Delhi District Court
State vs Govind Singh on 18 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKSHAY SHARMA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, DELHI. FIR No. 362/2014 PS. OIA U/s. 279,304A,468,471 IPC STATE VS GOVIND SINGH JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 340/2/14 B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 14.08.2014 C. NAME OF THE : Satish COMPLAINANT S/o Hari Singh D. NAME OF THE : Govind Singh ACCUSED S/o Dasram E. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/s 279,304A,468,471 IPC F. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
G. FINAL ORDER : Acquittal H. DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : 23.05.2011 I. DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 13.02.2023 J. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 18.03.2023 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE INSTANT CASE
1. Brief facts of the instant case are that on 23.05.2014 after receipt of DD no.32 PP, HC Harish Chander along with Ct. Vikas reached the spot A-100/2, OIA-II, Sanjay Colony there offending vehicle bearing no. DL1LM4134 was found. No eye witness was found. However, it was found that the injured and the truck driver who was beaten by the crowd has been taken to hospital. Thereafter, HC Harish Chander reached AIIMS Trauma Centre where MLC no.429325/14 of injured Rajender :2: and MLC no.429328/14 of accused Govind Singh was obtained. At the hospital complainant Satish met HC Harish Chander and informed that he is the eye witness of the incident. Thereafter, his statement was recorded in which complainant Satish stated that in the night of 23.05.2014 he along with his brother Rajender, who works as a driver, were taking a walk after having dinner, at around 11:00 PM one truck, bearing no.DL1LM4134 which he later observed, came at high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit his brother from the front, his brother attempted to save himself but the conductor side wheel of the truck ran over the thigh and the stomach of his brother. The driver tried to flee from the spot but he was apprehended by the crowd. The name of the driver was disclosed as Govind s/o Sh. Dasram. Later on, the complainant took his brother Rajender in the TSR to AIIMS Trauma Centre. Further, the truck driver was also brought by the PCR vehicle to AIIMS Trauma centre as he was beaten by the crowd. Complainant stated that the truck driver while driving the truck in rash and negligent manner had hit his brother. Upon this tehrir was prepared and FIR u/s 279/337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter refereed to as IPC) was registered. Site plan was drawn at the instance of the complainant and offending vehicle bearing no. DL1LM4134 was seized from the spot. The documents of the vehicle such as RC, fitness, insurance, DL were also seized from the accused. Accused was arrested and since the offences were bailable in natures, accused was released on bail. On 24.05.2014 it was informed that injured Rajender has died during treatment, therefore, Section 304A IPC :3: was added in the instant case. Thereafter, the documents of the vehicle and the DL of the accused was verified from the concerned authority. Upon verification it was found that the driving license of the accused is fake, accordingly, Section 468/471 IPC was added in the instant case. Post mortem report was also obtained in which it was mentioned that "in this case hemorrhagic shock caused by blunt force impact to the abdomen and the pelvic which could be possible in the above mentioned circumstances" was stated by the doctor. On 31.07.2014 due to addition of Section 468/471 IPC accused was again arrested and on the order of the court accused was released on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.35,000/-. Thereafter, after completion of other aspects of investigation, present charge-sheet u/s 279/304A/468/471 IPC was filed in this court for judicial verdict.
2. After finding prima facie case against the accused, cognizance was taken in the instant case on 14.08.2014. Copy of the charge-sheet was supplied on the same date sand after hearing arguments on charge. Charge u/s 279/304A/471 IPC was framed against the accused person, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thus the case was put for prosecution evidence.
3. Prosecution in its support, examined the following witnesses:
3.1. PW1 Sh. Satish was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 23.05.2014, at around 11.00 pm he alongwith his brother namely Rajender came out from the house after taking dinner and they :4: were walking on a road in front of his house. He further submitted that one canter closed body was coming from Harkesh Nagar side in wrong direction. The driver of the said canter was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. PW1 further submitted that the said canter hit his brother namely Rajendar from left side. Due to that his brother fell down on the road and came under the left side rear wheel of the said canter. Further he mentioned that his brother sustained injuries and he saw the registration no. of the said canter DL-1M-4130. The driver of the said canter tried to fled away from the spot but the driver was apprehended at the spot with the help of public persons. PW1 further submitted that he saw the driver/accused at the spot and identified the driver/accused present in the court that day. Thereafter, some one called to the police at 100 no. and he shifted his brother to AIIMS trauma center leaving the accused at the spot in the custody of the public persons.
Further he mentioned that his brother was medically examined at AIIMS Trauma center vide MLC and his brother expired on the day of the accident in the hospital. Police recorded his statement in hospital i.e AIIMS trauma center which is Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. The police official brought the driver/accused at the hospital and he identified the driver/accused in the hospital and he narrated to the police that he was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. He further submitted that he can identify the case property i.e canter if shown to him.
At that stage, the photographs of the said canter were shown :5: to the witness and he correctly identified the said canter in the photographs. The photographs are Ex. P1 (colly).
PW1 further submitted that he went to the PP phase III, PS OIA and Police officials asked him regarding the place of the accident. Thereafter, he alongwith the police officials went to the spot and he pointed out towards the place of the accident. Police officials prepared the site plan at his instance. The offending vehicle was seized at OIA vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point A. IO seized the documents of the offending vehicle vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D, bearing his signature at point A. IO seized the DL of the accused vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW1/E, bearing his signature at point A. The documents of the offending vehicle are Ex. P2 (colly) and the DL of the accused is Ex. P3. He further submitted that he does not remember whether IO arrested the accused in his presence. However, the arrest memo Ex. PW1/F, bear his signature at point A. PW1 submitted that he signed the said arrest memo later stage.
PW1 further submitted that he identified the dead body of his brother vide identification memo which is Ex. PW1/G, bearing his signature at point A. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to them vide identification memo which is Ex. PW1/H, bearing his signature at point A. At that stage, Ld. APP for the state sought permission from the court to ask leading questions from the PW. Same was allowed.
:6:In cross-examination by the Ld. APP, PW1 submitted that it is correct that the registration no. of the said offending vehicle was DL- 1M-4134 instead of DL-1M-4130. He further submitted that they were going in the direction of Harkesh Nagar side. The road was divided by a divider and the said offending vehicle was coming in wrong side.
3.2. PW-2 Ct. Satish Kumar was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 23.05.2014, he was posted as DD writer at PS OIA and his duty hours werre from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. He further mentioned that at about 11.20 pm, he received one call i.e. DD no. 32-PP regarding accident and injured. Thereafter, he also received DD no. 35-PP another information from AIIMS, Trauma Centre regarding accident vide Ex. PW2/A, bearing his signature at point A. PW2 further submitted that after sometime, he received DD no. 37 regarding quarrel vide Ex. PW2/B, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, at about 6.00 am, he received another DD no. regarding the death vide Ex. PW2/C, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he informed to the concerned IO regarding all the DD no.
3.3 PW-3 Sh. Murari Das, was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 24.05.2014, he went to AIIMS Trauma Center and he identified the dead body of his son Rajender in mortuary of the said hospital. He further submitted that his son died in an accident.
3.4. PW-4 Sh. Tasninmuddin Siddiqui, was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that he is a qualified engineer and :7: conducting mechanical inspection for the last 40 years independently. PW4 further mentioned that on 26.05.2014, on the request of HC Harish Chander, PS-Okhla, he had inspected Swaraj Mazda (six wheeler) refrigerated, fixed body van bearing registration no. DL-1M-4134 and submitted his detailed report pertaining to the said vehicle Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point 'A'.
3.5. PW-5 Vikas, was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 23.05.2014, he was posted as constable at PS-OIA. PW5 further submitted that on that day at around 09:00 pm, HC Harish Chander received DD no.32PP, OIA Phase-III regarding accident at A- 100/2, Okhla Phase-II and he alongwith the IO went to the spot. A truck bearing no.DL-1M-4134 was stationed in accidental condition at the spot. Further he submitted that they came to know that the injured and the driver of the offending vehicle went to AIIMS Trauma Center. Thereafter, IO received DD no.35PP, OIA Phase-III and on this, IO left him at the spot and went to AIIMS Trauma Center. After sometime, IO came back at the spot alongwith the accused Govind, who was present in the court that day and was correctly identified by the witness. PW5 further submitted that IO prepared the rukka and gave it to him and sent him to PS-OIA for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to IO. IO had seized offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B, bearing his signature at point 'B'. DL of the accused and RC, Insurance, Fitness and permit of offending vehicle were seized Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D, all :8: bearing his signature at point 'B'. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide already Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW5/A, both bearing his signature at point 'B' and 'A' respectively.
Further he submitted that he can identify the photographs of the offending vehicle, if shown to him.
At that stage, witness was shown the photographs of the offending vehicle and witness correctly identified the same. The photographs are already Ex.P1 (colly.).
3.6. PW-6 Ct. Abhimanyu Singh was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 24.05.2014, he was posted as constable at PS-OIA and on that day, he alongwith HC Harish Chander went to AIIMS Trauma Centre for getting conducted postmortem of deceased Rajinder. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide Ex.PW1/H, bearing his signature at point 'B'.
3.7. PW-7 ASI Ravinder Kumar was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 24.05.2014, he was working as DO in PS-OIA, and his duty hours were from 12.00 night to 08:00 am. PW7 further mentioned that on that day at about 04:50 am, Ct. Vikas brought a rukka/tehrir which was sent by HC Harish Chander. Further he submitted that he put his endorsement on the Tehrir vide Ex.PW7/A and registered the FIR and its copy is Ex.PW7/B, both bearing his signatures at point A (OSR). He further submitted that on that day he had brought the original :9: FIR register, containing the abovesaid FIR in original. (OSR).
3.8. PW-8 ASI Harish Chander was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 23.05.2014 he was posted as HC at PP-OIE, PS-OIA and on that day on receiving DD No. 32PP he alongwith Ct. Vikas reached at the spot i.e. A-100/2, in front of Sanjay Colony, OIA Phase-2 where they found one truck bearing no. DL1M4134 in accidental condition, however they did not find any eye witness. Further he submitted that on enquiry they came to know that injured was shifted to hospital by his relative and driver was beaten by the public persons who was also shifted to hospital by PCR. In the meantime he received DD No. 35PP upon which he went to AIIMS, Trauma Centre leaving constable at the spot. PW8 further submitted that at the hospital he collected the MLCs of injured Rajender and accused. The injured was unfit for statement and he recorded statement of complainant Satish who was eye- witness of the incident. Thereafter he came to spot with accused and prepared rukka which is Ex. PW8/A bearing his signatures at point-A. FIR got registered through Ct. Vikas. Further he submitted that he took the photographs of the spot from his mobile and he prepared site plan Ex. PW8/B bearing his signatures at point-A. The offending vehicle was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/B bearing his signatures at point-C. After interrogation accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos already Ex. PW1/F and PW5/A bearing his signatures at point-B & C. Further he submitted that he also seized DL of accused and relevant documents of offending vehicle vide seizure memo :10: already Ex. PW1/C and PW1/E bearing his signatures at point-C. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. Mechanical inspection of offending vehicle got conducted through T.U. Siddiqui vide report already Ex. PW4/A bearing his signatures at point-B. Thereafter he was transferred and case file was handed over to ASI Suresh Chand. PW8 further submitted that he recorded statement of witnesses and accused present in the court that day was correctly identified by the witness. He further submitted that he can identify the case property if shown to him.
At that stage, 04 photographs of offending vehicle bearing no. DL1M4134 were shown to witness. Witness correctly identified the same. The same is already Ex. P1 (colly.) 3.9. PW-9 Sh. Rajender Singh was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on that day he came on behalf of Dr. Pankaj Verma and Dr. Ravi Shankar Kumar who left the hospital and their whereabouts are not known to the hospital. He further stated that he can identify the signature of said doctors as he had seen them signing and writing during the course of his duty in the said hospital as he had been working in the said hospital since 1986. PW9 stated that as per record, MLC no. 429325 of injured Rajender dated 23.05.2014 was prepared by Dr. Pankaj Verma and as per record, MLC No. 429328 of injured / accused Govind dt. 23.05.2014 was prepared by Dr. Ravi Shankar Kumar. The said MLCs are Ex.PW9/A & PW9/B bearing signature of Dr. Pankaj Verma and Dr. Ravi Shankar Kumar at point 'A' respectively.
:11:3.10. PW-10 SI Suresh Chandwas examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 27.05.2014 he was posted as ASI at PS-OIA and on that day further investigation of this case was marked to him. PW10 further submitted that during his investigation he got verified RC, insurance and fitness of the offending vehicle. Further he submitted that he also got verified the DL of accused from concerned authority and on verification DL of accused was found to be fake. Accordingly, charge u/s 468/471 IPC was added and he also collected postmortem report of injured with opinion of concerned doctor. Accused was arrested on 31.07.2014 for the charges u/s 468/471 IPC vide arrested memo Ex. PW10/A bearing his signature at point 'A' and he was released on bail. Thereafter he completed the investigation, prepared the charge sheet and submitted before the Court. Accused was present in the court that day and was correctly identified by the witness.
4. After conclusion of examination of all the material prosecution witnesses. PE was closed and statement of the accused u/s 313 was recorded. In the said statement accused stated that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of incident, however, he was not driving the same in rash and negligent manner. Accused stated that he is innocent as he was driving his vehicle slowly as there was traffic on the road. The deceased came from the connector side i.e. the other side of the driver side. There was no default of his. He was beaten by the public persons and he regained his consciousness on the next day. Accused expressed that he want to lead defence evidence. However, when despite :12: several opportunities accused failed to lead any defence evidence, his right to lead DE was closed vide order dated 14.03.2022 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
5. Ld. APP submitted that the essential ingredients of rashness and negligence are proved by the testimony of the complainant and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted for offence u/s 279,304A IPC. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused pointed to certain contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and argued that complainant is not a reliable witness. For offence u/s 471 IPC it was argued on behalf of the accused that the document which states that driving license of the accused was fake has not been exhibited by the prosecution and therefore, same cannot be read in evidence.
6. I have heard the Ld. APP and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and also carefully gone through the material available on record.
The question to be decided in the instant case is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 279,304A, 471 IPC with which accused is charged.
7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 read with Section 304A IPC, the prosecution has to establish that accused was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner on a public way and death of the victim resulted due to such rash or negligent driving of the accused.
:13:8. At this stage, reference may be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed in detail as to what constitute a rash or negligent act. It interalia held the following:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
9. Further, in the case of Braham Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 406, while discussing the legal position with respect to an offence u/s 279/304A IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interalia held the following:
"Obviously the foundation in accusations under Section 279 IPC is not negligence. Similarly in Section 304 A the stress is on causing death by negligence or rashness. Therefore, for bringing in application of either Section 279 or 304 A it must be established that there was an element of rashness or negligence. Even if the prosecution version is :14: accepted in toto, there was no evidence led to show that any negligence was involved."
10. For establishing the ingredients of rashness or negligence, mens rea of the accused is immaterial. It may be the case that accused did not intend or had knowledge about the result of his actions but his indifference towards the consequences would necessarily make him liable. It is also to be noted that prosecution must establish that death under section 304A must be the direct result of the act of the accused, it must be the 'causa causans'.
11. The ingredients of 'rashness' or 'negligence' is the essence of a criminal act under section 279 r/w Section 304A. in the instant case PW-1 Satish is the most vital witness examined by the prosecution for proving the aforementioned ingredients. The relevant extract from the testimony of PW-1 is reproduced herein "on 23.05.2014, at around 11 pm I alongwith my brother namely Rajender came out from the house after taking dinner and we were walking on a road in front of my house. One canter closed body was coming from Harkesh Nagar side in wrong direction. The driver of the said canter was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. The said canter hit my brother namely Rajender from left side. Due to this my brother fell down on the road and came under the left side rear wheel of the said canter."
12. The above mentioned testimony, in the opinion of this court does not inspire confidence in the judicial mind of this court to believe :15: criminality on the part of the accused. The reasons for the same are that PW1 in his testimony has in a very casual manner simply deposed that the driver of the canter was driving the canter in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. He did not describe the manner in which the truck was being driven or the approximate speed at which the truck was being driven by the accused. It is a settled proposition of law that evidence of high speed simplicter, is not ipso facto proof of rashness or negligence. High speed cannot be criteria to conclude rash and negligent driving, rather to prove guilt of the accused, if any, u/s 279/304AIPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove act of rashness and negligent on the part of the accused so as to endanger human life. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Satish 1998 (8) SCC 493 wherein the Apex Court has interalia held the following:
"4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed".
"High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved.:16:
Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. That report is not forthcoming from the record and the Inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case.
5. There being no evidence on the record to establish "negligence" or "rashness" in driving the truck on the part of the respondent, it cannot be said that the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the respondent is a perverse view. To us it appears that the view of the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is a reasonably possible view. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged."
13. It is also to be observed that considering the totality of circumstances the evidence of PW-1 does not seem reliable. As per PW-1 the accident had taken place when he alongwith his brother were taking a walk on a road in front of his house, however PW-5 Vikas had admitted in his cross examination that there is a factory in front of the place of :17: occurrence. PW-8 ASI Harish Chander has also stated in his cross examination that it is correct that there is a company in front of the spot of the accident. Further PW-1 states that he along with the deceased was walking on a footpath, no such footpath is mentioned in the site plan Ex. PW-8/B. Furthermore PW-1 had stated that he took the deceased to hospital, however MLC of the deceased which is EX. PW9/A states that the deceased was brought by one of his relative namely Rahul, this fact is also affirmed by DD no. 35 dated 24.05.2014 which is Ex. PW-2/A. It is also pertinent to mention that this relative 'Rahul' has not been cited as a witness by the prosecution. Though such contradictions does not falsify the testimony of PW-1 Satish wholly but these facts certainly affects the reliability which this court can place on the testimony of PW-1.
14. As per the testimony of PW-1, the only fact which can incline this court to believe that the accused was rash or negligent is that he was driving on the wrong side. It is noted that as per the site plan which is Ex. PW-8/B and the admission of PW-8 ASI Harish in his cross examination that there is no divider on the road, it can be safely concluded that there was no divider on the road. Be that as may , divider or not, every vehicle has to follow the general traffic rules and drive on the correct side of the road. In India general rules of driving mandates that vehicles have to keep left on the road, this is pertinent in the present case as it is alleged by the prosecution that the offending vehicle hit the deceased from the left side. PW-8 and PW-1 Satish had categorically stated that the victim came under the left rear side tyre of the offending :18: vehicle. It is duly observed that by necessary implication it can be safely concluded that the vehicle was being driven on the left of the road and was complying with general rules of traffic, because had the vehicle been on the wrong side then the right side of the offending vehicle would have caused the accident. Basically the fact that left side of the offending vehicle has caused the accident and the fact that the offending vehicle was on the wrong side are mutually exclusive, since the former is an admitted and proved fact thus it has to be construed that the offending vehicle was on the correct side. In the opinion of this court, the deceased could be hit from the left side in a circumstance when the offending vehicle is on the wrong side only in case if the deceased was in between of the road or the deceased in order to save himself shifted from the right towards the left side. However, this is not the case of the prosecution, as PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that he and the deceased were walking on the footpath. In light of this, the only logical conclusion considering the facts of the instant case which can be drawn is that the offending vehicle was on the correct side of the road as per the rules of traffic. This fact certainly creates a doubt in the mind of the court qua the ingredients of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. It is also pertinent to mention that in the site plan the arrows drawn by the IO indicating the flow of traffic are incorrect as it is inconsistent with the general rule of traffic that the vehicles are to ply on their left.
15. It is observed that in a criminal trial the guilt of the accused is to be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt by leading :19: cogent evidence. The same cannot be proved by any presumption of rashness or negligence on the basis of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The mere occurrence of accident cannot ipso facto compel this court to shift the burden of proof upon the accused and other attending incriminating circumstances must also exist to apply this doctrine. In the instant case sufficient material does not exist to invoke this doctrine as it has not been established that the accused was being overhasty or lacking due care or attention.
16. Another question which arises for determination is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was using fraudulently the driving license knowing it to be false and has committed offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
17. It is noted that accused has also been charged with offence punishable u/s. 471 IPC for fraudulently using the driving license as genuine, basically as per the case of the prosecution the driving license of the accused when verified from the concerned authority was found fake. A letter bearing no. 253 dated 02.06.2014 of District transport office, Godda, Jharkhand is annexed with the chargesheet wherein it is stated that DL no. 2634/13 is issued one Mr. Vikas Kumar and not to the present accused Govind Singh.
18. However the prosecution has not cited any witness to prove the said letter. PW-10 SI Suresh Chand, to whom the case file was marked for further investigation has admitted in his cross examination :20: that no witness from the concerned authority is made. It is also to be observed that PW10 in his cross-examination has stated that for verification of the driving license, HC Harish Chander was deputed, but PW8 ASI Harish Cnader in his examination in chief has nowhere mentioned that he got verified the driving license of the accused. PW8 has merely stated that he seized the DL and all the relevant documents of the offending vehicle vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/C and PW1/E.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mobarik Ali Ahmed Vs. State of Bombay (AIR 1957 SC 857) held that "The proof of the genuineness of a document is proof of the authorship of the document and is proof of a fact like that of any other fact. The evidence relating thereto may be direct or circumstantial. It may consist of direct evidence of a person who saw the document being written or the signature being affixed. It may be proof of the handwriting of the contents, or of the signature, by one of the modes provided in ss. 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act."
20. It is a settled principle of law that a document not proved cannot be read in evidence, As per the Indian Evidence Act 1872, S.4 a fact is said to be 'not proved' when it is neither proved nor disproved. For proving a document, it is to be first admitted in evidence by way of exhibition in the manner as provided under the Indian Evidence Act, and thereafter it's veracity and reliability are proved. In the instant case the prosecution has not even been able to comply with the first requirement of making the letter of the District Transport office admissible. In the considered opinion of this court the IO should have made any person as a :21: witness, who could have vouch for truthfulness of the contents of letter bearing no. 253 dated 02.06.2014 of District transport office, Godda, Jharkhand annexed with the charge-sheet .Needless to say that when no witness is cited and has been examined by the prosecution for proving the letter, and accused has not been afforded an opportunity of cross examination, admitting the same in evidence and considering the same as truthful and consequently convicting the accused would not be just.
21. In light of the above mentioned discussion, in conclusion this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of section 279,304A and Section 471 IPC. Accordingly accused Govind Singh stands acquitted in the instant case.
Pronounced in the open court on 18.03.2023.
Judgment contains total 21 pages, each signed by the undersigned.
(AKSHAY SHARMA) MM-02/SE/Saket/ND 18.03.2023