Delhi District Court
State vs Pankaj Kumar on 23 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUNEESH GARG MM02 TRAFFIC
ROOM NO. 13 DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Challan No.: 914130
Circle: MPC
U/s: 66.1/192 A, 66/192 A, 56/192, 125/177 & 32/177 M.V. Act
State V/s Pankaj Kumar
JUDGMENT
a. Sl. No. of the case : 40/11 b. Date of commission of offence: 05.03.2011 c. Date of institution of the case : 06.03.2011 d. Name of complainant : ASI Tek Ram e. Name & address of accused : Pankaj Kumar R/o Sec20, Dwarka, Plot No. 14, New Delhi.
f. Offence complained of : 66.1/192 A, 66/192 A, 56/192,
125/177 & 32/177 M.V.Act,1988
g. Plea of accused : Pleaded Not Guilty
h. Arguments heard on : 09.09.2011
i. Final order : Convicted
j. Date of Judgment : 23.09.2011
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 05.03.2011 at about 10:03 P.M at M.S. Marg, accused Pankaj Kumar was plying his vehicle bearing No. DL1LK-7116 to the side of central verge after leaving his yellow lane and also overtaking other vehicles running on the yellow side including one LGV Vehicle No. DL1LE-4950 in Challan No. 914130 Pg No. 1/9 violation of orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereby committed an offence U/s 66.1/192A M.V. Act,1988. Further it is alleged that accused allowed four passengers to sit along with a driver seat which obstruct driving and thereby committed an offence U/s 125/177 of M.V. Act. Further, accused also failed to produce the documents related to permit, certificate of fitness and RC of the vehicle and thereby committed an offence U/s 66/192 A, 56/192 & 32/177 M.V. Act, 1988.
2. Vide order dated, 18.03.2011, accused was charged for offence u/s 66.1/192 A, 66/192 A, 56/192, 125/177 & 32/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has examined two witnesses namely ASI Tek Ram (PW-1) who is the challaning officer and proved complaint which is Ex. PW-1/A & Ct. Jaidev (PW-2).
4. To support the case of prosecution, PW-1 deposed that on 05.03.2011, he was on duty along with Ct. Jai Dev and other police staff. On that day, at about 10:03 p.m at M.S. Marg, Ring Road one Light Good Vehicle bearing No. DL1LK-7116 came from the side of Naraina and going towards Punjabi Bagh. The vehicle was being driven in the first lane of the road and over taking other moving vehicles which are on the left hand side of the driver of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle also overtook other moving vehicle No. DL1LE-4950. The offending vehicle was got stopped and the accused present in court today disclosed his name as Pankaj Kumar as driver Challan No. 914130 Pg No. 2/9 of the vehicle. PW-1 further deposed in his testimony that accused was carrying extra passengers in his vehicle and on asking, the accused failed to produce documents related to certificate of fitness and permit of the vehicle. The offending vehicle of the accused was impounded U/s 207 M.V. Act and thereafter, the vehicle was sent to the pit of Mayapuri Circle through Constable.
5. PW-2 Ct. Jaidev deposed that on dated 05.03.2011 he was on duty along with ZO ASI Tek Ram and other police staff. On that day, at about 10:00 p.m at M.S. Marg, Ring Road one Light Good Vehicle bearing No. DL1LK-7116, came from the side of Naraina and going towards Punjabi Bagh. The vehicle was being driven in the first lane of the road and overtook other moving vehicles including vehicle bearing no. DL1LE-4950 which were on the left hand side of the driver of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was got stopped by me with the help of other police officials and the accused present in the court today disclosed his name as Pankaj Kumar as driver of the vehicle. PW-2 further deposed in his testimony that the accused was carrying extra passengers in his vehicle. The offending vehicle of the accused was impounded U/s 207 M.V. Act.
6. After that PE was closed Vide order dated 25.04.2011 and accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 29.04.2011 wherein he denied the case of prosecution in toto. However, accused did not intend to lead DE.
7. I have heard the final arguments from both the sides and have Challan No. 914130 Pg No. 3/9 perused the evidence on record led by prosecution carefully.
8. Ld. APP for the State argued that PW-1 ASI Tek Ram and PW-2 Ct. Jai Dev proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the State argued that all the prosecution witnesses has successfully proved the fact of overtaking caused by the accused and the fact that the accused was carrying extra passengers in his vehicle. Ld. APP for the State also argued that accused failed to produce the certificate of fitness, permit and RC of the vehicle. Therefore, the guilt of the accused is established beyond the reasonable doubt. It is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that by virtue of evidence available on judicial file, accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 66.1/192 A, 66/192 A, 56/192, 125/177 & 32/177 M.V. Act.
9. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the accused that he was falsely implicated in the present case and he is totally innocent. It is argued by the defence Counsel that PW-1 had not seen the accused while overtaking other vehicle.
10. To prove the offence of overtaking, prosecution was relied on the testimony of PW-1 ASI Tek Ram and PW-2 Ct. Jai Dev. PW-1 deposed that on 05.03.2011 at about 10:03 p.m. at M.S. Marg, one Light Good Vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LK-7116 came from the side of Naraina and going towards Punjabi Bagh in the first lane of the road and overtook other moving vehicles which were on the left hand side of the driver of the offending vehicle. The accused also Challan No. 914130 Pg No. 4/9 overtook other moving vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LE-4950. He further deposed that accused present in the court today was driver of the said vehicle. PW-1 ASI Tek Ram reiterated the same fact in his cross-examination that accused was driving the vehicle in the first lane. In his cross-examination, he also stated that the accused was going in the first lane of the road when he first saw the vehicle of the accused. PW-1 denied the suggestion that accused was driving his vehicle on the extreme left side of the road.
11. PW-2 also corroborated the version of PW-1. In his testimony, PW-2 Ct. Jai Dev deposed that on 05.03.2011 at about 10:00 p.m. one LGV bearing registration no. DL1LK-7116 came from the side of Naraina and going towards Punjabi Bagh in the first lane of the road and overtook other moving vehicles which were on the left hand side of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle also overtook other moving vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LE-4950. In his cross examination also PW-2 stated that the accused had overtaken other vehicles. The accused was driving his vehicle on the extreme right side of the road.
12. There is no discrepancy in the testimony of PW1 & PW-2. Both the witnesses are consistent throughout in their testimony. No contradiction came into light during the whole testimony of PW-1 & PW-2. Therefore, the fact of driving the commercial vehicle in the first lane of the road and overtaking of other commercial vehicle has been proved by the prosecution witnesses beyond reasonable doubt.
Challan No. 914130 Pg No. 5/913. To prove the offence of carrying extra passengers, both the witnesses PW-1 & PW-2 deposed that the accused was carrying extra passengers in his vehicle. However, no suggestion was given to the witnesses to deny the fact that accused was not carrying the extra passengers in his vehicle by the Counsel for the accused. Therefore, an offence of carrying extra passengers is also proved.
It is also deposed by both the witnesses that accused failed to produce the documents of the vehicle.
14. Counsel for the accused contended that there is no public witness in the present case. PW-1 stated in his cross-examination that he did not join any public witness as it was night time. It is a settled law that conviction can be based on the testimony of official witnesses and it is not necessary that in each and every case, public persons must be joined in investigations.
In the case of Appabhai vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1988 SC 696, it has been held as under:
"It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the murder that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their Challan No. 914130 Pg No. 6/9 presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The Court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the spectrum or the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused."
Moreover, in the present case, explanation given by PW-1 is sufficient that he did not join the public witness as it was night time.
15. Counsel for the accused argued that PW-2 had not signed the challan as witness. Hence his testimony can not be relied upon. The argument of the defence counsel do not hold water. Witness is a person who has seen the commission of the offence. Every person who is present and seen the commission of offence is competent to depose in the court even when he is not mentioned as a witness in the list of witnesses. In the present case, counsel for the accused has not disputed the presence of the witness PW-2 at the spot. Thus, mere non Challan No. 914130 Pg No. 7/9 signing on the challan as a witness, can not be a reason for not relying on the testimony of the PW-2 as deposed in the court which is otherwise unrebutted.
16. Ld. Counsel for the accused contended that PW-1 do not know the registration number of the other vehicles which were overtaken by the offending vehicle. I do not find any merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused as it is not necessary to mention the number of each vehicle which were overtaken by the offending vehicle in violation of Hon'ble Supreme Court directions. Both the witnesses categorically stated that offending vehicle overtook other moving vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LE-4950 which is a Light Good Vehicle as per challan Ex. PW-1/A. Therefore, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused is not maintainable.
17. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that PW-1 had not seen the accused while overtaking other vehicles. I do not find any merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for accused. In his examination-in- chief, PW-1 ASI Tek Ram categorically stated that one LGV bearing registration no. DL1LK-7116 was seen coming from the side of Naraina and going towards Punjabi Bagh in the first lane of the road and overtaking other moving vehicle which were on the left hand side of the driver of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle also overtook other moving vehicles No. DL1LE-4950. In his cross- examination, PW-1 denied the suggestion given by the Counsel for the accused that he is only a hearsay witness. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the accused was coming the first lane of the road Challan No. 914130 Pg No. 8/9 when he first saw the vehicle of the accused. The accused might have overtaken other vehicles, at some point of time, to come in the first lane and he was continuously coming in the first lane by overtaking other vehicles on the left hand side. Therefore, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused is not maintainable.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has established his case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the accused is convicted under Section 66.1/192 A, 66/192 A, 56/192, 125/177 & 32/177 M.V. Act.
Announced in the open court on dated 23.09.2011 This judgment contains 09 pages and each paper is signed by me.
(Muneesh Garg) MM-02,Traffic Room No.13 , Dwarka Courts, Delhi.
23.09.2011 Challan No. 914130 Pg No. 9/9 ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE I have heard Ld. APP for the State and the convict Pankaj Kumar on point of sentence. Convict submits that he is sole bread earner in the family.
Heard.
Considering the social economic condition of the convict and the fact that the convict has family to be looked after, convict is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- U/s 66.1/192 A, Rs. 2000/- U/s 66/192 and admonished for offence U/s 56/192, 146/196 and 3/181 M.V. Act on shown of original certificate of fitness, insurance of the vehicle and his Driving License. His bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Surety, if any, is discharged.
Copy of the judgment be given dasti to the accused at free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Muneesh Garg) MM-02,Traffic Room No.13 , Dwarka Courts, Delhi.
23.09.2011 Challan No. 914130 Pg No. 10/9