Delhi District Court
State vs . Ajad Shatru on 29 August, 2016
State vs. Ajad Shatru
IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ AGARWAL: MM03(SD)/
SAKET COURT: DELHI
State vs. Ajad Shatru
FIR NO. : 204/2005
U/S : 279/337 IPC
PS : Hauz khas
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 02403R0733852005
b) Date of institution of the case : 09.06.2005
c) Date of commission of offence : 15.04.2005
d) Name of the complainant : Sh. Dibakar Sarkar
e) Name & address of the : Ajad Shatru S/o Late Sh. Rameshwar
accused R/o H.No. 1129 D2 Sarang Sadan Mehrauli
New Delhi.
f) Offence charged with : 279/337 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 29.08.2016
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 29.08.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. The brief story of the prosecution is that on 15.04.2005 about 04:00 hours at Khel Gaon , Red Light August Kranti Marg , within the jurisdiction of PS Hauz Khas, accused Ajad Shatru was found driving Esteem Car beraing no. DL 3 CK1765 in a manner so rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life and personal safety of FIR NO. 204/2005 PSHauz Khas 1 of 8 State vs. Ajad Shatru others and while driving so, struck against a Maruti Zen No. HR 13 8633 and caused simple injuries to its passenger namely Meera and thereby alleged to have committed offence U/sec. 279/337 IPC.
2. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the court and copies were supplied to the accused. Thereafter, notice U/sec. 279/337 IPC was framed against the accused by my Ld. Predecessor to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, 6 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
4. PW1 ASI Rajbir Singh is the duty officer, who registered the present FIR Ex.
PW 1/A and made endorsement on rukka Ex. PW 1/ B.
5. PW2 is Sh. Dibakar Sarkar, the sole eye witness examined by prosecution in the instant case. He deposed that on 15.04.2005 at 12:40am, he was returning home with his wife in his car bearing no. HR 13 8633 and at Green light at August Kranti Marg, opposite the gate of Asian Games Village, while he was turning right, all of a sudden, an Esteem Car, the number of which he does not recollect, came from the opposite direction at a high speed and banged his car on the left side where his wife was sitting. He further deposed that immediately after the collision, his wife started crying out in pain so he got out of the car and saw that she FIR NO. 204/2005 PSHauz Khas 2 of 8 State vs. Ajad Shatru was stuck and could not move from her seat . He further deposed that as the door was jammed, he could not bring her out of the car and in the meanwhile, the occupants of the Esteem tried to flee from the spot but their car did not start. He further deposed that thereafter they came out of the car and instead of assisting his wife, they started abusing and physically pushing and jostling with them. He further deposed that seeing the attitude of those people, he immediately called the PCR on 100 number as well as some of his colleagues from office who live at Aisan Games Village. He further deposed that police took his wife to the AIIMS . He further deposed that he gave his complaint Ex. PW 2/ A to the police. He further deposed that police prepared the site plan at his instance and police seized both the vehicles. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was driven by the accused ( who is present in the court today ) and alongwith him two more persons were seated in that car .
6. PW3 is HC Deep Chand, who deposed that on 14/15.04.2005, he was posted as HC in PS Hauz khas and on that day, he received DD no. 35 A regarding accident at about 12:50am. He further deposed that on receipt of the same, he alongwith Ct. Ravinder reached at the spot ie near Red Light, Siri Fort August Kranti Marg Khel Gaon , New Delhi . He further deposed that at the spot they found one Maruti Van bearing no. HR 13 8633 and one Maruti Esteem bearing van bearing no. DL 3 CK 1765 lying in accidental condition. He further deposed that at the spot , they came to know that injured persons have already been removed to AIIMS hospital and thereafter he left Ct. Ravinder at the spot and he , himself went to the AIIMS FIR NO. 204/2005 PSHauz Khas 3 of 8 State vs. Ajad Shatru hospital , one eye witness namely Dibarkar Sarkar met him and injured namely Meera Kumar was also found admitted in the hospital. He further deposed that he recorded statement of Sh. Dibarkar Sarkar , Ex. PW 2/ A and thereafter, he alongwith Dibakar Sarkar reached back at the spot and he prepared rukka Ex. PW 3/ A and handed over to Ct. Ravinder for registration of the FIR, who went to the PS and got FIR registered. He further deposed that after sometime, he reached back at the spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR and same was handed over to him. He further deposed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW 3/ B and he seized both the vehicles vide seizure memo Ex. PW 3/ C and PW 3/ C. He further deposed that Dibakar and his wife Meera had revealed in the hospital that some jewellery articles were also snatched by the accused persons at the time of accident. He further deposed that he verified this fact in the presence of Dibakar Sarkasr and the accused , who in the meanwhile reached at the spot but the allegations were found to be false. He further deposed that the accused was arrested and his personal search memo was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 3/ E and PW 3/ F . He further deposed that he also seized the DL of the accused Ex. PW 3 / G . He further deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses and he prepared challan and file the same in the court . Witness identified the photographs of both the vehicles , mark A.
7. PW4 is T. U Siddhiqui, the Mechanical Inspector, who proved inspection report Ex.PW4/A & PW4/ B.
8. PW5 is Ct. Ravinder , who deposed that on 1415.04.2005, he was posted FIR NO. 204/2005 PSHauz Khas 4 of 8 State vs. Ajad Shatru at PS Hauz khas as Constable and on that day . IO/ HC Deep Chand received DD no. 15 A regarding accident and on receipt of the same, he alongwith IO reached the spot ie Red Light Siri Fort, August Kranti Marg, where they saw two vehicles found lying in accidental condition . He further deposed that out of them one was Maruti Esteem Car and one was Maruti Zen . He further deposed that Maruti Esteem was bearing no. 1765 and Mauti Zen bearing no. 1833 . He further deposed that at the spot IO left him at the spot and he, himself reached at the AIIMS hospital. He further deposed that after sometime, IO reached at the spot alongwith one person whose name he was not able to recollect . He further deposed that IO prepared rukka and handed over to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to the PS and got FIR registered and after sometime, he reached back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and same were handed over to the IO. He further deposed that IO seized the DL of the accused and both the vehicles Ex. PW 3/ G, C and D . He further deposed that the case property were taken to the PS and deposited the same in the Malkhana. He correctly identified the accused.
9. PW6 is Sh. Pramod Joshi, who is record clerk in AIIMS Hospital. He proved certified copy of MLC bearing no. 42179/05 of injured Meera, Ex. PW 6/ A prepared by Dr. Parvez .
10. PE was closed by order of this court on 30.05.16 and memorandum of statement of accused was recorded U/sec. 281 Cr.PC where accused stated that he FIR NO. 204/2005 PSHauz Khas 5 of 8 State vs. Ajad Shatru did not commit any offence and has been falsely implicated. Accused chose not to lead any defence.
11. I have carefully perused the record and heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. counsel for accused.
12. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
13. It has been submitted by Ld. APP that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond the reasonable doubt. It has been further stated that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy which have been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Per contra, Ld. defence counsel has argued that no incriminating material has come on the record against the accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been argued that the sole eye witness in the present case has not deposed anything regarding alleged rashness / negligence on the part of accused and therefore accused deserves acquittal in the present case.
FIR NO. 204/2005 PSHauz Khas 6 of 8
State vs. Ajad Shatru
15. The element of rashness and negligence is sin qua non for offence u/sec. 279 IPC and same cannot be presumed. In the case of B. C. Ramachandra v. State of Karnataka 2007 Cri. L. J. 475, the Court relied upon a number of decisions of the Apex Court and concluded that in criminal proceedings, the burden of proving negligence as an essential ingredient of the offence lies on the prosecution. It was also observed that "such ingredient cannot be said to have been proved or made out by resorting to the rule of principle of res ipsa loquitur."
16. In the instant case, for bringing home the verdict of guilt against accused, prosecution was required to prove rashness and negligence on the part of latter as same is sin qua non for an offence U/sec. 279/337 IPC. For proving the said fact, prosecution has relied upon testimony of PW2 i.e. complainant Sh. Dibarkar Sarkar. Perusal of his testimony however reveals that he has he has simply deposed that the offending vehicle came from opposite directions at a high speed and banged his car on left side, where his wife was sitting. In my view, to say that accused was rash and negligent on account of his speed only without describing the alleged rashness and negligence would not justify a charge for indictable rashness and negligence.
17. I quote with profit the law laid down in "Abdul Subhan Vs. State 2007 Cri. L.J. 1089, wherein Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.D. Ahmed speaking for Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as "12. The present case is on a similar footing. Apart from the allegation of having driven the truck at a highspeed, which itself is an unclear FIR NO. 204/2005 PSHauz Khas 7 of 8 State vs. Ajad Shatru expression, there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner drove the vehicle rashly and/ or negligently or did any act which would amount to a rash and /or negligent act. Clearly, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be convicted under the provisions of Section 279 and 304A IPC. The Courts below have committed a grave error in convicting the petitioner .
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the accused Ajad Shatru deserves to be acquitted for the charges U/s 279/337 IPC levelled against him. Ordered accordingly.
Announced & dictated in (Anuj Agarwal)
the open Court on 29.08.16 M .M.03(SD)/Saket/29.08.16
FIR NO. 204/2005 PSHauz Khas 8 of 8