Delhi District Court
Sate vs . Shyam Singh @ Shyam on 19 March, 2015
FIR No. 29/03
PS Narela
U/s. 279/304A IPC
Sate Vs. Shyam Singh @ Shyam
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURT: DELHI.
FIR No.29/03
PS Narela
U/s. 279/304A IPC
Sate Vs. Shyam Singh @ Shyam
Date of Institution of case:- 31.07.03
Date of Judgment reserved:-19.03.15
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 19.03.15
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. :02401R0673802003
Date of commission of offence :10.02.03
Name of complainant :Sh. Ghutar Ray, S/o Sh. Kesodi
Ray, R/o 28 Garbhatari, Village
Lodham, PS Banka, District Banka
Bihar. At present: Ramesh Ka
Makaan, Gali No. 26B,
Swatantra Nagar, Narela, Delhi.
Name and address of accused :Shyam Singh @ Shyam
S/o. Sh. Ranbir Singh, R/o
H.No.1068, Gali No.25, Swatantra
Nagar, Narela, Delhi.
Offence complained of :279/304A IPC
Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
Final order :Acquitted
Date of order :19.03.2015
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
1. The accused Shyam Singh S/o Sh. Ranbir has been sent to face trial under Section 279/304A Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) on the allegations that on 10.02.03 at about 1:45 p.m. opposite Raja Harish Chander Hospital open road, Narela, Delhi, he was found driving a vehicle no. HR 13A 1066 (tractor) in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger Page No.1 of 7 FIR No. 29/03 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC Sate Vs. Shyam Singh @ Shyam human life and personal safety of others and while driving the said vehicle in the aforesaid manner he caused death of Kailash and Jagannath ( not amounting to culpable homicide ) and on the abovesaid date, time and place he was found driving the vehicle without valid driving licence and on the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR bearing no.29/03 was registered at Police station Narela and the accused has been charged with the offences under Section 279/304A IPC and 3/181 M.V. Act.
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 U/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 279/304A IPC was served upon the accused on 20.11.04, to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is a matter of record that accused pleaded guilty to offence u/s 3/181 M.V.Act vide separate statement for which he was sentenced separately. The issue before us pertains to commission of offence u/s 279/304A IPC.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution examined six witnesses.
4. PW1 is ASI Trilok Nath No. 4016 D. Mechanical Inspector PCR, Old Police Line, Workshop, Delhi. He was the Mechanical Inspector. He deposed that on 11.09.2003 at the request of ASI Ramesh Chand, Mark A, he mechanically inspected Tractor No. HR 13A 1066 at Police Station Narela and his detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW1/A. According to him, Page No.2 of 7 FIR No. 29/03 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC Sate Vs. Shyam Singh @ Shyam the tractor was found fit for road test. He has not been cross- examined by the accused despite given opportunity.
5. PW2 is HC Suraj Bhan No. 588, PCR, New Delhi Zone.
He deposed that on 10.02.2003, on receipt of DD No. 18A, he went to the spot at near Harish Chandra Hospital. IO gave him some papers and asked him to take two bodies to the mortuary in BJRM Hospital. He further deposed that on 13.02.2003, postmortem was conducted of the dead bodies and after that IO handed over the dead bodies to the relatives vide handing over memo Ex. PW2/A and PW2/B. He has not been cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite given opportunity.
6. PW3 is Retd. SI Jageer Singh, S/o Sh. Amar Singh, age 63 years, R/o B-136, Jahangirpuri, Delhi-33. He was the duty officer. He deposed on 10.02.2003, on receipt of rukka from Ct. Ranbir by ASI Ramesh Chander, he recorded FIR the present case, which was Ex. PW3/A and the endorsement on rukka was Ex.PW3/B. He has not been cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite given opportunity.
7. PW4 is Sh. Suraj Pal, S/o Sh. Ranvir Singh, Age 35 years, R/o R-44, Gali No./ 25A, Swatantra Nagar, Narela, Delhi. He was the registered owner of the tractor trolley bearing registration No. HR-13A-1066 and his brother Shyam Singh present in the court was driving the abovesaid tractor trolley at time of accident. He further deposed that he received his said tractor on Superdari vide Superdarinama Ex. PW4/A. The photographs of the said tractor were Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. During his Page No.3 of 7 FIR No. 29/03 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC Sate Vs. Shyam Singh @ Shyam cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel he admitted that at the time of accident, he was not present at the spot.
8. PW5 is Sh. Sargun Yadav S/o Sh. Bhiru Yadav, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Lila Varan, PO Dudhari, PS Banka, Distt. Banka, Bihar. He deposed that on 11.02.2003, Sh. Parshuram informed him about the death of his brother-in- law (Jija) Jagan Nath S/o Sh. Ramchu Yadav in road accident. He further deposed that on 13.02.2013, he went to BJRM Hospital mortuary and identified his dead body vide identification memo Ex.PW5/A. He further deposed that after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them vide handing over memo Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement. He has not been cross-examined by the accused despite given opportunity.
9. PW6 is Sh. Ghutar Ray S/o Sh. Kesodi Ray, R/o 28 Gharbhatari, Village-Lodham, Distt. Banka, Bihar. He is the complainant in the present case. He deposed that the incident occurred around 8-9 years ago. He did not know anything about the present case and no accident occurred in his presence.
Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross examine the witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross examination by Ld. APP for the state, he admitted that document Ex. PW6/A bearing his thumb impression at point A. He denied the suggestion that on 10.02.2003, he alongwith other two labourers namely Jagan Nath and Kailash were coming at Narela DSIDC in a tractor trolley no. HR-13 A-1066 after unloading the sand at Piau Manihari Road Kundli, Haryana. He Page No.4 of 7 FIR No. 29/03 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC Sate Vs. Shyam Singh @ Shyam also denied the suggestion that accused Shyam Singh was driving the aforesaid tractor at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and he had requested Shyam Singh to drive the tractor slowly and in proper manner but he kept on driving the offending vehicle at a high speed. He also denied the suggestion that while so driving the offending vehicle at about 1:45 p.m. when they reached near SRHC hospital, left side wheel of the trolley got removed due to high speed and the trolley turned turtled on which Jagannath and Kailash were sitting. He further denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by accused Shyam Singh. Witness is confronted with statement Ex.PW6/A to which the witness denied having made any such statement to the police. He also admitted that seizure memo of aforesaid tractor trolley and documents of the vehicle which are Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C respectively bear his thumb impression at point A. He also admitted that arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused Ex. PW6/D and Ex. PW6/E bears his thumb impression at point A. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely being won over by the accused and in order to save the accused. He has not been cross examined by the accused despite given opportunity.
10. It is also matter of record that the only eye witness Ghutar Ray to the alleged accident had turned hostile in the present case and all other witnesses are formal in nature accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed on 04.12.2014.
Page No.5 of 7 FIR No. 29/03PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC Sate Vs. Shyam Singh @ Shyam
11. Since, there is no incriminating evidence/testimony against the accused, which has come on record against the accused, statement of accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as the Ld. Defence counsel and given my thoughtful consideration to the entire record.
13. It is noteworthy that to convict the accused in the present case, testimony of eye witness/public witness is very crucial to sustain the conviction of the accused. As already discussed above, the only eye witness i.e. PW6 Ghutar Ray examined by the prosecution completely turned hostile and did not allege anything such as rash and negligent act of the accused. This eye witness did not impute any rash or negligent driving upon the accused. This witness did not support the case of prosecution at all and completely exonerated the accused from the allegations levelled by the prosecution in the present case by saying that he did not know anything about the present case and no accident occurred in his presence. Hence in nutshell, there is nothing incriminating/inculpatory in the evidence of the eye witness against the accused on record and there is no other eye witness/public witness cited by the prosecution in the present case. All other witnesses are formal in nature whose no amount of evidence can tantamount to conviction of the accused.
14. Therefore, after scanning the entire record, in the absence of any incriminating testimony of any eye witness/public witness Page No.6 of 7 FIR No. 29/03 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC Sate Vs. Shyam Singh @ Shyam on record against the accused, in my considered opinion, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the present case against the accused and hence, the accused Shyam Singh @ Shyam is hereby acquitted from offences u/s 279/304A IPC.
15. File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
(SANDEEP GUPTA) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi Announced in open court today, Dated 19th March, 2015 Page No.7 of 7 FIR No. 29/03 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC Sate Vs. Shyam Singh @ Shyam FIR No.29/03 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC Sate Vs. Shyam Singh @ Shyam 19.03.2015 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Accused on bail alongwith Ld. Counsel. Record perused.
Since there is nothing incriminating in evidence has come on record, statement of accused u/s 281 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.
I have heard the arguments and perused the record. At this stage, accused submits that he voluntarily wants to plead guilty for the offence u/s 3/181 M.V. Act. Separate statement of the accused regarding his plea of guilt has been recorded today.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, convict is admonished for the offence u/s 3/181 M.V. Act.
Vide separate judgment dictated to the steno in the open court, accused Shyam Singh is acquitted of the offence U/s 279/304A IPC and he has been sentenced for the offence 3/181 M.V.Act.
Accused is directed to furnish fresh bail bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of like amount.
Put up for furnishing of bail bond on 23.03.2015.
(Sandeep Gupta) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi Page No.8 of 7 FIR No. 29/03 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC Sate Vs. Shyam Singh @ Shyam FIR No.29/03 PS Narela U/s. 279/304A IPC Sate Vs. Shyam Singh @ Shyam 23.03.2015 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Accused on bail alongwith Ld. Counsel.
Today accused has furnished fresh bail bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of like amount u/s 437 A of Cr.P.C. The same stands accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance (Sandeep Gupta) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi Page No.9 of 7