Delhi District Court
State vs . Imran on 17 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST):SAKET
COURTS:NEW DELHI
Presided by : Ms. SONAM SINGH-I
State Vs. IMRAN
FIR No. 308/2018
Police Station: New Friends Colony
Under Section: 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(in short "IPC").
Date of institution : 08.07.2019
Date of reserving : 05.12.2022
Date of pronouncement : 17.12.2022
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 21299/2019
b) Date of commission of : 30.11.2018 offence
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Parikshit Bedi s/o Sh. Lalit Bedi
d) Name, parentage and : Imran s/o Sabir, address of the accused R/o. H.N9. 40-9, Zakir Nagar, West Gaddha Colony, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC")
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquitted u/s 279 of IPC and already stands acquitted U/s. 338 IPC vide separate order dated 05.12.2022
h) Date of final order : 17.12.2022 State vs. Imran FIR No. 308/18, P.S. New Friends Colony Pages 1 of 9 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. Vide this judgment, the accused, namely, Imran stands acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 279 IPC in this case for the reasons mentioned below:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is that on 30.11.2018, at about 06.00 PM at Okhla More, near CNG Station, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS NFC, accused Imran was found driving a car make Hundai i10 bearing registration No. DL 3CCM 2941 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. Further, it is alleged that while driving the said vehicle in the said manner, accused struck against the scooter bearing registration No. DL 3SDU 5931 due to which the scooterist/complainant namely Parikshit Bedi fell down and sustained grievous injuries and thereby accused Imran committed offences punishable U/s 279/338 IPC.
3. The investigation was done by the IO/ASI Kanhiya Lal who filed the police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC.
State vs. Imran FIR No. 308/18, P.S. New Friends Colony Pages 2 of 9 COURT PROCEEDINGS
4. The learned predecessor of this court took cognizance upon the said police report on 18.01.2020 and accused was supplied with the copies of police report and documents.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 05.12.2022, prima-facie the charge against accused Imran for the offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC was made out and framed, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
OTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS
6. On 05.12.2022, the complainant/injured Parikshit Bedi vide his separate statement deposed he had amicably settled the matter with accused qua section 338 IPC and prayed for compounding of offence U/s. 338 IPC, whereby the accused paid the monetary compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant Parikshit Bedi.
7. Accordingly, with regard to the offence U/s. 338 IPC in view of the amicable settlement between both parties, they are permitted to compound the offence U/s. 338 IPC and hence accused Imran stands acquitted from the offence U/s 338 IPC.
State vs. Imran FIR No. 308/18, P.S. New Friends Colony Pages 3 of 9 EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
8. With regard to the offence U/s. 279 IPC, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
(i) Prosecution Witnesses
9. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution in all has examined only one witness, namely:
Designation and Name Role in the present case Sr. No. of the Witness
1. PW1 Sh. Parikshit Bedi Complainant/injured
(iii) Documents on record:
10. The prosecution witness relied on the following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibits/Marks Nature of
documents
1. Ex.PW1/1 Complaint
2. Ex.PW1/2 Site plan
3. Ex.PW1/3 Seizure memo of offend-
ing vehicle
4. Ex.PW1/4 Seizure memo of DL.
5. Ex.PW1/5 Seizure memo of scooty
6. Ex.PW1/6 Seizure memo of docu-
ments of scooty
7. Ex.PW1/7 Superdarinama of scooty
8. Ex.PW1/8 & 1/9 Supplementary
statements of witness
State vs. Imran
FIR No. 308/18, P.S. New Friends Colony Pages 4 of 9
9. Ex.PH-3 (colly-3 photo- Photographs of scooty graphs)
11. PW1 Sh. Parikshit Bedi who is the complainant/injured and only material witness in this case during his examination in chief did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Ld. APP for state after obtaining the permission of the court, cross examined this witness and even in the cross-examination did not utter even a single word against the accused and also failed to identify the accused in court.
12. Thereafter, Ld. APP for the State requested the court to summon other prosecution witnesses, but the request was denied on the ground that the sole material witness/ the complainant, namely, Sh. Parikshit Bedi had failed to identify the accused in the court and had turned hostile. There was no incriminating evidence on record. Hence, no purpose would have been served by examining them or the remaining prosecution witnesses who were police officials and formal in nature. Hence, PE was closed vide order dated 05.12.2022.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSON UNDER
SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
13. Since there was not an iota of incriminating
evidence/material on record which may be put and confronted to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, consequently recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with on 05.12.2022.
State vs. Imran FIR No. 308/18, P.S. New Friends Colony Pages 5 of 9 FINAL ARGUMENTS
14. The Court heard the final arguments on 05.12.2022.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
15. In support of its case, prosecution has produced and examined only one witness i.e. PW1 is Sh. Parikshit Bedi who is the only material witness in this case. It is pertinent to note that the complainant PW1 Sh. Parikshit Bedi in his examination-in- chief deposed that he does not remember anything about this case. Further, he failed to identify the accused in the court. Ld. APP for state cross examined him but even in the cross examination he failed to identify the accused and specifically deposed that he cannot identify the accused.
16. I have heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State as well as that of the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents and the entire material on record.
17. It is argued by Ld. APP for State that the accused be convicted as per law.
18. On the other hand, it is argued by the accused that he be acquitted as no incriminating material or evidence has come on record against the accused. Further, he argued that PW1 Parikshit State vs. Imran FIR No. 308/18, P.S. New Friends Colony Pages 6 of 9 Bedi, the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and failed to depose regarding his identity in his deposition.
19. The entire prosecution case against the accused is based on the statement of complainant/PW1 Parikshit Bedi made before police whereby he narrated that on 30.11.2018 at about 06.00 PM at Okhla More, near CNG Station, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS NFC, accused was driving a car make i10 Hundai bearing No. DL 3CCM 2941 in rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in said manner, accused hit against the scooter bearing registration No. DL 3SDU 5931 due to which the scooterist/complainant fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his person.
20. In regard to the offence U/s. 279 IPC, the prosecution case cannot be considered to be standing on its own legs without the testimony of said complainant asserting the facts mentioned in his statement before the police / IO.
21. In the aforesaid circumstances, the fact of hitting against the scooter bearing no. DL 3SDU 5931 of complainant and causing grievous injuries on the person of injured/complainant/PW1 Parikshit Bedi cannot be proved because the complainant specifically deposed that he cannot identify the accused or remember the facts of the incident.
22. Since, complainant//PW1 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile before the Court, nothing incriminating to suggest that the accused hit the car in this case State vs. Imran FIR No. 308/18, P.S. New Friends Colony Pages 7 of 9 could be brought on record. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of offence u/s 279 IPC alleged against the accused in the present matter beyond reasonable doubt.
23. The remaining unexamined witnesses are either police officials or formal witnesses who are not ocular witnesses and could not prove the culpability of accused. None of the remaining witness is an eye witness to the alleged accident. No other witness is competent enough to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. The complicity of accused could have been proved by the ocular evidence or circumstantial evidence. The ocular witnesses are dropped and the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to infer the guilt of accused. It is well settled law that to convict the accused on circumstantial evidence, there must be complete chain of events pointing towards the guilt of accused and nothing else.
24. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave may be, cannot take place of proof. Every benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused.
25. In case titled as Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that in a case where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of Court should not be wasted for State vs. Imran FIR No. 308/18, P.S. New Friends Colony Pages 8 of 9 holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date.
26. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited Judgment, this Court is of considered view that the prosecution is unable to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The Court needs to protect the right of accused to have speedy justice and acquit the accused forthwith as there is nothing incriminating against accused Imran. Accordingly, accused Imran is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 279 IPC.
27. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 17.12.2022 (SONAM SINGH-I) ACMM (SOUTH EAST):
SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI State vs. Imran FIR No. 308/18, P.S. New Friends Colony Pages 9 of 9