Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagdish Singh on 6 October, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD YADAV: CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : DELHI.
FIR NO.: 343/2004
U/S.: 279/337/427 IPC
P.S.: DBG Road
State Vs. Jagdish Singh
Unique I D No.02401R1379212008
JUDGMENT
a. Sl. No. of the case : 681/2 b. Name of the complainant : Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Bhadai R/o Sagar Rickshaw Garage, Behind Liberty Cinema, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi. c. Date of commission of offence : 14.10.2004 d. Name of the accused : Jagdish Singh S/o Sh. Jai Lal, R/o Village & PO Banganwara, PS- Tausaam, District- Bhiwani (Haryana). e. Offence complained of : U/s 279/337/427 IPC f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty g. Arguments heard on : October 06, 2010. h. Final order : Acquitted. i. Date of such order : October 06, 2010. State Vs. Jagdish Singh 1 of 4 Case No.681/2
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. The prosecution case in brief is that on receipt of DD No.4 PP Dev Nagar regarding an accident, IO HC Bhola Nath along with Ct. Jaswant Singh went to the spot which was in front of Liberty Cinema, New Rohtak Road, where they met the complainant Sh. Vijay Kumar s/o Sh. Bhadai, who got recorded his statement to the IO H C Bhola Ram wherein he stated that on the date of incident he along with his friend Rajesh Kumar was waiting for passengers in their respective rickshaws and at about 2:30 AM one loaded truck bearing registration No. HR-61-2088 came from the side of Karol Bagh which was being driven in a very rash or negligent manner and at a very fast speed and as such struck against their rickshaws and then turned turtled over the footpath and also broke down one sign board. Due to the said accident, the complainant Vijay Kumar sustained injuries.
2. On the basis of above statement, IO prepared the rukka, got the case FIR registered, prepared the site plan, took the offending vehicle into police possession, got the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle conducted and arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, the accused stood chargesheeted for offence punishable u/s 279/337 IPC.
3. After filing of the charge sheet in the court, copies were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 CrPC and after hearing arguments on the point of charge, vide order dated 18.04.2007 charges u/s 279/337 IPC were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charges against the accused, despite repeated opportunities prosecution could examined only two State Vs. Jagdish Singh 2 of 4 Case No.681/2 witnesses and thereafter the PE in the matter was closed, as the injured/eye witness Vijay Kumar and Rajesh could not be traced in the matter, who could have deposed about the rashness or negligence of the accused in driving the offending vehicle and recording of further evidence in the matter would have been an exercise in futility and wastage of precious judicial time. Since, no incriminating evidence came on record against the accused, therefore, recording of his statement was also dispensed with. A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
5. PW1 Ct. Govind Ram, who was posted as photographer at P S Pahar Ganj, deposed that on the day of incident he was called by HC Bhola Ram at the spot. However, evidence of this witness could not be concluded as the same was deferred for the want of photographs and thus not admissible in evidence.
6. PW2 ASI Urmila Sharma, Duty Officer, deposed about the registration of the FIR in the instant case.
7. Despite repeated opportunities, prosecution failed to examine injured/eye witness Vijay Kumar and Rajesh as they were not traceable during the entire trial of the case. In this regard, there is a report of Sh. J.S. Deswal, Addl. DCP, Central District, Delhi, wherein it has been reported that the said two witnesses could not be served inspite of sincere efforts as their addresses appear to be wrong.
8. In view of the above discussion, the undisputed conclusion is that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the accused in the matter. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the charges in the case. His bail bond stands cancelled, surety stands discharged. Endorsement, if any, on the documents of the accused Vibhishan State Vs. Jagdish Singh 3 of 4 Case No.681/2 Mandal or his surety be cancelled forthwith. Documents, if any, either of the accused Jagdish Singh or his surety be returned forthwith.
9. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
(Vinod Yadav) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi.
Announced in the open court on October 06, 2010.
State Vs. Jagdish Singh 4 of 4 Case No.681/2