which he has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that he does not want to lead defence evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
14. I have heard the arguments of both the parties as well as perused the record.
15. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC. To prove a case U/s. 279/338 IPC against the accused, the prosecution has to prove the following facts:-
a). that the accused was driving the truck (half body) bearing no. DHG-526 in a rash and negligent manner, and
b). that while driving the said bus in the aforesaid manner, the accused has caused grievous injuries to Bhim Singh.
Contd.../-
{ | } ~ ~ !#
16. The word rash and negligent has not been defined in IPC or Cr.P.C. They have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case and have to be interpreted and appreciated from the evidence, which has come on record as rash or negligent is always a subjective concept and depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. From the various judgments as has been discussed by the passage of time, the word rash and negligent has been interpreted as under:-
Rash or negligent Act- Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
"Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal Contd.../-
¡ ¢!£#¤ ¥ consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precaution to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness (luxuria). Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him, and that, if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from neglect of the civic duty of circumspection. It is manifest that personal injury, consciously and intentionally caused, cannot fall within either of these categories, which are wholly inapplicable to the case of an act or series of acts.
17. Now coming to the present case, the testimony of PW 1 Sh. Randhir Singh (public witness) and PW 2 Sh. Bhim Singh (injured) are very material. PW 1 Sh. Randhir Singh has deposed that on the day of the incident he alongwith his friend Bhim Singh were going in a new Maruti car bearing no. HRU- 3770 (temporary), which was being driven by Bhim Singh and he was sitting besides him. He has further deposed that at about 2.15-2.30 p.m., when they reached at Narela Safiabad Morh near nala and tubewell, one truck bearing no.DHG-526 Contd.../-
¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ® ¯ ° ± ² © ³ ´ µ ¶ ³ ·!¸#¹ ª «:° came from Safiabad side in a very high speed and struck against their car towards driver side, due to which Bhim Singh received injuries on his stomach and also on the chest and became unconscious. He has further deposed that he has also received injuries. The car was totally damaged. He has further deposed that firstly, he took Bhim Singh to Nursing Home, Narela and then to Jaipur Golden Hospital. He has specifically deposed that the accident was caused due to the mistake of the truck driver as he was coming in a very high spped and struck against the maruti car from the front.
18. PW 2 Bhim Singh, the injured has also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW 1. This witness has specifically deposed that the vehicle in question has struck his car from front and dragged the car to a distance of 50 yards approximately. Both these witness have fully supported the prosecution case. Both these witnesses were not cross examined by the accused and their testimonies remained unrebutted. Both the witnesses have identified the accused in the court and correctly mentioned the number of the vehicle. There is no reason to disbelieve their statement and their testimonies inspire confidence and is found cogent, credible and had grain of truth.
Contd.../-
º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ ½ Ç È É Ê Ç Ë!Ì#Í ¾ ¿Ã
19. Regarding the mode and manner of the accident, both the public witnesses have specifically deposed in their statement that the truck bearing no. DHG-526 came from the front side being driven at a very high speed and struck against their Maruti car.
20. Further in the case of Paras Nath Vs. State of Delhi, 2004 Cri LJ 731 at 732 (Del)., it was observed as under:-
"Merely because the witnesses did not use the words rashness or negligent in his testimony and instead used the words high speed, cannot be taken that the appellant was not driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, what is important is to find out if the driver of the offending vehicle was driving in public place rashly and in negligent manner so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or death to any other person. In the case in hand the appellant hit the scooterist from behind. It is not the case of the appellant that the scooterist had applied brake all of a sudden and therefore the appellant was taken unaware which led the appellant's truck hitting the scooter from behind. Act of negligence can be clearly attributed to the petitioner in this case as he is solely responsible for causing this accident without any fault of the scooterist. Rashness or negligence can be determined from the manner in which the accident had taken place. Even the site plan prepared by the investigator which was exhibited as PW 5/C speaks about the negligence attributed to the petitioner."
21. I have also seen the site plan i.e Ex. PW 7/B which Contd.../-
Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Ñ Û Ü Ý Þ Û ßáà#â Ò Ó Ôäã shows that Maruti car was being driven in the right direction. The manner of occurrence of the accident points the negligence on part of the accused and the accident would not have occurred if the accused had exercised due care and caution while driving the truck. Further, driving a big vehicle needs more care and caution. PW 6 has specifically deposed that the truck was road worthy and the Maruti car was not road worthy and has proved his report Ex. PW 6/A and Ex. PW 6/B. Hence, it shows that the vehicle was fit for road test and thus it was negligence on the part of the accused due to which accident had occurred.
22. Regarding the injuries sustained by PW2, the prosecution has examined PW 5 D.K. Chabra who has proved the MLC of the injured Bhim Singh as Ex. PW 5/A and as per report, injury is dangerous. All these witnesses examined by the prosecution are supporting the case of the prosecution and their statement on record is found to be cogent, inspire the confidence of the court and there is no reason to disbelieve the same and they are all corroborating each other on all material respects and there is no inconsistency contradictions in their statement. Hence, in view of the submissions made above and after scanning the entire record, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has successfully able to prove the guilt of Contd.../-
å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð ñ è ò ó ô õ ò öá÷#ø é ê ëùë the accused for which the accused has been charged with.
23. Accordingly, the accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC.
Deepak Wason Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Court, Delhi Announced in open court on Dated 01st May, 2010.
Contd.../-
ú û ü ý þ ÿ ý þ ÿ FIR no. 17/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Rati Ram 05.05.10 ORDER ON SENTENCE Pr: Ld. APP for the state.
Convict in person.
It is submitted by him that he is 40 years of age having four children to be maintained by him. It is further submitted by him that he is a very poor person and hence, could not engage any counsel. It is further submitted by him that he is facing trial for the last twelve years. It is further submitted by him that this is the first offence against him and he has no other case pending against him and hence, it is prayed that a lenient view be taken against him.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the state has opposed the plea of lenient view against the convict.
I have heard the arguments of both the parties as well as carefully gone through the record.
Matter pertains to the year 1998. Throughout the proceedings, the accused had not engaged any counsel and each on every date he is regularly appearing before this court and none of the witness has not been cross examined by the Contd.../-
! "$# % & ' ( ) * +, - . / 0 -
1 2 3 "$# %54 convict. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that convict is facing trial for the last about 12 years, I hereby sentenced the convict for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days and for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days with further punishment till the rising of the court.
Fine paid.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Deepak Wason MM (Outer)/Rohini/Delhi 07.04.10 Contd.../-
6 7 8!9 :$; < = > ? @ A B,9 C D E F C G H I :$; <KJ FIR no. 17/98 PS Narela U/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Rati Ram 05.05.10 Pr: Ld. APP for the state.
Convict in person.
Vide separate order, the convict is sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days and for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days with further punishment till the rising of the court.
Fine paid.
Copy of judgment as well as order on sentence be given to convict, free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Deepak Wason MM (Outer)/Rohini/Delhi 05.05.10 Contd.../-