Delhi District Court
State vs . Balkar Singh on 8 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN, MM-01,WEST DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. BALKAR SINGH
FIR No. 366/10
New case no. 67388/16
PS: PUNJABI BAGH
U/S: 279/338 IPC
Date of commission of offence : 09-12-2010
Date of institution of the case : 26-02-2011
Name of the complainant : Sh Suresh Kumar S/o Sh
Ramkhilawan R/o H No. 3215,
Mahendra Park, Rani Bagh, Delhi
Name of accused and address : Sh Balkar Singh S/o Sh Jaswant
Singh R/o H No. 275, Gali No. 3,
Partap Nagar, Amritsar, Punjab
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 279/338 IPC.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted
Date of judgment : 08-04-2019
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Case of the prosecution is that on 9-012-2010, at about 3.15 PM near shop of Samose, Transport Centre, Pujabi Bagh, Outer Gate turn, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Punjabi Bagh, accused was found driving a truck bearing registration number PB 08 AL 0117 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others. Accused, while, driving the vehicle in that manner caused grievious injuries to the complainant Suresh Kumar. Accused has thereby committed the offence punishable under FIR No.366/10, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Balkar Singh Page no.1 of 9 section 279 r/w section 338 IPC.
2. On the basis of statement of complainant, the present FIR got registered. After completion of necessary formalities, charge sheet was filed in the Court. Cognizance was taken. The accused was summoned. Charge was framed against the accused on 27-05-2011, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
3. PW-1, has deposed that on 9-12-2010 he went to the TPT Centre Punjabi Bagh for meeting some persons and when he was going via Gate No. 1 TPT Cente in to Transport Centre, at about 3.15 PM, the shop of samosewala, a truck bearing no. PB 08 AL01717 suddenly came from behind in high speed and in rash and negligent manner. That truck then crushed over his right side leg by front left side wheel when that truck was taking a turn. PW-1 further deposed that the truck driver present in the court came down from the truck and asked him about the injuries sustained. Public persons then present at the spot took him to Mahavir Hospital by a TSR. PW-1 further deposed that police official recorded his statement in the hospital which is Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signatures at point A. He further added that the accident took place due to the fault of the truck driver. During his cross-examination, PW-1 denied that he fell down before the truck under the influence of liquor. PW-1 also admitted that the accused did not flew away from the spot and asked him for the first aid after the accident. He denied the suggestion that the accused was driving the vehicle at a slow speed.
4. PW-2, is HC Dinesh Kumar, who deposed that on 9-12-2010, he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh as Duty Officer. On that day at about 6.25 PM Constable Munna Pathak brought the rukka and same was prepared and sent by WASI Neelam on the basis of whch he registered case FIR No. 366/10 which is Ex.PW-2/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW-2 also made endorsement on rukka Ex. PW-2/B bearing his signatures at point A. PW-2 was not cross- examined by the counsel for the accused despite opportunities given.
FIR No.366/10, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Balkar Singh Page no.2 of 9
5. PW-3, WSI Parsilla, deposed that on 9-12-2010 she was posted as Constable and on that day at about 3.34 PM she was telephonically informed by PCR Call from phone no. 9868821338 that one accident had taken place at Punjabi Bagh, Transport Centre, Delhi, whereupon, she made DD entry no. 42 A which is Ex. PW-3/A bearng her signatures at point A and thereafter she telephonically informed about the same to WASI Neelam.
6. PW-4, Constable Munna Pathak deposed that on 9-12-2010 he was posted at Police Station Punjabi Bagh as Constable. On that day at about 3- 3.30 PM on receiving DD no. 42 A regarding the accident, he alongwith W/ASI Neelam reached at TPT Centre, Punjabi Bagh where they found that one truck bearing registration number PB 08 AL 0717 alongwith driver Balkar Singh were present at the spot. PW-4 further deposed that at the spot they came to know that the injured had been got admitted in Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital by some public persons. Thereafter, W/ASI Neelam went to the hospital and came back after 40-45 minutes. PW-4 further deposted that ASI Neelam prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for getting the FIR registered. Accordingly, PW-4 went to the police station and got the FIR registered and came back at the spot with the original rukka and copy of the FIR and handed over the same to W/ASI Neelam. W/ASI Neelam seized the documents of the truck vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/A bearing his signature at point A. PW-4 also deposed that W/ASI Neelam also seized the truck and DL vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/B and PW-4/D respectively both bearing the signatures of PW- 4 at point A. Accused was arrested by W/ASI Neelam vide arrest memo Ex. PW-4/C bearing signatures of PW-4 at point A. Photographs of the truck have been correctly identified by the witness PW-4 as Ex. P-1 (Colly.) The witness was cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused at length.
7. PW-5 is retired ASI/Tech Devender Kumar who has conducted the mechanical inspection of the Truck bearing registeration number PB08 AL 0717 at Police Station Punjabi Bagh and reported that there was no fresh damange FIR No.366/10, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Balkar Singh Page no.3 of 9 found on the vehilce and vehicle was found fit for road test. His detailed report is Ex. PW-5/A bearing his signatures at point A.
8. PW-6 is Dr Nageshwar Kumar Nagar who on 9-12-2018 was posted as CMO in Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. He deposed that a patient namely Survesh Kumar S/o Ram Khilawan, 40 years male was brought by W/ASI Neelam alongwith PCR Van with alleged history of RTA and he found that the patient had suffered "Bruises on right ear and muscular abrasion with weakness right forearm referred to SR ortho and Sr Surgery for expert opinion". The MLC is Ex. PW-6/A bearing his signature at point A.
9. PW-7, is WSI Neelam who is the investigating officer of the present case. She has deposed that on 9-12-2010 she was posted as W/ASI at Police Station Punjabi Bagh and on that day, she was assigned the present case. She received the DD entry no. 42 A regarding the road acident at Transport Centre, Punjabi Bagh near Samose shop. Thereafter, she alongwith Constable Munna Pathak went to the spot of accident where one truck was standing bearing registration number PB08 AL 0717 alongwith accused Driver Balkar Singh S/o Jaswant Singh R/o H No. 275, Gali No. 3, Partap Nagar, Amritsar, Punjab. She further deposed that on enquiry it was disclosed that the victim had already been admitted to Bhagwan Mahavir Hopsital. She stated that after leaving constable Munna Pathak at the spot, she left for the hospital where she recorded the statement of the injured already Ex. CW-1/A bearing her signatures at point B. Thereafter, she came back at the spot and prepared a rukka and sent constable Munna Pathak to the police station for getting the FIR registered who went to the police station, got the FIR registered and came back at the spot with the copy of the FIR. PW-7 seized the driving license of the accused, prepared the seizure memo which is already Ex. PW-4/D bears her signature at point C. she also seized the original certificate of fitness, insurance policy, permit of the vehicle, photocopy of the RC and prepared the seizure memo regarding the same which is already Ex. PW-4/A bears her signatures at point B. PW-7 further deposed FIR No.366/10, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Balkar Singh Page no.4 of 9 that she called the photographer and got the photographs clicked from the front, rear and showing the chasis number which is Ex. P-1 (Colly.). She also got the vehicle mechanically examined. PW-7 thereafter seized the truck and prepared seizure memo already Ex. PW-4/B bearing her signatures at point B. She then arrested accused and prepared arrest memo already Ex. PW-4/C bearing her signatures at point B. Accused was later released on police bail. PW-7 got the documents verified from the RTO. She gave the notice u/s 133 to the owner whose reply is Ex. PW-7/A bearing her signature at point A. PW-7 further deposed that on 25-12-2010, she prepared the site plan upon the instance of the injured victim Suresh Kumar which is Ex. PW-7/B which bears her signatures at point A. She recorded the statements of the witnesses. She received the Medico Legal Case and the medical reports from the hospital. She then concluded the investigations, prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the Court. PW-7 correctly identified the accused present before the Court.
10. Statement of the accused u/s 294 CrPC has also been recorded in which has has admitted the MLC bearing nos. 1778/10 dated 09.12.10 with X-Ray report in the present case which is exhibited as Ex. A-1.
11. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded and he chose not to lead evidence in his defence. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed.
12. I have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the evidence on record carefully. Ld. APP for State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused be convicted for the alleged offence.
13. On the other hand, the Counsel for accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. REASONS FOR THE DECISION
14. Let us first discuss the law applicable in the present facts and FIR No.366/10, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Balkar Singh Page no.5 of 9 circumstances. The accused had been charged under Section 279/338 IPC.
The essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are as follows:-
1. Driving of a vehicle or riding on a public way.
2. Such driving or riding must be so rash and negligent as to endanger human life or to likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
The essential ingredients of Section 338 IPC are as follows:-
1. Voluntarily causing grievous injury to any person.
2. By doing an act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life and personal safety of others.
15. In the present case, notice for offences punishable u/s. 279/338 IPC was framed against accused. The testimony of PW-1 is most important, he being the eye witnesses and injured. He has well supported the case of the prosecution before the Court. He has narrated in detail the manner in which the accident had taken place. His testimony is consistent and inspires confidence. No reason has come on record during the trial of this case due to which the testimony of PW-1 be disbelieved. There is no reason for him to falsely implicate the accused in this case and let the real culprit go scot-free. His testimony has remained intact on all the material points and no material discrepancy could be found in his testimony. The defence has not been able to impeach the credibility of this witness during cross examination. His testimony is well corroborated by the medical evidence as well.
16. It can be safely said that conviction can be based on the evidence of single eye-witness if his credibility is not shaken, court can place reliance on the solitary witness provided the same inspires confidence, If such evidence of a single witness is clear, cogent and consistent and suffered with no infirmity, there is absolutely no impediment in placing reliance on such evidence and the court need not seek for corroboration. In Mallanna v. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 8 SCC523, it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the evidence of interested witnesses cannot be thrown out and the only requirement for the court is to consider their evidence with FIR No.366/10, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Balkar Singh Page no.6 of 9 great care and caution and if such evidence does not satisfy the test of credibility, then the court can disbelieve the same. Again, in the case of Mano Dutt & Anr. Vs State of UP, (2012) 4 SCC, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, that normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself, and thus there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain, protect the real culprit. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the testimony of injured person is very reliable as such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured person. As per the MLC No.1483, doctor had opined the injuries as grievous. Thus, the ocular testimony of the complainant is corroborated by the medical evidence.
16. Also, PW-2 to PW-5 and PW-7 are the police officials. They had reached at the spot on receipt of information. They have deposed about the investigation carried out by the IO in the present case and also proved the documents prepared by the IO during the investigation of the present case. The witnesses have been cross examined at length, however, nothing in favour of the accused could be gather from their cross-examination. Thus, their testimony is also clear, consistent and inspires confidence.
17. Therefore, in view of abovementioned discussion, it is clear that accused was driving the offending truck on the relevant date and time in a rash or negligent manner and while, so driving accused had caused injury to the complainant. Keeping in view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of considered view that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Balkar Singh is hereby convicted for offences punishable u/s. 279/338 IPC. At request, put up for arguments on sentence.
FIR No.366/10, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Balkar Singh Page no.7 of 9 Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (MANU VEDWAN)
COURT ON 8-04-2019 MM-01 (WEST)/TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
FIR No.366/10, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Balkar Singh Page no.8 of 9
STATE VS. BALKAR SINGH
FIR No. 366/10
New case no. 67388/16
PS: PUNJABI BAGH
U/S: 279/338 IPC
08-04-2019
Present: Ld APP for the State.
Accused alongwith Ld Counsel.
Vide separate detailed order and operative part announced in the open court the accused has been convicted under section 279/338 IPC.
Let complainant / injured be summoned for 30-04-2019.
Report be also called from the Probationary Officer.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (MANU VEDWAN)
COURT ON 08-04-2019 MM-01 (WEST)/TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
FIR No.366/10, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Balkar Singh Page no.9 of 9