Delhi District Court
State vs Kanha Parihar on 17 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRAGATI
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, DELHI.
CR Cases 300/2023
STATE Vs. Kanha Parihar
FIR No.: 316/2022
PS: ANAND VIHAR
JUDGMENT
A Case Identification 300/2023 Number B Name of the Sh. Vikas, S/o Sh. Tara Chand Complainant C Name of the accused Kanha Parihar, S/o Sh. Naihanuka D Date of commission of 03.07.2022 the offences E Date of Institution of the 17.01.2023 case F Offences charged 279/427 IPC G Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty H Date of Pronouncement 17.09.2025 of judgment J Final Order Accused is convicted for offence charged under Section 279 IPC and is acquitted of offence u/s 427 IPC. K State represented by Ld. APP
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Present accused namely, Kanha Parihar, S/o Sh. Naihanuka has been produced before the court to stand trial for the offence punishable u/s 279/427 Digitally IPC. signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.17 16:07:11 +0530 CR Cases 300/2023 State Vs. Kanha Parihar FIR No.: 316/2022 Ps: Anand Vihar Page 1 of 10
2. Briefly stating, prosecution's case is that on 02.07.2022, a PCR call vide DD No. 92A regarding an accident between two vehicles was received at PS Anand Vihar. Acting upon this information, SI Ramchander along with Ct. Devender reached the spot, where complainant Vikas stated that while he was transporting goods in a small tempo (chhota hathi) bearing registration no. DL1LS2326, then at about 10:40 pm his vehicle was hit in front of Shivam Nursing Home by a blue Swaraj tractor-trolley which was without registration no. and was driven in the middle of the road rashly and negligently and at a high speed. That collision damaged the complainant's tempo and goods since the main body of the tempo got separated from the chassis frame, though no injuries were sustained by either driver. Thus, prayer was being made that legal action be taken against the offending driver of the offending vehicle i.e. tractor trolly. Accordingly, an FIR was registered. Investigation was set into motion. Accused Kanha Parihar was arrested and was produced before the court to face trial.
3. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court. Cognizance of the offences was taken by Ld. Predecessor judge and the accused was summoned by the court to face trial. Upon appearance of accused, copy of charge-sheet was provided to him in terms of sec. 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.05.2023, charge was framed against the accused u/s 279/427 IPC, to which the he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, prosecution was asked to lead its evidence. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined the following three witnesses:
PW-1/Complainant Vikas, deposed that on 02.07.2022 at about 08:00 pm, he brought 40 boxes of 4 x 2 size of digital tiles ceramic and 35 sacks of chemical from Rajdhani Marbles, Jagat Puri shop in his owner Neetu Yadav's 'chhota hathi' bearing registration no. DL 1LS 2326. After this he took the said chhota CR Cases 300/2023 State Vs. Kanha Parihar FIR No.: 316/2022 Ps: Anand Vihar Page 2 of 10 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.17 16:07:30 +0530 hathi along with above mentioned articles to his house so that when 'no entry' will open at 11:00 pm, then, he will deliver the said articles at Gate no. 4, Tihar Jail. That at about 10:40 pm, when he reached in front of Shivam Nursing Home, Anand Vihar, in the meanwhile, one tractor (of blue colour) with trolly came in rash and negligent manner and driver of the said tractor was driving very fast. That he tried to save his said chhota hathi and he turned the same however, during the rescue, the rear part of his chhota hathi got stuck somewhere in tractor trolly and the chhota hathi's main body got separated from the chasis frame, due to which, all the above articles which he had loaded were broken, but he survived safely and did not get hurt. That he apprehended the accused driver. Thereafter, he made a call at 112 number and informed to the police officials regarding the present incident. That the Police officials arrived at the spot and he handed over the accused to them. That the Police had recorded his statement (Ex. PW1/A) and registered an FIR. That the Police prepared site plan (Ex. PW1/B) at his instance and seized the said chhota hathi vide memo Ex. PW1/C. That he also handed over RC and insurance papers of the said chhota hathi and his driving licence to police officials. That the Police officials seized the said tractor vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D, arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/E and conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/F. That the Police officials recorded his supplementary statement. He identified the accused present before the court and the chota hathi and offending vehicle from photographs Ex. P-1 (colly).
PW-2 IO/SI Ram Chander, deposed that on 02.07.2022, he was posted at PS Anand Vihar as SI. On that day, he was on emergency duty and his duty hours were from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am. That at about 09:00 pm, he received a PCR call regarding an accident between two vehicles at in front of Shivam Nursing Home, Anand Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Devender reached at the spot where complainant Vikas met him and complanant's vehicle as well as the offending vehicle was also standing on the road in a damaged condition.CR Cases 300/2023 State Vs. Kanha Parihar FIR No.: 316/2022 Ps: Anand Vihar Page 3 of 10
Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.17 16:07:47 +0530 However, he could not state the registration no. of both the vehicles. He further stated that he recorded the statement of complainant (Ex. PW1/A). Thereafter, on the basis of said complaint/statement, he prepared a rukka (Ex. PW2/A) and same was handed over to Ct. Devender for registration of FIR. Thereafter, both the said vehicles i.e. tractor and chhota hathi were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D respectively. That the accused Kanha Parihar, who was driver of the offending tractor, was also found at the spot. He arrested him vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F respectively, and recorded disclosure statement (Ex. PW2/B) of the accused. That he also prepared the site plan (Ex.PW1/B) at the instance of complainant. Thereafter, he got conducted mechanical inspection of both the said vehicles vide memo Ex. A-3 (colly). He also got conducted verification of ownership as well as the documents i.e. DL, RC and insurance documents of both the said vehicles from the concerned authorities. After completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in the court. He identified both the vehicles from photographs Ex.
P-1 (colly). He also identified the accused present before the court. Further, on being granted permission by the court, PW2 was permitted to be cross-examined by him wherein he admitted that the registration number of chhota hathi is DL 1LS 2326 and tractor with trolley is UP 14FA 9422. He further admitted that he did not remember the facts due to lapse of long time.
PW-3 Ct. Devender, deposed that on 02.07.2022, he was posted at PS Anand Vihar as constable. On that day, IO/SI Ram Chander had received DD no. 92A regarding an accident at Road no.71 in front of Shivam Nursing Home, Anand Vihar. Thereafter, he along with IO reached at the spot where they met complainant Vikas and IO recorded his statement and prepared rukka and same was handed over to him for registration of FIR and he went to the PS Anand Vihar for registration of FIR at about 01.00 am on 03.07.2022. He got registered the FIR and came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR & original rukka and CR Cases 300/2023 State Vs. Kanha Parihar FIR No.: 316/2022 Ps: Anand Vihar Page 4 of 10 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.17 16:07:58 +0530 handed over the same to IO. That IO prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant. That the Accused Kanha Parihar was also present at the spot and IO arrested him vide arrest memo (Ex.PW1/E) and conducted his personal search vide memo (Ex.PW1/F). That the disclosure statement (Ex. PW2/B) of accused was also recorded by IO. That the IO also seized two vehicles which were in accidental condition i.e. Chhota Hathi and tractor with trolley vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/C) & (Ex.PW1/D) respectively. That the IO also recorded his statement. He identified the accused present in the court today and both the vehicles from photographs (Ex.P-1 colly). Further, on being granted permission by the court, PW3 was permitted to be cross-examined by him wherein he admitted that the registration number of chhota hathi is DL 1LS 2326 and tractor with trolley is UP 14FA 9422. He further admitted that he did not remember the facts due to lapse of long time.
6. Vide separately recorded statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. on 25.07.2023, accused admitted the genuineness of FIR No. 316/2022 and certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act (Ex. A1(colly.)), Certificate under Section 65 Indian Evidence Act in respect of CCTV Footage (Ex. A2) and Mechanical Inspection Report (Ex. A3) and accordingly, PWs ASI Mukesh Chand, Dr. A.K. Mittal and Tasnimuddeen Siddiqui were dropped from the list of witnesses.
7. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and separate statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he stated that he is innocent and is being falsely implicated in the present case. That he was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and that the chota hathi was carrying "bajri ke kattey" and rear part of the chota hathi was stuck in the trolley attached to his tractor. The accused did not wish to lead defence evidence.
CR Cases 300/2023 State Vs. Kanha Parihar FIR No.: 316/2022 Ps: Anand Vihar Page 5 of 10Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.17 16:33:33 +0530
8. Final arguments advanced by Ld. APP for state and Ld. Defence counsel heard. Case file perused carefully.
9. Ld. APP for state has argued that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. That on a combined reading of testimonies of prosecution witnesses, offences under section U/s 279/427 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
10. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel has contended that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the sole statement of complainant and there is no other eye witness regarding rash/negligent driving of the accused. That the police officials were not present on the spot at the time of the incident. That as per the complainant himself no entry opens at 11:00 pm but he was driving his chhota hathi before no entry timings which shows that it was the complainant who was rash and negligent and moreover he did not have any commercial licence to drive the said chota hathi. Further, that the complainant himself had taken a turn which shows that he was trying to overtake the accused and in that process his chota hathi had hit offending vehicle. Thus, it is prayed that the accused may be acquitted in the case in hand.
11. In the case in hand, charge has been framed against the accused under Section 279/427 IPC. Before proceeding with the determination of merits of the case in hand, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/IPC for the purpose of present adjudication, as under :-
"S. 279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.--Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
S. 427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.--Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty CR Cases 300/2023 State Vs. Kanha Parihar FIR No.: 316/2022 Ps: Anand Vihar Page 6 of 10 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.17 16:33:45 +0530 rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
12. Coming to Section 279 IPC, the three essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are as under:-
1. That the accident had taken place.
2. That the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
3. That the accused was the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.
13. As per Black's Law Dictionary, VIIIth Edition, the word 'negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances. In the case of S.N. Hussain vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1972, SC 685, it has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court as under:-
"Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to thepublic generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstance out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.......... Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case".
14. In the case in hand, PW-1 has deposed that accused was driving the offending vehicle in the middle of the road at a high speed and had hit his Chota Hathi. As per PW-1, the offending vehicle did not have any registration number. However, placing reliance upon the documents, i.e., seizure memo Ex. PW1/D, mechanical inspection report Ex. A3(colly.), photographs of offending Vehicle Ex P1(colly.) and considering the fact that collusion between the said Chota Hathi and offending vehicle has not been disputed by the accused and that the accused has not disputed the identity of offending vehicle as well, the factum of accident CR Cases 300/2023 State Vs. Kanha Parihar FIR No.: 316/2022 Ps: Anand Vihar Page 7 of 10 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.17 16:33:59 +0530 of Chota Hathi and offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at the time of the incident, stands duly established.
15. Now the only question which remains to be determined is as to whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which the accident took place. In this regard, PW-1 has categorically deposed that, "in the meanwhile, one tractor (of blue color) with trolley was come in rash and negligent manner and driver of the said tractor was riding very fast." During his cross examination, he has denied the suggestion put forth by Ld. Defence Counsel that it was he who was driving his Chota Hathi at wrong side in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. Further, although, PW-1 himself has deposed that "no entry" opens at 11:00pm whereas the accident took place at 10:40pm but this court is of the view that merely because PW-1 was driving his vehicle during 'no-entry' time does not amount to rash and negligent driving on his part. Thus, this court is of the view that the testimony of PW-1 has remained intact and no discrepancy whatsoever has been found in the same and the accused has not been able to impeach the credibility of PW-1. In Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra Crl. Appl. No. 914 of 2006, decided on 13.03.2007, the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon its earlier judgment in Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Maharashtra, 1957 SER 981, wherein, it was observed by the Hon'ble Court as under:-
"1. As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
2. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule prudence that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in case of a child witness or an accomplice or a witness of analogue character.
3. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depend upon the judicial discretion of the judge before whom the case comes."CR Cases 300/2023 State Vs. Kanha Parihar FIR No.: 316/2022 Ps: Anand Vihar Page 8 of 10
Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.17 16:34:18 +0530
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that the testimony of a solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction. The credibility of the witness is required to be decided with reference to the quality of his evidence which must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress the court as fact wholly truthful or so convincing that the court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony. In the case in hand, PW-1 has given a trustworthy and reliable account of the incident and defence has not been able to impeach the his credibility in the cross-examination. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1. Since his testimony has remained unimpeached, this court is of the view that no further corroboration is required. Thus, as far as commission of offence under Section 279 IPC by the accused is concerned, this court is of the view that the prosecution has duly proved the same.
17. Coming to Section 427 IPC, it provides for punishment for mischief causing damage to the amount of Rs. 50/-. Mischief has been defined under Section 425 IPC which says as under:-
"425. Mischief.--Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".
Explanation 1.--It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, orknows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not.
Explanation 2.--Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly."
18. Thus, to make out its case under Section 427 IPC, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients :
1. That the accused caused destruction or change in a property.CR Cases 300/2023 State Vs. Kanha Parihar FIR No.: 316/2022 Ps: Anand Vihar Page 9 of 10
Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.17 16:34:31 +0530
2. While causing such destruction, he had the intention to cause such damage or he knew that such damage shall be caused by him and such act destroyed or diminished the value or utility of that property or affected it injuriously.
19. Thus, as evident, in order to bring home offence under Section 427 IPC the intent to cause damage must be proved on the part of the accused. As already discussed hereinabove, commission of offence under Section 279 IPC has been proved against the accused. Pertinently, Section 279 IPC and Section 427 IPC are completely opposite to each other. Either a person can be negligent or he can have the intention or knowledge to commit an offence. Both of them cannot be present together. Once it is proved that the accused was driving negligently, then intention/knowledge cannot be imputed upon him and so offence under Section 427 IPC cannot be said to be proved against him. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the accused is hereby held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and convicted thereunder, whereas he is Digitally signed acquitted for offence under Section 427 IPC. PRAGATI by PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.17 16:34:45 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (PRAGATI) on dated 17th September, 2025 ACJM/SHAHDARA DISTRICT/ KARKARDOOMA COURTS/ DELHI/17.09.2025 Present judgment consists of 10 and each page bears my signatures.Digitally signed by PRAGATI
PRAGATI Date: 2025.09.17 16:34:56 +0530 (PRAGATI) ACJM/SHAHDARA DISTRICT/ KARKARDOOMA COURTS/ DELHI/17.09.2025 CR Cases 300/2023 State Vs. Kanha Parihar FIR No.: 316/2022 Ps: Anand Vihar Page 10 of 10