Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/570/2005 on 23 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02 (SHAHDARA) ,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
FIR No. : 570/05
PS : Seemapuri
U/s 279/304A IPC
Unique I.D. No. 02402R0239172006
State v. Jagir Singh
JUDGMENT
a)Serial No of the case : 168SP/13
b)Date of commission of offence : 19.09.2005
c)Name of the complainant : Sh. Manjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Dalip Singh
R/o H.No.D70, Jhilmil
Colony, Delhi.
d)Name parentage and : Jagir Singh S/o Bahadur
address of the accused Singh R/o Village Kotli
Modia P.O. Chor Sihdam,
PS Gurdas pur,
Distt. Gurdaspur, (Punjab)
e)Offence complaint of : U/s 279/304A IPC
f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g)Date on which judgment was
reserved : 23rd day of July, 2013
h)Final Order : Acquitted U/s 279/304A
IPC
FIR No. 570/05 State v. Jagir Singh Page No. 1 of 7
i)Date of decision : 23rd day of July, 2013
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. The accused is facing trial on the allegations that on 19.09.05 at 4.30 am behind red cross hospital parking, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Seemapuri accused was found driving truck bearing No.HR38J4275 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving the vehicle in reverse accused crushed one person namely Satnam Singh S/o Gulzar Singh and caused his death.
2. On conclusion of the investigation, the present chargesheet U/s 279/304A IPC was filed in the Court. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the copy of the chargesheet and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused. Prima facie offence U/s. 279/304A IPC was made out against the accused. Accordingly, on 05.02.07 accusations were explained and notice was served upon the accused by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 07 witnesses. FIR No. 570/05 State v. Jagir Singh Page No. 2 of 7 PW1 HC Yashvir Singh registered the FIR Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement on rukka Ex.PW1/B. He also recorded the DD No.8A at 7.00 am on the said date as Ex.PW1/C prior to the FIR.
PW2 Manjeet Singh deposed that he is running a transport business and in the month of September, 2005 accused present in the Court was driving truck in question. He came to know on the telephone that one accident had taken place with his truck. He came to the hospital where he came to know that injured had expired. His statement was not recorded but his signatures were taken in the police station on Ex.PW2/A. He was declared hostile by Ld. APP as he was resiling of from his earlier statement. He proved the superdaginama of truck in question Ex.PW2/B and application for superdari Ex.PW2/C, seizure memo of insurance documents Ex.PW2/D, seizure memo of R.C. Ex.PW2/F. He stated not to be present on the spot at the time of accident. He had not seen the accident.
PW3 Amar Singh proved the identification memo of the body of the deceased Ex.PW3/A. PW4 Ct. Mukesh informed the PS Seemapuri vide D.D No.8A about the death of the injured Satnam Singh at GTB hospital.
PW5 Ct. Fateh Singh deposed that he went alongwith ASI Satya FIR No. 570/05 State v. Jagir Singh Page No. 3 of 7 Prakash to GTB hospital. There they met one Manjeet Singh who produced the truck driver Jagir Singh and IO recorded the statement of Manjeet Singh and prepared rukka. Thereafter he went to the PS and got the FIR registered and then went to the spot of the accident. He correctly identified the accused present in the Court. He also proved the arrest memo of accused Ex.PW5/A, personal search of accused Ex.PW5/B. He proved the seizure memo of D.L. Ex.PW5/D. PW6 Dr. Banarasi Dass proved the MLC of deceased and his details report Ex.PW6/A. PW7 ASI Satya Prakash reiterated the version of other prosecution witnesses and prepared rukka Ex.PW7/A, Site Plan Ex.PW7/B. Thereafter P.E was closed as material/eye witness turned hostile in this case and no fruitful purpose would be served by examining the remaining witnesses. As no incriminating evidence has come on record hence statement of accused was dispensed with. Thereafter the matter was listed for final arguments. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Sh. Ashok Kumar Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the record.
4. It is cardinal principle of the criminal law that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable FIR No. 570/05 State v. Jagir Singh Page No. 4 of 7 doubt. The burden of proving guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the case of the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
5. To impose criminal liability U/s 279/304A IPC it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash or negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the promixate cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be a causa causans and it is not enough that it may have been only a causa sine qua non. In order to prove its case prosecution has to establish the identity of the accused, the identity of the vehicle, the injuries caused to the victim due to the accident and the rash or negligent driving by the accused due to which the accident was caused.
6. In the instant case the prosecution has examined 07 witnesses and out of them PW2 Sh. Manjeet Singh is the most important and vital witness being the complainant of the incident. PW2 has failed to identify the accused to be the perpetrator of the present offence. On the other hand, he stated that he had not seen the accident and his statement was not recorded. Only his signatures were obtained. He usually signs anywhere. He did not know the spot where the accident FIR No. 570/05 State v. Jagir Singh Page No. 5 of 7 had occurred. He denied to have taken the injured in his truck to the hospital. He stated not to be present on the spot. He stated he does not even know the name of the deceased. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State but despite that nothing incriminating against the accused could be extracted from his testimony. The prosecution through the testimony of PW2 was to prove the incident of rashness or negligence to take proper care on the part of the accused while driving beyond any reasonable doubt. However, he did not state anything against the accused. Thus, merely by establishing the incident, the accused cannot be convicted unless he is stated to be the culprit of the said offence.
7. Even as per the version of the prosecution, the only witness who could have deposed about the rashness or negligence of the accused is PW2. Therefore, there is not even an iota of incriminating evidence on record against the accused to convict him for the offence U/s 279/304A IPC. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the onus placed upon it and accordingly, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
8. In view of the above discussion, accused stands acquitted for the offence U/s 279/304A IPC. Accused is directed to furnish bail bond in FIR No. 570/05 State v. Jagir Singh Page No. 6 of 7 compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Accused submits that her earlier bail bond be extended. In view of the submission made, earlier bail bond of accused extended for 06 months. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar) rd on this 23 day of July, 2013 Metropolitan Magistrate 02 Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
All pages signed.
FIR No. 570/05 State v. Jagir Singh Page No. 7 of 7