Delhi District Court
Sate vs . Ram Babu @ Bhola on 18 November, 2014
FIR No. 374/08
PS Narela
U/s. 279/337/304A IPC
Sate Vs. Ram Babu @ Bhola
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURT: DELHI.
FIR No. 374/08
PS Narela
U/s. 279/337/304A IPC
Sate Vs. Ram Babu @ Bhola
Date of Institution of case:- 03.09.10
Date of Judgment reserved:- 11.09.14
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 18.11.14
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. :02404R0224342010
Date of commission of offence :25.08.08
Name of complainant :HC Hamir Singh, No. 157/OD, PS
Narela, Delhi.
Name and address of accused :Ram Babu @ Bhola
S/o. Sh. Bachhan Yadav
R/o Vill. Khera Sirwa, PS Behri,
District Darbhanga, Bihar Also At:
595, VPO Mundaka, Delhi-41
Offence complained of :279/337/304A IPC
Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
Final order :Acquitted
Date of order :18.11.2014
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
1. The accused Ram Babu @ Bhola, S/o Sh. Bachan Yadav has been sent to face trial under Section 279/337/304A Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) on the allegations that on 25.08.08 at about 3:55 a.m., at Ramdev Chowk, Singhu Border, Narela, Delhi he was found driving the vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration no. HP-55-5870 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and Page No.1 of 9 FIR No. 374/08 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/304A IPC Sate Vs. Ram Babu @ Bhola while driving the abovesaid vehicle in the abovesaid manner he did not pay heed to the request of the passengers travelling in his tempo due to which one Atam Prakash and Jagdeep fell down from the tempo and Atam Prakash sustained simple injuries and Jagdeep succumbed to injuries (not amounting to culpable homicide) and on the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR bearing no.374/08 was registered at Police station Narela and the accused has been charged with the offence under Section 279/337/304A IPC.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. The copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and notice U/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 279/337/304A IPC was served upon the accused on 13.03.12, to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution examined only three witnesses.
4. PW1 is Sh. Gurpreet S/o Gurcharan Singh, R/o H. No. 2106, Bawana road, Narela, Delhi. He is one of the eye witness in the present case. He deposed that the accident occurred 4-5 years ago on the day of Janmasthmi festival. He further deposed that, he alongwith 2-4 passengers were in a tempo, the number he did not remember. He further deposed that the tempo was taking them from Loni border to Narela. He further deposed that when they reached near Ramdev chowk, Page No.2 of 9 FIR No. 374/08 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/304A IPC Sate Vs. Ram Babu @ Bhola near singh border road, Narela, Delhi, one speed breaker came infront of tempo and one boy aged about 15 years who was sitting on the back side (dala) of the tempo got disbalanced and fell down from the tempo on the ground. He further deposed that they had earlier requested the boy to sit inside the tempo but he did not pay attention to their request. Thereafter, the tempo driver stopped the tempo and they came down from the tempo and saw the boy was severely injured and was bleeding from his head. He further deposed that one person atam Prakash had also fallen down from the tempo and he had also sustained injuries. He further deposed the name of the boy who fell down from the tempo was Jagdeep. Thereafter, they all took Jagdeep to the hospital to SRHC hospital for medical treatment. Thereafter, the ambulance from SRHC hospital again took that boy to another hospital but Jagdeep died on the way to the another hospital. He failed to identify the tempo driver. Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross examine the witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he admitted that the accident occurred on the intervening night of 24-25/08/08 at about 3:55 a.m. He further deposed that he did not know the registration number of the tempo as he had not seen the number. He denied the suggestion that tempo driver was driving the tempo at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner without paying any heed to their request to slow down the speed and at about 3:55 a.m, at Ramdev Chowk, Narela, due to rash Page No.3 of 9 FIR No. 374/08 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/304A IPC Sate Vs. Ram Babu @ Bhola and negligent driving of the driver, the iron pipe of the tempo was broken and two persons Jagdeep and atam Prakash fell down from the tempo. The witness is confronted with the statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. marked 'A' from portion A to A1, to which witness denied having made any such statement before the police. He further deposed that driver of the tempo was not driving at a very high speed and was not rash and negligent. He denied the suggestion that being won over by the accused, he was deliberately not telling the truth before the court. He has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite given opportunity.
5. PW2 is Sh. atam Prakash S/o Sh. Bal Kishan, R/o H. No. 243, Gali No. 6, Prem Colony, Swatantra Nagar, Narela, Delhi. He is the injured in the present case. He deposed that the accident occurred 4-5 years ago on the day of Janmashtmi festival. He further deposed that on that day, he alongwith 4-5 persons were coming from Loni border to Narela in a tempo after celebrating Janmasthmi festival, the registration number of which he did not remember. He further deposed that he alongwith one boy Jagdeep was sitting on the back side (dala) of the tempo. He further deposed that when they reached near Ramdev Chowk, near singh border road, Narela, Delhi, one speed breaker came in front of tempo due to which he and Jagdeep got disbalanced and fell down from the tempo on the ground. He further deposed that other persons had earlier requested them to sit inside the tempo but they did not pay Page No.4 of 9 FIR No. 374/08 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/304A IPC Sate Vs. Ram Babu @ Bhola attention to their request. He further deposed that he sustained injuries on his hand and knee. Jagdeep also sustained injuries and also started bleeding. Thereafter, they both were taken to SRHC hospital for medical treatment. Thereafter, they were taken to GB Pant hospital but Jagdeep died. This witness failed to identify the tempo driver.
Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross examine the witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he admitted that the accident occurred on the intervening night of 24-25/08/08 at about 3:55 a.m. He further deposed that he did not know the registration number of the tempo as he had not seen the number. He denied the suggestion that tempo driver was driving the tempo at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without paying any heed to their request to slow down the speed and at about 3:55 p.m, at Ramdev Cowk, Narela, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver the iron pipe of the tempo was broken and they fell down from the tempo. Witness is confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. marked 'B' from portion B to B1 to which witness denied to have made any such witness before the police. He further deposed that he had signed the documents as the instance of IO. He further deposed that IO had not read over the documents to him before obtaining his signatures. He further deposed that driver of the tempo was not driving at a very high speed and was not rash and negligent. He denied the suggestion that being won Page No.5 of 9 FIR No. 374/08 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/304A IPC Sate Vs. Ram Babu @ Bhola over by the accused, he was deliberately not telling the truth before the court. He has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite given opportunity.
6. PW3 is Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Jaharia, R/o H. No. 101, Village-Kureni, Narela, Delhi. He is also one of the eye witness of the present case. He deposed that the accident occurred 4-5 years ago on the day of Janmasthmi festival. He further deposed that on that day, he alongwith 4-5 persons were coming from Loni border to Narela in a tempo after celebrating Janmasthmi festival, the registration number of which he did not remember. He further deposed that when they reached near Ramdev Chowk, near singhu border road, Narela, Delhi, one speed breaker came in front of tempo due to which one boy Jagdeep and one person atam Prakash who were sitting on the back side (dala) of the tempo got disbalanced and fell down from the tempo on the ground. They had earlier requested Jagdeep and atam Prakash to sit inside the tempo but they did pay attention to their request. The tempo driver stopped the tempo and they came down from the tempo and saw the boy was severely injured and was bleeding from his head and atam Prakash had also fallen down from the tempo and he had also sustained injuries. He further deposed that they all took Jagdeep to SRHC hospital for medical treatment. The ambulance from SRHC hospital again took that boy to another hospital but Jagdeep died on the way to the another hospital. He failed to identify the tempo driver.
Page No.6 of 9 FIR No. 374/08PS Narela U/s. 279/337/304A IPC Sate Vs. Ram Babu @ Bhola Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross examine the witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he admitted that the accident occurred on the intervening night of 24-25/08/08 at about 3:55 a.m. He further deposed that he did not know the registration number of the tempo as I had not seen the number. He denied the suggestion that tempo driver was driving the tempo at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without paying any heed to their request to slow down the speed and at about 3:55 p.m, at Ramdev Cowk, Narela, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver the iron pipe of the tempo was broken and they fell down from the tempo. Witness is confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. marked 'C' from portion A to A1 to which witness denied to have made any such witness before the police. He further deposed that driver of the tempo was not driving at a very high speed and was not rash and negligent. He denied the suggestion that being won over by the accused, he was deliberately not telling the truth before the court. He has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite given opportunity.
7. It is also a matter of record that no other eye witness was examined by the prosecution and accordingly after perusing the record, prosecution evidence was closed on 21.10.2013 and in the absence of any incriminating evidence/testimony of any public witness on record against the accused, his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.
Page No.7 of 9 FIR No. 374/08PS Narela U/s. 279/337/304A IPC Sate Vs. Ram Babu @ Bhola
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as the accused and perused the record.
9. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 279/337/304A IPC. To prove a case U/s. 279/337/304A IPC against the accused, the prosecution has to prove the following facts:-
a) that the accused was driving the vehicle i.e tempo bearing registration no. HR-55-5870
b) that the accused was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and;
C) that while driving the said vehicle in the aforesaid manner, he did not pay heed at the request of passengers travelling in his tempo as a result of which one atam Parkash and Jagdeep fell down form the tempo and Atam Parkash sustained injuries and Jagdeep succumbed to injuries (not amounting to culpable homicide).
10. In the present case to convict the accused testimonies of eye witnesses and injured are very crucial to sustain the conviction of the accused. It is noteworthy that the injured Atam Parkash i.e. PW2 had turned hostile and completely exonerated the accused from his criminal liability in his deposition and even stated that other persons had requested him and Jagdeep to sit inside the tempo but they did not pay attention to their request and he also failed to identify the accused. Other public witnesses ie. PW1 and PW3 examined by the prosecution had also Page No.8 of 9 FIR No. 374/08 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/304A IPC Sate Vs. Ram Babu @ Bhola completely turned hostile and did not allege anything such as rash and negligent act of the accused and also they failed to identify the tempo driver i.e. accused.
11. Hence after perusing the entire record, in the absence of any incriminating evidence/testimony on record of any public witness against the accused and considering that all other witnesses are formal in nature, whose no amount of evidence can tantamount to conviction of the accused, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the present case beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused.
12. Hence, in view of the discussion made above and after scanning the entire evidence, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is being given to accused Ram Babu @ Bhola & he is hereby acquitted of the said offences U/s. 279/337/304A IPC.
13. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
(SANDEEP GUPTA) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi Announced in open court today, Dated 18 November, 2014 Page No.9 of 9 FIR No. 374/08 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/304A IPC Sate Vs. Ram Babu @ Bhola FIR No. 374/08 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/304A IPC Sate Vs. Ram Babu @ Bhola 18.11.2014 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Ram Babu @ Bhola on bail alongwith Ld. counsel. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. Vide separate judgment dictated to the steno in the open court, accused Ram Babu @ Bhola is acquitted of the said offence U/s 279/337/304 IPC.
At request, bail bond of accused Ram Babu @ Bhola is extended in terms of Section 437 A of Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
(Sandeep Gupta) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi Page No.10 of 9