Delhi District Court
State vs . Suresh Nagpal on 29 August, 2014
FIR No. 487/05
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 279/337 IPC
State Vs. Suresh Nagpal
IN THE COURT OF SH VIPLAV DABAS
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV (NORTH WEST)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Case ID:- 02404R0001272006
FIR No. 487/05
State Vs. Suresh Nagpal
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 279/337 IPC
Date of Institution of case : 19.01.2006
Date of Judgment : 29.08.2014
JUDGMENT:
a) Date of offence : 03.10.2005 b) Offence complained of : U/s 279 & 337 IPC c) Name of Accused, his : Suresh Nagpal, parentage & residence S/o Sh. G.D. Nagpal, R/o A-38, Phase-III, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. d) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty e) Final order : Acquitted 1/15 FIR No. 487/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal
Brief facts & reasons for the decision of the case:-
1. On 04.10.2005, injured Rajesh came at PP Shanti Nagar and got recorded his statement regarding accident. The said information was sent to P.S. Keshav Puram vide DD No. 19A dated 04.10.2005. The said DD was handed over to IO/HC Joghar Singh for investigation, who got medically examined the injured Rajesh through Ct. Surender.
2. On the basis of MLC of injured, IO prepared the rukka and handed over to Ct. Surender, who got the FIR registered. IO recorded statement of injured Rajesh wherein he stated that on 03.10.2005, at about 10.00 am, he alongwith his brother Vijay Kumar was going to Tota Ram Market for attending the duty on foot and when they reached near Canara Bank in the meanwhile, one Car bearing registration No. DL-2CR-8477 came from their being being driven in rash and negligent manner, hit injured Rajesh.
3. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of injured Rajesh. IO took the offending Car in his custody and got it mechanically examined. IO recorded the statement of complainant/injured Rajesh. Thereafter, IO sent notice u/s 133 MV Act to the owner of the offending car i.e. accused Suresh Nagpal and received reply from him. IO seized the documents and DL of the accused. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted and case property was deposited in the Malkhana with MHC(M).
After the usual investigation, the charge sheet for the offence 2/15 FIR No. 487/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal U/Sec 279 & 337 IPC was prepared against the accused.
4. The aforesaid chargesheet was filed before the court on 19.01.2006, whereupon the cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused. The provisions of section 207 Cr.PC. was complied on 19.01.2006.
5. After hearing the arguments, charge u/s 279 & 337 IPC was framed against the accused Suresh Nagpal on the allegations that on 03.10.2005, at about 10.00 AM at Tota Ram Bazar near Canara Bank, Tri Nagar, Delhi he was driving Wagon R car registration no. DL-2CR-8477 in rash and negligent manner and due to which he caused simple injury upon the person of Rajesh to which the accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial. Accordingly, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s 279, 304-A IPC & Section 337 A IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients of the said Sections:
a) Section 279: The accused was driving the vehicle in a public place and that he was driving in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt/injury to any other person.
b) Section 337 :- Hurt is caused to any person by an act done by another person and that the act was done so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others.3/15 FIR No. 487/05
PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal
7. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined 6 witnesses to substantiate the accusations levelled against the accused.
8. PW-1, Vijay Kumar Sharma, who deposed that about five years ago, he along with Rajesh were going to join their duty at Tri Nagar, that when they reached near Canara Bank, one car bearing no. DL-2C-8470 came from behind at very high speed and driver of the said car did not blow horn and hit Rajesh because of which Rajesh received minor injuries, that he asked the driver of the offending vehicle to get Rajesh medically treated, that he along with injured Rajesh and accused went to the doctor at the private clinic and the said doctor gave some medicine and put bandage on the right leg of injured Rajesh, that driver of the offending vehicle told them to come to Canara Bank on the next day for further treatment and that on the next day, he along with injured Rajesh went to the office of accused but accused refused to get Rajesh medically treated despite their request. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with injured Rajesh went to the PS, that he narrated the whole incident to the police and that police recorded the statement of injured Rajesh. This witness has identified the accused Suresh Nagpal who was present in the court. During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that he does not remember the exact date of incident, that however, the incident took place in the year 2005, that the incident took place between 9.00 to 9.30 am. This witness admitted that there is a Tota 4/15 FIR No. 487/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal Ram Bazaar near the place of incident in the gali. The witness denied the suggestion that even cycle cannot enter in the gali, that the offending vehicle was coming from the side of Metro Station. The witness denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle left the spot and he named the registration number of the vehicle which was parked in front of Canara Bank bearing no. DL-2CR 8477, that he is deposing falsely because he does not remember the date and time of the incident and vehicle number and its colour, that he gave the registration number on the asking of the police as the vehicle was being regularly parked in front of Canara Bank and that he is deposing falsely.
9. PW-2 Rajesh, who deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW-1 in his testimony and has correctly identified the accused, who was present in the Court on that day. During cross-examination, this witness deposed that during those days, he was doing a private job as carpenter in a shop, that he works on the basis of daily wages, that he used to attend the work at about 10.00 am or 10.30 am, that working hours were from about 10.00 am to 6.30 pm or 7.00 pm, that about 20-25 persons gathered at the spot. He admitted that Tota Ram Bazaar is a busy marked. He denied the suggestion that only one or two four wheeler ply on that road and it is not necessary that if any four wheeler ply on the road, it always be driven at a very slow speed. He further deposed that on the day of incident, it was morning time so road was not busy at the time of accident. The witness denied the suggestion that no incident took place with the vehicle of accused, 5/15 FIR No. 487/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal that he did not inform the police on the day of incident as no accident was caused by the vehicle of accused, that he informed the registration number of the car of accused because accused parked his car near the Canara Bank in which the accused was working at that time, that I am deposing falsely and that no accident took place with the vehicle of accused.
10. PW-3 Head Constable Surender Singh was the police official who accompanied the IO in the investigation. He exhibited the arrest memo Ex. PW3/A and personal search memo as Ex. PW3/B, bearing signatures at point A respectively. He exhibited the seizure memo of the offending car Ex. PW3/C bearing his signature at point A and identified the accused correctly, who was present in the Court on that day. He also deposed about the proceedings conducted by the IO in his presence. During cross-examination, this witness denied the suggestion that the entire proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS except the proceedings regarding arrest of accused which was taken place in the PS. He admitted that he does not remember the registration number of the said offending car and that the model of the offending car was Wagon R of golden colour. The witness further denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely at the instance of IO being police official.
11. PW-4 Ms. Janak Chawla was the record clerk from BJRM Hospital, Delhi who was summoned to prove the MLC of injured Rajesh Ex. PW4/A which was prepared by Dr. Anand Jha. The witness 6/15 FIR No. 487/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal deposed that injured Rajesh was medically examined by Dr. Anand Jha who had left the service of the hospital prior to her joining as record clerk in the hospital. During cross-examination, this witness deposed that she does not identify the signature of Dr. Anand Jha as he had left already left the hospital prior to her joining. It shows that MLC depicting that Rajesh sustained simple injuries due to accident has not been proved properly as per Law.
12. PW-5, Retd. ASI (Technical) Devneder Kumar was the mechanical inspector who conducted mechanical inspection of the offending Wagon R Car on the request of IO Johar Singh and proved the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW5/A, bearing his signature at point A.
13. PW-6 SI Johar Singh was the IO of the case who exhibited the rukka as Ex. PW6/A, site plan as Ex. PW6/B, seizure memo of DL of accused Ex. PW3/C, bail bond of accused Ex. PW6/D and applications for mechanical inspection of offending car as Ex. PW6/E. He also deposed about the proceedings conducted by him alongwith PW4. During cross-examination, this witness deposed that police post Shanti Nagar is about 150-200 meters away from Canara Bank. He admitted that the injured stated in his complaint and told him that he was called at Canara Bank for X-ray on the next day of the said incident. He further deposed that on the day when the complainant gave his statement, he had come to know that in whose name the said car was registered, that he visited Canara Bank where the 7/15 FIR No. 487/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal accused was doing job and he came to know that accused had gone out of the bank for official purpose. He admitted that on both sides of the road where the accident took place, there is a market. He further deposed that he had not knowledge that in between the said market, the above-said offending vehicle used to be parked. The witness denied the suggestion that no accident took place with the offending vehicle and he implicated the accused as his vehicle was used to parked near the place of incident. He admitted that accused was posted in the above-stated Canara Bank at the time of incident, that on 13.10.2005, he took into possession the offending vehicle, that no notice u/sec. 133 M.V. Act was given to accused, that prior to 13.10.2005, accused did not meet me, that in between 03.10.2005 to 13.10.2005, he only visited once in Canara Bank. The witness denied the suggestion that when the actual vehicle by which the accident took place did not trace, he falsely implicated the accused and his vehicle in the present case and that he was deposing falsely and the entire proceedings had been done in PS.
14. After all the prosecution witnesses were examined the prosecution evidence was closed and matter was fixed for Statement of Accused.
15. The Statement of Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 29.04.2014 and all incriminating evidence were put to him wherein accused submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case as he was senior Manager in Canara Bank branch Tota 8/15 FIR No. 487/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal Ram Bazar, Tri Nagar and that he used to park his car near the branch due to which there was a false involvement of his car in the said accident. Accused stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
16. At the time of final arguments it is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and all the ingredients of relevant section are completed. In reply to this it is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel on behalf of accused that police had falsely implicated the accused in the present case.
17. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the record of the case.
18. PW-1, the eye witness to the incident who was accompanying the victim PW-2 could not tell the correct registration number of the car and the exact date of incident. PW-1 failed to recollect even the colour of the offending car. Further, PW-2 (injured) failed to tell the complete registration number of the car and stated that the digits in that number were 8477 which is in contradiction to the digits 8470 comprised in the number as deposed by PW-1 thereby creating doubts on the version of said PWs regarding identity of the vehicle and hence that of the accused. It is further apparent from the testimony of PW-2 that PW-1 (Vijay) had informed him about the number of the car as after the accident, he had sustained injuries and 9/15 FIR No. 487/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal started bleeding which shows that PW-2 (injured) did not himself see the number of the offending car and came to know about the said number from PW-1. It makes the testimony of PW-2 qua the identity of the alleged car doubtful, inadmissible and unreliable. The fact that PW-1 himself could not tell the correct registration number of the car, the exact date of incident and the colour of the offending car shows that testimony of PW-1 regarding the identity of the alleged car and its involvement in the incident is also not reliable. It further emerges from the aforesaid testimonial analysis of the only eyewitnesses that their testimonies are contradictory, unreliable and incoherent which makes the entire prosecution version highly suspicious. PW-1 deposed that he asked the driver of the offending vehicle to get Rajesh medically treated whereas PW-2 testified that the car driver asked him to take him to the doctor for his treatment which indicates that either PW-1 and PW-2 were not together at time of incident or they had talked to two different persons as drivers of the offending vehicle. It shows that a grave doubt exists on the identity of the accused driver benefit of which must go to the accused. PW-1 deposed that driver of the offending vehicle told them to come to Canara Bank on next day for further treatment and that they went to Canara Bank on next day but the accused refused to get Rajesh medically treated while the injured (PW-2) did not depose anything as aforesaid. The omissions and contradictions of the eye witnesses indicate that the said PWs are not telling the truth and the they are not credit/trustworthy which shatters the case of the prosecution as the said PWs are the only eye witnesses. PW-1 deposed that on refusal of accused to take Rajesh 10/15 FIR No. 487/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal for further treatment he along with Rajesh went to PS on 04.10.2005 whereas PW-2 deposed that he went to Police Chowki on 04.10.2005 where his statement was recorded. PW-2 did not depose about PW-1 accompanying him to Police Chowki. Similarly, PW-3, HC Surender Singh and PW-6 IO SI Johar Singh deposed that one person namely Rajesh had come to Police post on 04.10.2005 whose statement was recorded. These witnesses PW-3 and PW-6 also did not depose about PW-1 accompanying the PW-2 Rajesh. It again shows that the testimony of star witness i.e. PW-1 cannot be relied upon as same is not corroborated by that of the injured and other PWs which renders the entire prosecution version toothless. PW-1 deposed that not many people were present at the time of the incident whereas PW-2 deposed that 20-25 people had gathered there. Similarly, PW-6 deposed in his cross-examination that he tried to join public persons from the said area as witnesses but they refused to join the investigation, that he did not ask any person from the bank to become witness and that no notice in writing was given to public persons who refused to join the investigation. It is clear from the aforesaid testimonies that the incident had occurred in public view but the independent public witnesses were not joined in the investigation nor any action was taken against them for refusing to join investigation. PW-2 deposed that accused was also present in Police Station on 04.10.2004 whereas PW-3 and PW-5 deposed that accused Suresh Nagpal came to Police Post on 13.10.2005 and that the accused did not meet PW-6 prior to 13.10.2005 respectively. It shows that PW-2 is telling a false story regarding the presence of accused in Police Post 11/15 FIR No. 487/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal on 04.10.2005 in order to falsely implicate him. It further shows that the version of prosecution that the injured visited the accused at his bank on 04.10.2005 for further treatment is also false as the accused cannot be present at two places at almost the same time which further falsifies the entire prosecution version. PW-2 deposed in his cross- examination that he visited the place of accident with police after the day of accident at about 10.30 or 11.00 am where he pointed out the place of the accident to the police and thereafter they came back to Police Chowki where all the writing work was done which shows that all the memos including site plan were prepared while sitting in the PP and not at the spot. It creates doubt even on the place of occurrence as mentioned in the site plan which shatters the prosecution version. PW-6 deposed that on the day next to registration of FIR, he visited Canara Bank where accused was doing his job, that there PW-6 came to know that accused had gone out of the bank for official purpose and that he visited the Canara Bank only once. Furthermore, it is admitted fact that accused was arrested on 13.10.2005 despite registration of FIR on 04.10.2005. It is also apparent from the record that identity and whereabouts of the accused were disclosed by the PW-2 (injured) to the police completely on the day of registration of FIR and that the bank where accused worked was located so near to the Police Post and Police Station that IO/Police officials could have reached to the accused within few minutes of registration of FIR. So, the delay in apprehending the accused being unreasonable creates doubt on the entire case and makes the defence version highly probable that accused has been falsely implicated as he used to park his car near 12/15 FIR No. 487/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal the Canara Bank where he was working as a Manager by framing the occurrence of alleged accident near the Canara Bank otherwise he would have arrested immediately or within reasonable time after registration of the FIR. Moreover, there is a delay in the registration of FIR in this case as the alleged accident took place on 03.10.2005 and firm was registered on 04.10.2005. It appears that taking the victim to the doctor on the day of the accident by the accused and assuring him further treatment on next date prompted the victim for not registering the FIR on the day of incident/immediately after the accident. However, doctor who examined the victim on the day of accident has neither been arrayed as witness nor any reference of his name/address has been made during the entire investigation by the police. Even the PW-1 & PW-2 did not disclose anything about the name and address of the said doctor who is a crucial witness to complete the chains of events starting from the happening of alleged incident till the delayed registration of FIR on the day next to that of the incident. It is a material omission which shows that prosecution version is false and that accused has been falsely implicated. It is apparent from the testimony of PW-4 that Dr. Anand Jha who examined and prepared the MLC of the victim had left the hospital prior to joining the hospital by PW-4 and that PW-4 failed to identify the signatures of Dr. Anand Jha who prepared the MLC. It shows that the writing on the MLC depicting alleged history of RTA as well as the nature of injury sustained have not been proved as per Law.
19. In view of the afore-discussed testimonial analysis, omissions, 13/15 FIR No. 487/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution version, a grave doubt hovers upon the prosecution version that vehicle of the accused hit the injured while driving the alleged car, that injured sustained the alleged injuries in road accident involving the accused that the alleged injury were simple in nature and that the alleged injuries caused to the injured had any nexus with an act of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove all the ingriedents of the offence allegedly committed by the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
20. Regarding the onus of proving the ingredients of an offence, in the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the 14/15 FIR No. 487/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/337 IPC State Vs. Suresh Nagpal prosecution..........................."
The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion and settled legal position in my opinion, prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused Suresh Nagpal, S/o G.D.Nagpal is acquitted of the charge leveled against him. Bail bond stands cancelled and Surety be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any. Superdarinama if any be cancelled. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (VIPLAV DABAS)
today i.e on 29.08.2014 MM-04/NORTH WEST-04):DELHI
29.08.2014
15/15