Delhi District Court
State vs Sarang on 3 June, 2025
In the Court of Ms. Isra Zaidi: JMFC-04, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Sarang
FIR No. 251/2008
U/sec. 279/337/338 IPC
PS: Khajuri Khas
Date of institution of the case: 17.12.2009
Date for final arguments: 03.06.2025
Date on which judgment is delivered: 03.06.2025
CNR No. DLNE-02-000344-2009
JUDGMENT
a) Cr. No. of the case : 466097/2015
b) Date of commission of the offence : 05.09.2008
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Akash
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : Sarang
S/o Sh. Brijpal
e) Offence complained of : Section 279/338 IPC
f) Offence charged of : Section 279/337/338 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 03.06.2025
Digitally signed
ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
2025.06.03
ZAIDI 16:04:13
+0800
FIR No.251/2008 1/11 State Vs. Sarang
Brief facts of the case
1. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint are that on 05.09.2008 at about 6.00 pm, the complainant was going in his TSR bearing No.DL- 1RK-7095. One TATA 407 bearing No. UP17B 2919 came driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit his TSR. The complainant being driver sustained injuries. The passengers in the TSR also sustained injuries. Thereafter, an FIR against bus driver namely Sarang (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was registered under section 279/338 IPC.
Court Proceedings
2. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 279/338 was filed before the court against the accused. The then Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 01.10.2008 and accused was summoned to face the trial. On his appearance in the Court, copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to him as per norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.05.2010 charges under sections 279/337/338 IPC were framed against the accused Sarang to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
Prosecution Witnesses
S. No. Witness number Name of the witness
1. PW1 Sh. Mohan Singh
2. PW2 ASI Kanchi Singh
3. PW3 Retd. SI Manohar Lal
4. PW4 Sh. Ali Mohd.
FIR No.251/2008 2/11 State Vs. Sarang
ISRA Digitally signed
by ISRA ZAIDI
Date: 2025.06.03
ZAIDI 16:04:40 +0800
5. PW5 SI Hari Shankar
Documents relied upon by the prosecution
S. No. Ex./Mark Nature of documents
1. Mark-A MLC of Mohan Singh
2. Ex. PW1/DA Statement of Mohan Singh
3. Ex. PW2/A Seizure memo of TATA 407
4. Ex.PW2/B Seizure memo of TSR
5. Ex. PW2/C Arrest memo
6. Ex. PW2/D Personal search memo
7. Ex. PW3/A and Mechanical inspection reports
Ex. PW3/B
8. Ex. PW5/A Rukka
9. Ex. PW5/B FIR
Statement of the Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C
4. The accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C examined on 07.05.2025. The accused stated that his vehicle was already damaged. There was no damage which was caused due to accident. He is innocent. He was driving vehicle TATA 407. However, he reached the place of incident, accident had already taken place. Police officials falsely implicated him in the present case. No accident had occurred from his vehicle.
Evidence of the Defence
5. No defence evidence was led by the accused despite granting him an opportunity.
Final Arguments
6. The court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on FIR No.251/2008 3/11 State Vs. Sarang Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.06.03 16:05:21 +0800 03.06.2025. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the case against the accused is false and frivolous and has prayed that accused be acquitted of the offence charged. He pointed out various discrepancies in the version of the prosecution witness. Learned APP for the state submitted that accused be convicted of the offences under the above-mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused. This court has heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
7. In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 279/337/338 IPC beyond reasonable doubt:
Section 279 IPC:-
"Section 279 IPC provide that "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 bot Section 337 IPC:
"Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others- Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life ,or personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may be extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.".
Section 338 IPC:
"Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so FIR No.251/2008 4/11 State Vs. Sarang Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.06.03 16:05:32 +0800 rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.".
8. Section 279 IPC makes rash driving or riding on a public way so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person an offence. 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. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. The question whether conduct of the accused amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
9. Relevantly, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is observed that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC inter alia are that there must be,"rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person."
10. Section 279 IPC makes rash driving or riding on a public way so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person an offence. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. The question whether conduct of the accused amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the FIR No.251/2008 5/11 State Vs. Sarang Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.06.03 16:05:55 +0800 amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
Relevantly, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is observed that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC inter alia are that there must be,"rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person."
11. In order to prove the ingredients of section 337 IPC, it is to be proved that accused caused hurt by doing an act in a rash and negligent manner and consequently endangered the safety of the complainant. In order to prove the ingredients of section 338 IPC, it is to be proved that accused caused grievous hurt by doing an act in a rash and negligent manner and consequently endangered the safety of the complainant.
12. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
13. The complainant Akash, S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar could not be examined as a witness. He remained unserved through DCP and he was dropped from the list of witnesses. PW1 deposed in his examination in chief that on 05.09.2008 one TATA 407 bearing No. UP-17B-2919 came at a very high speed from Loni side which struck against his TSR. He sustained injuries on his right leg which got fractured. He further deposed that two or more passengers sitting in TSR sustained injuries.
FIR No.251/2008 6/11 State Vs. Sarang Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.06.03 16:06:05 +0800
He testified in his cross-examination that he had not stated to the IO that seven passengers were sitting in TSR in the previous statement to the IO. He further testified that he stated the vehicle number to the IO in his previous statement. He was confronted with his previous statement wherein it was not so recorded. Perusal of MLC of Mohan reveals that Mohan Singh had absconded as observed by the doctor so final opinion could not be given. His testimony is silent about the rash and negligent manner in which the vehicle was driven. He has also not stated the vehicle number of TSR. The medical documents pertaining to treatment from Army Hospital were not filed by the prosecution.
14. PW2 was on emergency duty. He deposed that he received DD No. 15A regarding accident of TATA 407 and TSR bearing No. DL-1RK-7095. He handed over rukka for registration of FIR. He testified in his cross-examination that many public persons were gathered and driver of TSR was not present on the spot. He did not know the driver of the vehicle. He could not tell if accused was present on the spot. He testified that IO prepared seizure memo and site plan on the spot. He admitted that the correct number of vehicles were not mentioned in his statement. He testified that no statement of the public person was recorded by the IO in his presence.
15. PW3 conducted the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles. PW4 deposed that on 05.09.2008 he was returning to his home from Sadar Bazar in a TSR. When TSR reached in front of CRPF camp, suddenly one tempo TATA 407 came from side of UP Border in a high speed and hit TSR due to which he sustained injuries. He further deposed that he could not identify the accused as he became unconscious after the accident. He testified in his cross-examination by Ld. APP that he could not tell the registration number of the vehicle. The accused was not identified by PW4 who was an eye witness in the present case.
FIR No.251/2008 7/11 State Vs. Sarang Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.06.03 16:06:16 +0800
16. In every criminal trial, the identity of the malefactor must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the offender, for even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the offender beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Onus is, thus, on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person facing the trial is, in fact, the same person who committed the offence.
18. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the identity of the ac- cused in the case of Ashraf vs State held as under:-
"....However, in case a witness is completely hostile with regard to identity of the accused even in his examination- in-chief and nothing could be elicited from him to show the involvement of the accused in the offence in the cross-exam- ination by the APP, such a testimony cannot be accepted and made the basis of the conviction....."
19. PW5 deposed in his examination in chief that he registered FIR against the accused.
20. The evidentiary value of the spot map/sketch map prepared by the investigating officer is relevant under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and since it is based on the actual observation of the officer at the crime scene, it is treated as direct evidence and is admissible u/s 60 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is well settled that every defect in the site plan cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution though non-mentioning of the essential features in the site plan can create a doubt on the story of the prosecution. In the case of Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana (2003)12 SCC 758 it was held that any defect in the site plan creates a doubt regarding the place of occurrence and accused is entitled to get FIR No.251/2008 8/11 State Vs. Sarang Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.06.03 16:06:34 +0800 the benefit of doubt. The site plan prepared by the IO was not even signed by the complainant. It is doubtful that the site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant.
21. Adverting to the testimonies of the Police witnesses they were not an eye witness to the incident. None of the police witnesses witnessed the accident. The site plan annexed is inadequate. In the site plan Mark-X it is not depicted from which direction the vehicles were coming. It is also not clear if there was any divider on the road. The speed at which both the vehicles were being driven has not been ascertained. Point' A' is shown where accident took place. Even after assuming and believing the version of the prosecution to be a gospel truth, the question as to why the driver of TATA 407 did not sustain any injury in head on collision remains unanswered. The speed limit of the area was not specified. It was incumbent upon IO to scale an accurate site plan. The exact point of impact as well as tyre skid marks and the point at which offending vehicle had come to rest after the collision should have been specified. No photography or videography was conducted by the IO just immediately after the accident. The photography or videography of site and surrounding areas ought to have been conducted so that the exact topography could have been discerned by this Court. The entire testimony of the prosecution witnesses is silent about the rash and negligent manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused.
22. The investigation has been conducted in a routine and a stereotypical manner. Mere testimonies of the police witnesses are insufficient and cannot be made a sole basis of the conviction of the accused person. PW1 the eye witness does not appear to be credit worthy. He also absconded from the hospital and the opinion on the injury could not be given. Complainant could not be examined by the prosecution as a witness. IO in the present case was also not examined as a witness by the prosecution.
FIR No.251/2008 9/11 State Vs. Sarang
ISRA Digitally signed
by ISRA ZAIDI
Date: 2025.06.03
ZAIDI 16:06:43 +0800
23. In the present case also a mere bald statement that the driver of the TATA 407 was driving TATA 407 in rash and negligent manner, does not prove the guilt of the accused. There is no evidence to show the speed of vehicle or the manner in which the vehicle was being driven to show his rashness or negligence. The gravamen of the offence consists in conduct of accused being rash and negligent which has not been proved by the prosecution.
24. It is an adage that law works on the wheels of evidence. Every criminal trial is a journey of discovering and unfolding the truth. But in the present case no sufficient evidence is there on record to warrant the conviction of the accused person. In the case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI 178 (2011) DLT 529 it was held that where it is possible to have both views one in favor of prosecution and one in favor of accused, the later one should prevail. The prosecution could not prove by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt.
25. For the reasons outlined above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to discharge the heavy burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
26. Consequently, accused Sarang is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today.
FIR No.251/2008 10/11 State Vs. Sarang Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.06.03 16:06:55 +0800
This judgment contains 11 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
2025.06.03
ZAIDI 16:07:03
+0800
(Isra Zaidi)
JMFC-04/NE/KKD/Delhi
03.06.2025
FIR No.251/2008 11/11 State Vs. Sarang