Delhi District Court
State vs . Iqbal on 19 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07 (SOUTH EAST), SAKET COURTS, DELHI FIR No. : 380/10 PS : Sun Light Colony Offence complained of : 279/337/338 IPC & 66 (1)/192 A & 3/181 M V Act Date of commission of offence : 29/30.10.2010 Unique Case ID No. : 02406R0134172011 State vs. Iqbal S/o Mumtaz R/o Village Hathideh, Shahpura PS Ajitgarh, District Sikar Rajasthan .............. Accused Sh. Ajmat Ali S/o Habib Ali R/o Village Utaraulia PS Saraiya District Muzaffarpur, Bihar ............. Complainant C C No. : 69/3/11 Date of Institution : 20.04.2011 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. Date of reserving judgment/ order : 19.11.2013 Date of pronouncement : 19.11.2013 Final Order : Acquitted BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION ALLEGATIONS 1.
By this order I shall decide the judgment under Section 279/337/338 IPC.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 29/30.10.2010 at about 04.30 AM at Ashram flyover, opposite NAFED, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sun Light Colony, the accused Iqbal was driving a vehicle (TATA 407) bearing number RJ 23 GA 0125 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in such a manner, FIR No.380/10 State Vs. Iqbal Page No. 1 / 10 the accused had hit one car bearing no. UP 16T3917 and caused simple hurt to Ajmat & Ramneek and grievous injury to Ajay Kumar. The accused was also driving the said vehicle without permit and without any driving license. Thus, accused Iqbal is alleged to have committed offence punishable under section 279/337/338 IPC & under section 66 (1)/192A & 3/181 M V Act.
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant Azmat Ali, an FIR bearing number 380/10 under section 279/337/338 IPC & under section 66 (1)/192A & 3/181 M V Act was lodged at Police Station Sun Light Colony.
4. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 20.04.2011. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 279/337/338 IPC & under section 66 (1)/192A & 3/181 M V Act was framed against the accused Iqbal on 30.09.2011 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTION
6. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:-
1. That the accident actually took place.
2. That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused
3. That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.FIR No.380/10 State Vs. Iqbal Page No. 2 / 10
7. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses namely (1) Azmat Ali (2) Ajay Kumar Singh (3) Ramneek Kaur (4) T. U. Siddiqui (5) Subodh Kumar (6) Kayamuddin
8. PW-1 Azmat Ali deposed that on 30.10.2010 between 4.00-4.30 AM one accident had been occurred. Witness deposed that at that time he was driving one Indica car bearing no. UP16T 3917 and one Madam Ramneek Kaur was also seated in the said car. Witness had taken him from Dwarka for going to Noida. When he reached at Ashram Flyover he met with an accident with TATA 407. The witness could not tell the number of the offending vehicle. He deposed that at the time of driving, he felt sleepy situation and due to this, he washed his face with water. Thereafter, he met with an accident at the flyover. He deposed that he did not know more about the case.
9. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for State after taking permission from the court. During cross examination, he admitted that he was driving the vehicle of transporter which was engaged with News X channel, Noida. Witness deposed he used to pick up and and drop the staff of the said channel. He admitted that he had picked up one Ramneek Kaur and one guard namely Ajay from Dwarka to Noida. He admitted that at about 4.30 AM he had reached opposite Nafed on Ashram Flyover and was about to climb over the flyover. He admitted that while he was climbing over the bridge, one TATA 407 was also running ahead of his car. Witness asked for side to pass his car. He denied the suggestion that TATA 407 hit his car when he tried to take over TATA 407. Witness voluntarily deposed that "At that time, (Mujhe Need ki Jhapki Aa Gaye Thi)". He could not say FIR No.380/10 State Vs. Iqbal Page No. 3 / 10 whether the accident took place due to his negligence or negligence of the accused. He admitted that his vehicle got badly damaged due to the accident. He denied the suggestion that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by one person namely Iqbal. He voluntarily deposed that he could not identify the accused as he had become unconscious after the accident. He could not say when police came at the spot. He gained his consciousness at Trauma Centre where police met him and recorded his statement. He admitted that the police had read over his statement to him. He admitted that he had signed his statement after hearing the same. He admitted that he had put his signature at point A on his statement Ex. PW1/A. He denied the suggestion that the number of the TATA 407 is RJ 23 GA 0125. Witness deposed that in this accident, Ajay got serious injury while the witness and Ramneek Kaur got some minor injuries. Witness deposed that he did not know the name of driver of the TATA 407 and hence he could not tell the name of the driver to the police in his complaint. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. He did not know what the police had written in his statement and he had only signed the same at the instance of the police and his brother. Witness further deposed that whatever he told before the court is correct. He admitted that police had read over his statement to him but he could not grasp the contents read over by the police.
10. PW-2 Ajay Kumar Singh deposed that in the year 2010 he was working as a Security Guard in News X Channel at Rajni Gandha Chowk and used to reside at Noida Sector-31. On 30.10.2010 at about 3.00 am he along with driver Azmat Ali received Ramneek Kaur from her house at Dwarka and were FIR No.380/10 State Vs. Iqbal Page No. 4 / 10 going towards their office at Rajni Gandha, Sector -3, Noida in office car bearing no. UP16-39 (the witness could not recall the complete number) and at that time Azmat Ali was driving the said car. Witness deposed that he was sitting on the front seat by the side of driver and Ramneek Kaur was sitting in the rear seat of the car. Witness deposed that when their car reached at Ashram, one TATA 407 was going ahead of them. Their driver requested for side and the driver of the truck TATA 407 signaled them for pass. Witness further deposed that when their vehicle was overtaking the said TATA 407 and reached parallel to the said truck, in the meantime and suddenly the said TATA 407 hit their car from the left side of his car. He along with driver of his car Azmat and Ramneek received injuries. Witness immediately got unconscious. At the time of accident he could not see the driver of the offending truck. Witness deposed that later on witness came to know that the accused Iqbal had caused the accident. He regained his consciousness in the Trauma Centre. Police met him there. Later on he was enquired by the police who recorded his statement. Witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP after taking permission from the court. During cross examination, witness admitted the suggestion that on the day of accident when they reached at the Ashram Flyover, opposite Nafed, one TATA 407 bearing no. RJ 23 GA 0125 was going ahead of them, their driver requested him for passing side, the said TATA 407 gave them pass but when they reached parallel to the said truck while passing, the said truck hit his car.
11. In the cross examination by the accused, the witness deposed that he working as a security guard 5-6 months prior to the accident and his duty hours were from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. On the day of incident, he was also on FIR No.380/10 State Vs. Iqbal Page No. 5 / 10 duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. Witness deposed that his duty was to accompany female staff on the night pick up in the cabs for whole night. Witness deposed that he remained woke up in the whole night during the journey in the cabs. He used to sit with the driver seat. Witness deposed that they were climbing on the Ashram flyover in the cab, the time was 4.30 am. Witness deposed that he did not remember from which side the driver of the truck had given the pass for overtaking. Witness deposed that he had not seen as to who was driving the truck at the time of accident. He did not know whether the accused present in the court was driving the said truck on the date of incident. Witness deposed that he never visited the police to investigate the present matter. Witness deposed that he had visited the police station after one month of his accident when IO had called him. He did not know any other thing about the case. He denied the suggestion that the alleged accident was occurred due to fault of their cab driver namely Azmat Ali because he was in sleeping condition at the time of driving.
12. PW-3 Ramneek Kaur deposed that it was 29th October but she did not remember the year, however, it was two years back. Witness deposed that on that day, she was going to Noida from Dwarka by her office cab which was being driven by Azmat and one guard namely Ajay Kumar was also accompanying them. The witness deposed that they reached at the Ashram Flyover in the morning time and at that time she was in sleepy condition. Thereafter she did not remember what happened there and she gained his consciousness in the hospital only. Police came in the hospital and she told the police she was sleeping and did not remember anything. FIR No.380/10 State Vs. Iqbal Page No. 6 / 10
13. Witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for State after taking permission from the court. During cross examination, witness admitted that she had taken the cab at her house at Dwarka at about 3.00 am. She could not say whether they reached at the flyover at about 4.30 am. She could not say whether the truck bearing no. RJ 23 GA 0125 was asking for side from their cab. She could not say about the person who was present in the court as accused in the present case. She admitted that he had sustained injuries in the incident occurred in the present case.
14. Court questioned from the witness that "Did you wake up from the impact of the accident?" to which the Witness replied "No I had become unconscious and I gained my consciousness in the Ambulance but I again fell unconscious". Court also asked the witness that "Have you seen the accused present in the court today at the spot?" to which the witness replied that "No. I have seen him first time in the court today".
15. During cross examination by accused, witness deposed that she did not remember whether police had recorded her statement or not. She had never visited with the police to investigate the present case. She could not say whether the accident was caused by the fault of their cab driver.
16. PW-4 T. U. Siddiqui proved the mechanical inspection report as Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B.
17. PW-5 Subodh Kumar proved the superdarinama of the vehicle bearing no. UP 16 T 3917.
18. PW-6 Kayamuddin proved the superdarinama of vehicle bearing no. RJ 23 GA 0125.
FIR No.380/10 State Vs. Iqbal Page No. 7 / 10
19. As the complainant/sole eye witness and injured persons have turned hostile, denying the entire prosecution story, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy.
20. PW-1 Azmat Ali that is the complainant in the present case who was driving the Indica Car had deposed that at the time of accident, he was feeling sleepy. He has failed to deposed about the number of the offending vehicle. He has failed to identify the accused. There are significant contradictions in the testimony of this witness and his earlier statement i.e Ex. PW1/A. All the remaining witnesses who were present in the Indica car i.e PW-2 and PW-3 have also failed to identify the accused. PW-3 has stated that she had seen the accused for the first time in the court. PW-2 also failed to identify the accused as driver of offending truck. Since all the injured/sole eye witnesses have turned hostile, the prosecution can never prove that injuries caused to them in the present case was a result of an act of the accused and that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing number RJ 23 GA 0125, which was being driven by the accused Iqbal in a rash and negligent manner. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
21. The case is at the stage of PE, however, since there is nothing incriminating against the accused, proceeding further and recording the statement of remaining formal witnesses would be a futile exercise and wastage of judicial time, resources and money.
22. In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 ( Coram : 7 S. P. BHARUCHA, C.J.I., S. S. M. QUADRI, R. FIR No.380/10 State Vs. Iqbal Page No. 8 / 10 C. LAHOTI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, DORAISWAMY RAJU, Mrs. RUMA PAL, A. PASAYAT, JJ.) the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. Section 309, dealing with power to postpone or adjourn proceedings, provides generally for every inquiry or trial, being proceeded with as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same to be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Courts finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following days to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. Explanation-2 to Section 309 confers power on the Court to impose costs to be paid by the prosecution or the accused, in appropriate cases; and putting the parties on terms while granting an adjournment or postponing of proceedings. This power to impose costs is rarely exercised by the Courts. Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons
- cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts. In appropriate cases, inherent power to the High Court, under Section 482 can be invoked to make such orders, as may be necessary, to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. The power is wide and, if judiciously and consciously exercised, can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary on account of delay in proceedings or for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings. In appropriate cases, the High Courts have exercised their jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of first information report and investigation, and FIR No.380/10 State Vs. Iqbal Page No. 9 / 10 terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law was clearly made out. Such power can certainly be exercised on a case being made out of breach of fundamental right conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay's case referred to such power, vesting in the High Court (vide paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it was clear that even apart from Article 21, the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting to an end, by making appropriate orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted."
23. Accordingly, in the opinion of the court, in the light of the above cited judgment, the court needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused.
24. Since the eye witnesses have turned hostile and in the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under s. 258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Iqbal qua offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC and hereby releases the accused Iqbal under sections 279/337 IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal. Accused has already pleaded guilty under Section 66 (1) /192 A and 3/181 M V Act and convicted.
25. As per section 437-A of the Cr.P.C, as inserted vide the Amendment Act, which came into force on 31.12.2009, the personal bond and the surety bond of the accused as well as surety shall remain intact for a period of six months from today. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED ON 19.11.2013 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(South East)/ Saket/ 19.11.2013.
FIR No.380/10 State Vs. Iqbal Page No. 10 / 10