Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonu on 12 May, 2023
State Vs. Sonu
FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA, ASJ-05,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PHC, NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No.9401/16
CNR no. DLND01-006875-2016
FIR no.174/16:
PS: Vasant Kunj North
U/s 279/304(II) IPC
Complainant Head Constable Vinod
Represented by Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. Additional Public
Prosecutor.
Accused Sonu S/o Sh. Madan Mohan Sharma,
R/o House no. E-130, Aman Gali, Near Yaad
Ram Mandir, East Babarpur, Delhi-110032
Represented by Sh. Jagjit Nandal, Sh. Naveen Kohar, Sh.
Vikas Ahlawat, Sh. Gaurav Arya and Ms.
Sunaina, Advocates.
Date of offence 13.03.2016
Date of FIR 13.03.2016
Date of chargesheet 15.06.2016
Date of framing of charges 03.10.2016
Date of commencement of 21.11.2016
evidence
Date on which judgment is 25.03.2023
reserved
Date of Judgment 12.05.2023
Date of the sentencing order, Not applicable.
if any
Page no.1 of total 19
State Vs. Sonu
FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North
Rank of Name of Date Date of Offences Whether Sentence Period of
the accused of release charged acquitted imposed detention
accused arrest on bail with or undergone
convicted during
Trial for
purpose of
Section
428 Cr.PC
1. Sonu 08.04. 04.10. 279/ Acquitted NIL NA
16 16 304 (II) IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case as per prosecution story are that on 13.03.2016 DD no. 10A regarding lying of an injured person after crossing the red light at main carriageway towards Kishan Garh, New Delhi was received. On receipt of said DD HC Vinod reached at the spot but no injured and accidental vehicle was found. Thereafter on receipt of DD no.5B the investigating officer reached at JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS where an unknown person aged about 25 years male was found admitted vide MLC no. 547506/16 with the alleged history of RTA, which was unfit for statement. The investigating officer contacted the caller Ct. Askarana, who informed that he has not seen the accident. During the course of investigation the investigating officer, came to know that one PCR call was received at Police Station Mehrauli that an injured in accident, was taken to the hospital by the driver of offending vehicle no. UP-17T-1920 and DD no. 49A in this regard was recorded. Thereafter on 14.03.2016 the injured had expired and on 15.03.2016 the deceased was identified by his brother Imam and identity of the deceased was established as Jammi Ahmed S/o Mustaq Ali.
2. In the present case during the course of investigation the investigating officer examined Ms. Ananya Berry caller of DD no.49A Page no.2 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North dated 13.03.2016 received at PS Mehrauli, who disclosed that on 13.03.2016 she was going in taxi no.UP-17T-9120 which was being driven by accused Sonu. She alleged that the said driver Sonu was driving the taxi in a rash and negligent manner and hit one bike rider. After accident the said driver Sonu asked her to take another vehicle as he was taking the injured to hospital. Thereafter she left. During the course of investigation the said Ms. Ananya Berry identified the deceased as the person who was hit by the taxi driver Sonu. The investigating officer verified the ownership of alleged vehicle no. UP-17T-9120 and the said vehicle was found registered in the name of one Narender who on notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicle Act disclosed that on the day of accident his vehicle was being driven by his driver Sonu. Thereafter the accused Sonu was interrogated and arrested in the present case.
3. During the course of investigation it was found that the accused Sonu had not taken the injured to the hospital and dropped him at Aruna Asaf Ali Road. Hence, the police after completion of investigation has filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 304/279 IPC before the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on 15.06.2016. The offence punishable under Section 304 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, therefore the matter was committed to Court of Sessions for trial.
4. Ld.counsel for the accused Sonu has conceded for framing of charge. Therefore, vide order dated 03.10.2016, on being found sufficient material against the accused Sonu, charge for the offences punishable under Section 279/304(II) IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Page no.3 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North
5. To prove its case the prosecution examined 24 witnesses. The details of the witnesses examined during the course of the trial are tabulated as under:-
S.No. Name Relevance PW 1 Sh. Sameen Ahmed He is the registered owner and superdar of the motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SBS-1269 on which the deceased was riding at the time of alleged accident.
PW 2 Sh. Imam Hussain He is the brother of deceased and had identified the dead body of deceased.
PW3 Dr. Krishna Veer He was working as Senior Resident, Department of Neuro Surgery, AIIMS New Delhi at the time of death of deceased and informed PS Vasant Kunj North regarding death of deceased.
PW 4 Dr. Krishna Kumar He had conducted postmortem on Singh the dead body of decease dJammi Ahmed and prepared postmortem report no.TC-127/16.
PW 5 Sarfaraz He is relative of deceased and had identified the dead body of deceased in the presence of PW Imam.
PW 6 Rahul He is son of owner of offending vehicle bearing no. UP-17T-9120.
He has deposed that on the day of accident the accused had informed him about the accident and when the accused Sonu came with his car, it was in accidental condition.
PW 7 Sh. Ajay Samal He is Motor Licencing Officer and had verified the ownership of the motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SBS-
Page no.4 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North 1269.
PW 8 Mr. Mohd. Ali Raza He is witness from Licencing Authority and proved the driving licence of the accused Sonu.
PW 9 Sh. Satender Singh He is Nodal Officer of Royal Yadav Sundaram General Insurance Company and has proved the insurance policy of offending vehicle.
PW 10 SI Naresh Kuamr He is Duty Officer and has recorded the DD no.49A at PS Mehrauli.
PW 11 Ct. Askaran He is the person who had first seen the injured lying at the road leading to Katwaria Sarai and made PCR call. Site plan was prepared at his instance.
PW-12 Ct. Mohd. Alam He had joined investigation with the investigating officer and got conducted the postmortem of deceased.
PW13 Ct. Sunil He is police official, joined investigation with the IO. He went to the spot and AIIMS Trauma Centre with the investigating officer. He got registered the FIR on the instructions of IO.
PW 14 Ms. Ananya Berry She is alleged to be eyewitness of the accident and was travelling in the alleged offending vehicle at the time of accident.
PW15 HC Sultan Singh He is Duty Officer who recorded DD no.33A regarding death of the deceased.
PW16 Narender Kumar He is the registered owner of alleged offending vehicle bearing no. UP-17T-9120. He deposed that on the day of accident, his vehicle was being driven by accused Sonu.
Page no.5 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North He had also obtained the vehicle on superdari.
PW17 ASI Vinod Kumar He is the first investigating officer of the case. He deposed about the sequence of investigation, registration of FIR, postmortem of deceased and verification of documents etc. PW18 Tasnim Uddin He had conducted mechanical Siddiqui inspection of both the motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SBS-1269 and offending car bearing no.UP-17T-
9120 and prepared mechanical inspection report Ex. PW18/A and Ex. PW18/B. PW19 SI Bansi Lal He is the investigating officer from PS Mehrauli who had conducted investigation on receipt of DD no.49A at PS Mehrauli. He recorded the statement of eyewitness Ananya Beri PW20 Prem Pal Singh He is witness from Regional Transport Office, Baghpat, UP and proved the registration particulars of offending car bearing no. UP-17T-
9120.
PW21 Sh. Sachin Dahiya He is the witness from Uber India Pvt. Ltd. and proved his report Ex.
PW21/1.
PW22 Dr. Sukumar Assistant Professor from JPN Apex Trauma Centre and prepared the MLC no. 547506/16.
PW 23 SI Neeraj Kumar He is second investigating officer of the case. HE had interrogated and arrested the accused Sonu on the identification of Ms. Ananya Beri.
He also obtained report from Uber India Pvt. Ltd., got mechanically Page no.6 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North inspected both the vehicles, got verified the documents from concerned authorities and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.
PW24 HC Naresh Kumar He is the Duty Officer who (Retired) registered the FIR on the basis of rukka sent by HC Vinod.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Sonu under Section 313 Cr. PC was recorded. Accused pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
7. I have heard the detailed arguments advanced by Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the state, Sh. Amit Chadha, Ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh. Jagjit Nandal and Sh. Naveen Kohar, Ld.counsel for the accused.
8. It is submitted by Ld.counsel for the accused that the PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry is only eyewitness of the accident and she has deposed that the accused was not driving in rash and negligent manner. That the deposition of PW-6 Rahul is an extra judicial confession and requires strong evidence to corroborate it for being relied in criminal cases. That the evidence led by the prosecution is inconsistent with the confession. That the PCR official who took the injured to hospital was not examined. That the identify of the deceased to that of injured who was seen by PW- 11 Ct. Askaran was never established and corroborated. That there is no single independent witness who is stated to have seen the accused throwing the injured biker. That the GPS Location of the vehicles of Page no.7 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North accused does not reveal anything about the location of accused, where the accused is alleged to have thrown the injured biker and the prosecution has failed to connect the injured with the deceased. That the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused deserves the benefit of doubt. That there is no material to secure conviction of the accused. It is prayed that the accused may kindly be acquitted in the present case.
9. It is submitted by Ld.Additional PP for the state and Ld.counsel for the complainant that there is sufficient material on record to secure conviction of the accused for the charges framed against him. That the scientific evidence produced by PW-21, PW-23 and extra judicial confession made by the accused to his employer Sh. Rahul (PW-
6) are sufficient enough to secure conviction of the accused. That the extra judicial confession are fully corroborated through the GPS details of the Uber car being driven by the accused sonu which shows that the accused had ended the trip in Vasant Kunj near the spot where the injured Jammi Ahmed was later found. That the accused had firstly hit the injured while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereafter thrown him at a desolate spot to escape rather than taking him for medical aid. That the offence punishable under Section 279/304(II) IPC stands fully established beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
10. It is well settled law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and if the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt always goes Page no.8 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North to the accused persons. The accused persons are always entitled for benefit of doubt upon the story of prosecution.
11. In the present case the accused has been charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/304(II)IPC. There are charges against the accused that in the intervening night of 12/13.03.2016 at about 02.00 a.m. near Qutub Minar Metro Station, New Delhi, the accused was driving taxi (Swift Dzire) bearing no. UP-17 T- 9120 of Uber Company in rash and negligent manner while going to drop the passenger namely Ms. Annanya Berry to her home at Saket and when he was in front of Qutub Minar Metro Station, Delhi he while driving the said car in the said manner hit the biker namely Jammi Ahmed (now deceased) who was driving the Motorcycle bearing no DL-3S BS 1269 and at the assurance of Ms. Annanya Berry the accused took the injured in his car to get him admitted in nearby hospital but inspite of taking him to hospital he had thrown the said injured in a secluded place at Aruna Asaf Ali Road, Vasant Kunj within the jurisdiction of PS Vasant Kunj (N) without providing any medical assistance with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause his death.
12. The prosecution sought to prove its case against the accused on the basis of direct/ ocular evidence, extra judicial confession and circumstantial evidence.
(Direct Evidence/Eye witness):-
13. The statement of PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry is of prime importance in the present matter as she happens to be eyewitness of main events leading to commission of offence. PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry in Page no.9 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North her statement to the police has supported the story of prosecution on all counts, however, during her examination in the court as PW-14, she has not supported the case of prosecution on material counts. The relevant part of examination in chief of PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry is reproduced for consideration, which reads as under:-
"On 13.03.2016, I had booked a taxi of Uber company. Today, I do not remember the registration number of the said vehicle. I booked the said vehicle from 4 Point Sherotan, Gurugram for going to my house situated at Saket. I cannot identify the driver of the said vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle was driving the vehicle in normal manner. The said vehicle was booked at about 1:00 AM. I received the information from Uber company regarding the name and the registration number of the vehicle. I sat in the same vehicle of which the information was received from Uber company on my mobile phone. At about 1:30 AM, we reached on the road situated opposite Qutab Metro Station. The signal was green for us. A motorcyclist came from our opposite direction and jumped the light and took U-turn. At that time the light was red for him. The taxi driver hit the motorcyclist as motorcyclist jumped the red light and took U- turn. The motorcyclist fell down and sustained injuries. I asked the driver to stop the vehicle. I left the place due to fear. I was trying to take help from someone as I wanted to go to my house. No one stopped the vehicle. I continued running. When I reached at about 200 meters from the Qutab Minar, Metro Station, a red Swift car came. I signaled him to stop. The said vehicle was stopped. One couple was sitting in the vehicle. I told them all the facts and requested them to help the injured. I requested them to drop me at my residence. The persons sitting in the said vehicle came outside from the said vehicle. The said person came again at the vehicle and told that he with the help of passersby kept the injured in the vehicle in which I was going to my house from Gurugram. (objected to by Ld. defence counsel being hearsay). After that I went to my house. I made a call at 100 number and I told all the facts to the police. I also made a call to emergency number of Uber Company and told all the facts to them".
14. It is clear from perusal of deposition of PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry that firstly she could not identify the driver of said vehicle in which she was travelling. Even during cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW- 14 Ms. Ananya Berry has categorically stated that she had not seen the face of person who was driving the aforesaid vehicle, however, it was admitted that one Sonu was driving the vehicle as per message received Page no.10 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North from Uber company with regard to name and registration number of the vehicle.
15. PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry is the only eyewitness with regard to the rash and negligent driving of accused. PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry in her examination in chief has stated that the driver of the said vehicle was driving the vehicle in a normal manner and at about 1.30 PM when they reached on the road situated opposite Qutab Metro Station, the signal was green for them. A motorcyclist came from their opposite direction and jumped the light and took u turn on the red light. The taxi driver hit the motorcyclist as motorcyclist jumped the red light and took U turn. During her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry denied the suggestion that the driver Sonu was driving the taxi in rash and negligent manner. PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry has denied stating of this fact to police in her statement Ex. PW14/A. It is also specifically denied that while driving the aforesaid vehicle in rash and negligent manner the driver hit the motorcyclist. PW-14 again voluntarily reiterated that the driver of taxi was driving the vehicle in proper manner.
16. The prosecution has based its case upon the statement of PW-14 recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC that after the accident driver Sonu told her that he is taking the injured to hospital and the driver Sonu left the spot after taking the injured for hospital. PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry in her examination in chief has nowhere supported this submission. PW-14 has deposed that she has asked the driver to stop the vehicle and left the spot due to fear. Thereafter she took lift from a couple and requested them to drop her at her residence. She further deposed that the person sitting in the said vehicle came outside from the said vehicle. The Page no.11 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North said person came again at the vehicle and told that he with the help of passersby kept the injured in the vehicle in which he was going to his house from Gurugram. This narration by PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry is apparently hearsay. The hearsay deposition is not admissible in the eyes of law. In the cross-examination by Addl. PP for the state PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry has clarified that she did not know if the accused took the injured to the hospital in his vehicle.
17. PW-14 in her statement under Section 161 Cr. PC has stated that she has identified the photograph of the injured on the MLC no.547506/16 as a person who has been hit by driver Sonu on 13.03.2016. However, PW-14 in her examination in chief has nowhere deposed that she had seen the victim/injured at the spot. It is specifically denied by PW-14 that she has identified the injured from the photographs which were fixed on his MLC before the police. It was also denied that she had seen the injured who was alive at that time and was in pain.
18. In view of above points discussed, it is clear that PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry is not helpful to prosecution to prove its case on the basis of her being the eyewitness of the accident. The charges framed by the prosecution are not proved on the basis of deposition of PW-14 Ms. Ananya Berry who is alleged eyewitness of the accident. The prosecution has cited no other person as eyewitness. There is no material on record which suggest that the testimony of remaining witnesses could establish the charge framed against the accused for commission of alleged offence on the basis of direct/ocular evidence.
Page no.12 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North (Extra Judicial Confession):-
19. Now I will proceed to examine whether the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW-6. It is strongly contended by Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Ld.counsel for the complainant that the accused has voluntarily and without any fear, force and coalition, out of his own free will has confessed regarding commission of alleged offence in the presence of PW-6 Rahul which is admissible in evidence. That the extra judicial confession was made by the accused in the presence of public person who is independent witness and not a police officer, therefore, the court may place reliance upon the deposition of PW-6 Rahul. The deposition of PW-6 Rahul is necessary to be reproduced for consideration which is reproduced as under:
When accused Sonu brought the vehicle on 13.03.2016 to my house, it was in accidental condition. On my asking accused Sonu told me that an accident had taken place with a bike at Qutub Minar Metro Station and there was a passenger in his vehicle. Accused Sonu further told me that with the help of passenger and 2-3 other public persons, the injured biker was kept in the car. Accused Sonu further told me that he had left the said biker safely. (objected to by Ld. Defence counsel being hearsay and being inadmissible
20. The law in this regard is well settled. It was observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Pakala Narayanaswami v. Emperor MANU/PR/0001/1939, that the "confession" as used in the Evidence-Act cannot be construed as meaning a statement by an accused suggesting the inference that he committed the crime. A confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact, is not of itself a confession, A statement that contains self- exculpatory matter cannot amount to a Page no.13 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact, which if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed.
21. It is no doubt true that an extra judicial confession, if it is voluntary truthful, reliable and beyond approach, is an efficacious piece of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused and it is not necessary that the evidence of extra judicial confession should be corroborated on material facts. However, at the same time the extra judicial confession can not be sole basis for conviction of the accused.
22. It is no doubt established on record that the statement given to PW-6 Rahul is voluntary in nature because the accused has nowhere proved that such statement was made by him involuntary. PW-6 Rahul is independent public witness having no adverse interest with the accused. Therefore, the statement made to PW-6 Rahul is reliable, however, it is to be seen whether the statement made by the accused to PW-6 comes within the definition of extra judicial confession.
23. The word 'confession' appears for the first time in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section comes under the heading of Admission so it is clear that the confessions are merely one species of admission. Confession is not defined under the Indian Evidence Act. However, the dictionary gives the meaning of confession as "the confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime." To qualify the definition of confession, the statement must either admit the guilt in terms or admit substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. The mixed up statement which even though contains some Page no.14 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North confessional statement will still lead to acquittal, is no confession. A statement that contains self-exculpatory matter which if true would negate the matter or offence, cannot amount to confession. A bare perusal of deposition of PW-6 would reveals that the statement made by the accused to PW-6 does not qualify the conditions to make it as confessional statement. The accused in the entire statement has nowhere admitted the facts leading to the conclusion of his commission of offence. The statement made by the accused to PW-6 is totally exculpatory in nature which does not involve him in commission of any offence. Therefore, accordingly I have no hesitation to hold that the statement made by the accused to PW-6 does not fall within the meaning of extra judicial confession, hence the same is not admissible and cannot be used against the accused to secure the conviction.
(Circumstantial Evidence):-
24. The prosecution has also sought to prove its case based upon circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to circumstantial evidence have been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following principles on circumstantial evidence :
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely 'may be' fully established, (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency, (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any Page no.15 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
25. Now coming to the present case it be noted that PW-11 Ct. Askaran deposed that he spotted the injured/victim/biker at Aruna Asif Ali Road and made the PCR call. PCR reached at the spot and took the injured and thereafter he left the spot. It is pertinent to mention that the deceased was not identified by PW-11 Ct. Askaran as the same person who has spotted lying in the injured condition. Thereafter the PCR officials who also brought the injured from the spot to hospital are also not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the first chain of circumstances has been broken on the very first stage where the prosecution has fails to establish that the person who expired in the hospital is the same person who has been spotted by PW-11 Ct. Askaran in the injured condition at the spot.
26. It is also contended that the case of prosecution stands also proved with the deposition of PW-21 Sachin Dahiya who deposed on behalf of Uber India Taxi Services. It is argued that as per the GPS details of the car being driven by accused Sonu at the time of the accident which were provided by Uber, the Trip of the car was ended at Vasant Kunj. This is established from Ex. PW 21/1, which is the reply dated 21.04.2016 furnished by Uber company to notice dated 21.04.2016 under sec. 91 CrPC issued by the IO. As per Ex. PW 21/1:
"3. Based on the information available to us, the trip was requested/booked by Ms. Ananya Berry with phone number +91 9811514841. The trip was requested at 1.33 am and the pick up took place at 1.44 AM at Delhi-Jaipur Expy, Samalka, New Delhi, Delhi-110037. The trip was ended at 2:15 AM at 4503, Sector B Rd, Pocket 5 and 6, Sector B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, Delhi 110067. The tax invoice of the trip is attached with this reply. The rider, Ms. Ananya Berry Page no.16 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North contacted Uber's customer support at 2:06 AM, March 13, 2016 to report the incident."
27. It is further argued that Ex. PW 23/G, which is the GPS map provided by Uber in response to notice dated 27.04.2016 under sec. 91 CrPC issued by the IO also shows that the Trip of the said car being driven by Sonu was ended in Vasant Kunj nearby where Jammi Ahmad was later discovered lying injured by PW-11 Ct. Askaran. That the accident spot being red light near Qutab Minar Metro Station is 5-6 kms. away from the place where the Trip was ended and is also nearby where Jammi Ahmad was later discovered by PW-11. The fact that the Trip of the car being driven by Sonu was ended by him on Uber platform in Vasant Kunj is a clear indicator that it was Sonu who threw Jammi Ahmad at the secluded spot in Vasant Kunj and ended the Trip to make good his escape.
28. It is also contended that the other facts coupled with above discussions i.e. mobile phone of the accused Sonu was switched off after the accused, deposition of PW-6 regarding receipt of vehicle in accidental condition on 13.03.2016 are sufficient to prove the charges framed against the accused.
29. All the incriminating circumstances mentioned above by the prosecution, even if taken on its face value, is not sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances to secure the conviction. The chain of circumstantial evidence in the present case is so broken that it can not be considered sufficient to secure conviction of the accused. The prosecution has mainly relied upon deposition of PW-21 Sachin Dahiya, an Official from Uber India Pvt. Ltd. who has proved the report with regard to GPS Page no.17 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North map and mobile phone details given by Uber India Ltd. in response to the notice dated 27.04.2016 under Section 91 Cr. PC. PW-21 in his evidence has admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the facts of the case. PW-21 on the basis of record has merely given the report that on 13.03.2016 the trip was booked by one Ananya Berry which has been assigned to accused Sonu. He has further given the report that the above said trip was ended at 2.15 AM at 4503, Sector B Road, Pocket 5 and 6, Sector B Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110067. However, there is nothing on record to specifically establish that this spot mentioned in the report relied upon by PW-21 and the spot where the deceased was seen lying in injured condition by PW-11 Ct. Aaskaran are the same spot. PW-21 has nowhere identified that the spot given in the report Ex. PW23/G and the spot from where the injured was spotted by PW-11 Ct. Aaskaran are the same spot.
30. The prosecution has also stressed on the fact that the mobile phone of the accused got switched off after the accident near the spot from where the deceased was spotted in the injured condition by PW-11 Ct. Aaskaran. The prosecution has not been able to establish that mobile phone of the accused got switched off at the same spot from where the deceased was seen by PW-11 Ct. Aaskaran in the injured condition. Only the fact that the mobile phone of the accused was switched off is not a sufficient incriminating circumstance to draw the presumption of guilt against the accused. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has fails to complete the chain of circumstances which could justify conviction of the accused.
31. It is well settled law that if the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt always goes to the accused persons. The accused is always entitled for benefit of Page no.18 of total 19 State Vs. Sonu FIR no.174/16; PS Vasant Kunj North doubt upon the story of prosecution. In the present case there is shadow of doubt upon the story of prosecution, therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
32. Accordingly it is held that the prosecution is not able to prove the charge framed against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/304(II) IPC on the basis of direct evidence, extra judicial confession and circumstantial evidence independently. The prosecution is also not able to prove the charges framed against the accused for commission of alleged offence even if the direct evidence, extra judicial confession and circumstantial evidence are taken up together. Hence, the accused Sonu is acquitted of the charges framed under Section 279/304(II) IPC against him.
33. In terms of section 437A Cr.P.C, accused Sonu is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount with condition that he will appear before the higher court/any court as and when receive summons/notice and shall not change their address without the prior intimation to the court. The bond shall be valid for a period of six months from the date of its acceptance.
Announced in the open Court (Devender Kumar Jangala)
on 12.05.2023 ASJ-05, New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
Certified that above judgment contains 19 pages and each page is signed by me.
(Devender Kumar Jangala) ASJ-05, New Delhi District Patiala House Courts, New Delhi Page no.19 of total 19