Delhi District Court
State vs Laxman on 27 March, 2025
DLST010044592024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-06, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Laxman
FIR No. 233/2020
PS Fatehpur Beri
JUDGEMENT
1. Sl. No. of the case : 291/2024
2. Date of institution of the case : 02.05.2024
3. Name of complainant : State
4. Date of commission of offence : 22.06.2020
5. Name of accused, parentage : Laxman S/o Sh. Shiv Charan,
R/o Pali Kheda, Maholi,
Mathura, U.P.
6. Offence complained of or proved : 186/353/333 IPC, 184
and 66/192A MV Act
7. Plea of accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Convicted for offences u/s
353/332 IPC and 184 M.V.
Act; acquitted for offences
u/s 186/333 IPC and 66/192A
M.V. Act
9. Date on which order was reserved : 19.03.2025
10.Date of pronouncement : 27.03.2025
FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 1 / 17
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.27
18:43:37
+0530
1. As per the case of prosecution, SI Manjeet Kumar, ASI Ramesh, HC Sanjeev, Ct. Monu and Ct. Akshay from PS Fatehpur Beri alongwith Ct. Jai Pal Singh and ASI Subhash from Mehrauli Traffic Circle were checking vehicles at Aaya Nagar Border after putting barricade on the road leading to Delhi from Gurgaon on 22.06.2020 starting from 09:00 pm. SI Manjeet Kumar was issuing challans against the people not following the lockdown. Ct. Akshay was standing at barricade after U-turn. At about 10:30 pm, they spotted a Truck bearing no. HR38R4050 being driven by accused Laxman coming on the wrong side from Aaya Nagar MCD Toll Tax and traffic staff was trying to get it stopped. After sometime, Ct. Monu came running towards SI Manjeet Kumar and told him that while Ct. Akshay was trying to stop the truck coming on the wrong side, he sustained injury on his hand and was bleeding. On this, SI Manjeet Kumar immediately sent Ct. Akshay alongwith Ct. Monu to the hospital in the PCR Van stationed nearby.Thereafter, he also went to Indian Spinal Injuries Centre at Vasant Kunj after informing the senior officers and obtained MLC No.689635 pertaining to Ct. Akshay. Injured was referred to Trauma Centre for further treatment. Statement of injured could be recorded and SI Manjeet Kumar returned to the spot. Statement of Ct. Jai Pal was recorded by him and on the basis of it, FIR No. 233 for the offences u/s 186/353/332 IPC was lodged at PS Fatehpur Beri on 23.06.2020.
2. After registration of FIR, investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offences u/s 186/353/333 IPC alongwith section 184 and 66/192A MV Act was filed against accused before Ld. Magistrate on 21.12.2020. After compliance u/s 207 Cr.P.C., matter was committed u/s 209 Cr.P.C. which was received by way of FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 2 / 17 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.27
18:43:45
+0530
assignment by this Court on 02.05.2024.
3. Charge for the offences u/s 186/353/333 IPC alongwith section 184 and 66/192A MV Act was framed against the accused on 13.12.2024 to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following 8 witnesses:-
S.No. Name of Documents proved Role Witness Complaint as Ex.PW1/A, photographs of truck as Ex.PW1/B-1 and Ex.PW1/B-2, seizure memo of truck as Ex.PW1/C, seizure memo of PW-1 Ct. Jai documents pertaining to the truck
1. Complainant Pal Singh i.e., RC, insurance and fitness certificate as Ex.PW1/D, seizure memo of DL as Ex.PW1/E, arrest memo of accused as Ex.PW1/F and his personal search memo as Ex.PW1/G PW-2 HC His MLC as Ex.PW2/A and
2. Akshay Injured discharge summary as Ex.PW2/B Kumar Site plan as Ex.PW3/A, copy of RC of vehicle, insurance certificate and fitness certificate as Ex.PW3/B PW-3 (subject to proof), Ex.PW3/C
3. Inspector (subject to proof) and IO Manjeet Ex.PW3/D (subject to proof) respectively, seizure memo of duty roster at the relevant time as Ex.PW3/E and copy of duty roster as Ex.PW3/F FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 3 / 17 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.27 18:43:56 +0530 PW-4 Sh. Mechanical inspection report of Mechanical
4. T.U. vehilce bearing HR 38R4050 as Inspector Shiddique Ex.PW4/A He identified the PW-5 Sh.
handwriting and Anoop signature of Dr. Kumar Arjun V. Jaitley Kaushik, Sr. Authority letter as Ex.PW5/A
5. who had left Indian Manager, Spinal Injuries Indian Spinal Centre on Injuries 01.07.2021 Centre He was working as Deployment Officer at PS Fatehpur Beri on 22.06.2020 and brought the orignal PW-6 HC
6. - record pertaining to Ramchander duty roster of police staff dated 22.06.2020 for comparision with the copy on record He had produced PW-7 Sh.
the attested record Bhunesh pertaining to Kumar Copy of discharge summary of discharge summary Sharma, injured Akshay pertaining to of Akshay from Medical
7. AIIMS alongwith Record Indian Spinal Injuries Centre as copy of discharge Technician, Mark PW7/A summary pertaining AIIMS to said patient from Trauma Indian Spinal Centre Injuries Centre
8. PW-8 Dr. - She explained the Shrishti treatment given to Rathore, SR, injured Akshay as Trauma mentioned in the Surgery and discharge summary FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 4 / 17 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.27
18:44:03
+0530
Critical Care
Department,
AIIMS
5. Accused admitted genuineness and factum of registration of FIR in question (without contents) alongwith certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act and DD No. 65A & 78A both dated 22.06.2020, PS Fatehpur Beri U/s 294 Cr.P.C. vide his separate statement dated 13.12.2024. Corresponding witnesses were accordingly dropped from list of witnesses.
6. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, PE was closed on 19.03.2025. Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on the same day wherein he pleaded his innocence. He stated as under:-
"I was driving the vehicle on the wrong side as I had turned around the vehicle before the toll tax. It could not be done on the correct side as barricades had been placed and the vehicle being large in size could not have been turned in the available space. The correct U-turn thereafter was a bit ahead. I did not see anyone signalling me to stop. Suddenly, one police official came from behind the barricade with a danda in his hand. He had hit the front head light of the vehicle with danda due to which same got broken and he received injury in his hand. I do not know as to whether the vehicle was having permit at that time or not. I did not commit any offence as alleged."
7. DE was closed as no witness was to be examined by defence.
8. Arguments heard.
FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 5 / 17
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.03.27
18:44:10
+0530
9. It has been argued by Ld. Addl. PP for State that though it is not clear from the material on record as to how the injury in question sustained by Ct. (now HC) Akshay has been opined as grievous still, it is clear that the vehicle was being driven by the accused on the wrong side. It has been submitted that it is also clear from the testimony of witnesses that he did not stop the vehicle even after being signaled to do the same. It has been submitted that PW-2 HC Akshay had sustained injury due to failure of the accused to stop the vehicle and he has clearly stated that the injury has been received either from the iron rod protruding out of the bumper of the vehicle or from broken right side head light of the vehicle. Prayer has been made for conviction of the accused.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. It has been submitted that accused was admittedly driving the vehicle on the wrong side as the correct U-turn was a bit ahead. It has been submitted that he did not hit Ct. Akshay and that he was not in any way responsible for the injuries sustained by him. It has been submitted that the injuries were sustained by Ct. Akshay due to his own mistake as he had hit the front head light of the vehicle with danda which got broken and glass thereof probably caused the injuries in question. It has been submitted that the speed of the offending vehicle could not have been much as admittedly barricades had been placed at the spot. Also, it has come in the testimony of the witnesses that vehicle had stopped after some distance from where Ct Akshay was standing. He has prayed for acquittal of accused.
11. I have considered the submissions from both the sides alongwith record.
FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 6 / 17
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.03.27
18:44:16
+0530
12. Accused herein has been charged with for commission of offences u/s 186/353/333 IPC alongwith Section 184 and 66/192A M.V. Act. Section 186 provides as under:-
"186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.- Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
12.1. Section 353 IPC provides as under:-
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
12.2. Section 333 IPC provides as under:-
"333. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty.- Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 7 / 17 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.27 18:44:23 +0530 the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
13. For proving the offence U/s 186 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove following things:-
(a) that the victim Ct. Akshay was public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC;
(b) that he was performing his official duty at the time of incident;
(c) that he was obstructed or prevented from discharging his public function by the accused.
14. There is additional requirement of a complaint in writing of concerned public servant or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate to be filed before the Court as stipulated U/s 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C.
15. For proving the offence U/s 333 IPC, it is required to be proved that accused had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Ct. Akshay in discharge of his duty as a public servant. Similarly, for proving offence U/s 353 IPC, it is to be proved that accused had assaulted/used criminal force against Ct. Akshay.
16. In this case, it has been proved beyond doubt that victim PW-2 HC (earlier Ct.) Akshay Kumar was a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC and was performing his official duty at the time of incident in question. PW-6 HC Ramchander has proved the duty roster of police staff of PS Fatehpur Beri pertaining to 22.06.2020 by bringing the original FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 8 / 17 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.27 18:44:30 +0530 record thereof. Its copy was exhibited as Ex.PW-3/F during the testimony of PW-3 Inspector Manjeet which was compared with the original record brought by PW-6 and was found to be matching. There is no dispute on this aspect by Ld. Defence Counsel. Interestingly, a complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. from Sh. Ranbir Singh, the then ACP Mehrauli was obtained by IO/SI Manjeet Kumar during investigation and same is on record however, it has not been proved by any of the 8 witnesses examined by prosecution. This omission might have occurred as the name of ACP Ranbir Singh was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. SI (now Inspector) Manjeet Kumar also did not state the fact regarding complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C having been obtained in his testimony before the Court. So, the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. made by ACP Ranbir Singh remains on record as unproved. Needless to say that mere availability of a document on record does not mean that same can be read as evidence without having been formally proved. Admittedly, present FIR has been lodged on the basis of complaint of Ct. Jai Pal and not of victim Ct. Akshay. In these facts, this Court is of the view that accused cannot be convicted for the offence U/s 186 IPC.
17. Regarding remaining offences, it is to be seen that PW-2 HC Akshay Kumar is the star witness. In his testimony dated 20.02.2025 before the Court, he stated that on 22.06.2020, he was posted as constable at PS Fatehpur Beri and that they had put up Special Police Picket for checking the vehicles with regard to the Covid protocol violation as it was Covid period. He stated that he was on duty alongwith SI Manjeet Kumar, ASI Ramesh, HC Sanjeev and Ct. Monu. He stated that two police officials from Mehrauli Traffic Circle including Ct. Jai Pal were also with them during checking. He stated that they were checking the vehicles at Aaya Nagar Border after putting barricade on the road leading from Gurgaon to FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 9 / 17 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.27
18:44:36
+0530
Delhi and that the barricades were placed at two places at a gap of 2-3 meters on the same road. He stated that he had assumed position at U-turn leading towards Gurgaon side of the road near the second barricade. He stated that at about 10:20-10:30 PM, they spotted a truck type vehicle having last four digits of registration number as 4050. One ASI who was present with them gave signal to stop the vehicle but its driver did not stop it rather sped it up. He stated that the said ASI shouted to get the vehicle stopped. He stated that at that time, the vehicle was coming on wrong direction towards the U-turn and that he moved ahead from the place where he was standing and gave signal with his right hand to the driver of that vehicle. He stated that he was carrying a lathi in his right hand to get the vehicle stopped at U-turn but the driver of the vehicle did not stop rather he he hit him with the right side of the vehicle due to which he sustained injuries in his right hand. He stated that he would have sustained injuries either from the iron road protruding out of bumper of the vehicle or from broken right side head light of the vehicle. He stated that after sustaining injuries, he had become unconscious and that he was taken to Indian Spinal Injury Center by PCR Van which used to be stationed there being its halting point. He stated that Ct. Monu had accompanied him to the hospital in the PCR Van. He stated that from the said hospital, he was referred to AIIMS Trauma Center and that his MLC was prepared at Indian Spinal Injury Center where he had put his thumb impression. He stated that he had received injury in the nerve of right wrist due to which he was unable to feel any sensation in the fingers of the right hand except the little finger. He stated that he had undergone surgery and remained admitted there from 23.06.2020 to 29.06.2020. He correctly identified the accused and also identified the truck visible in the photographs Ex.PW-10/B-1 & B-2 on record.
FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 10 / 17
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.03.27
18:44:43
+0530
18. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that when he heard the voice asking the truck of the accused to be stopped, same was at a distance of around 50 meters from him. He stated that at that time, the vehicle was on the donwards slope. He admitted the suggestion that the barricades were put in such a manner that any vehicle could have crossed it only after taking the vehicle slightly left after passing the first barricade and thereafter taking right after the second barricade. He stated that no one except he was having lathi /danda at that time. He admitted the suggestion that he did not sustain injury in any other body party except the right hand. He stated that he had not told the IO in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that an iron rod was protruding out of bumper of the vehicle. He denied the suggestion that accused did not try to flee away with his vehicle or that he did not try to run over him with his vehicle. He stated that he was unable to recollect as to whether his statement was recorded in the PS. He denied the suggestion that he had hit the head light of the truck with the danda in his hand due to which same got broken or that he sustained injury therefrom.
19. PW-4 Sh. T.U. Siddique is the other material witness who carried out the inspection of the offending vehicle vide his report Ex.PW-4/A in which he has listed the fresh damage to right side front head light of the vehicle. In his cross-examination, he admitted that fresh damage to right side front head light of the vehicle was observed during inspection.
20. Apart from this, PW-5 Sh. Anoop Kumar Kaushik is another material witness who proved the MLC of the injured (Ex.PW2/A) by FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 11 / 17 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.27
18:44:50
+0530
identifying the handwriting /signature of Dr. Arjun V. Jaitley who had prepared the same but had left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known. In the MLC of PW-2 on record, the injury found after local examination has been mentioned as CLW over base of thumb (right hand). Also, the wound was packed tightly after administering several injections and patient was referred to Trauma Center for further management. Further treatment of patient was carried out at AIIMS and as per the record thereof on record in the form of discharge summary (Ex.PW2/B), Ct. Akshay had sustained laceration at distal forearm volar aspect as well as laceration at radial aspect of base of thumb. A surgery was done and he was discharged on 29.06.2020. He was advised to follow up in OPD. PW-8 Dr. Shristi Rathore was examined as a witness to explain the said discharge summary as Dr. Amiteshwar Singh who had prepared the same and had also digitally signed it, was no more working at AIIMS. She deposed that injury in question was possible from something sharp including from a broken piece of glass or any iron/metal piece having sharp edge.
21. It is to be noted that PW-2 HC Akshay Kumar specifically deposed before the Court that on hearing the shout by ASI from Traffic Circle to the effect that vehicle being driven by accused was to be stopped, he moved ahead from the place where he was standing and gave signal with his right hand to the driver of that vehicle. He also stated that he was carrying lathi in his right hand and that the driver of the vehicle did not stop rather he hit him with right side of the vehicle and he sustained injuries from that. He also stated that he would have sustained injuries either from the iron road protruding out of the bumper of the vehicle or from broken right side head light of the vehicle. On the aspect of manner in FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 12 / 17 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.27 18:44:57 +0530 which injury was sustained by PW-2, PW-1 Ct. Jai Pal Singh stated that he cannot say as to how Ct. Akshay sustained injuries. Similarly, PW-3 Insp. Manjeet Kumar stated on this aspect that he did not see as to how Ct. Akshay sustained injuries as he was standing at a distance.
22. Perusal of the mechanical inspection report Ex.PW-4/A shows that fresh damage to right side front head light was observed during inspection. Though, it is not clear as to how the injuries in question which have been opined by PW-8 Dr.Shrishti as having been caused by something sharp were exactly suffered by HC Akshay Kumar from the truck, it is clear that he had sustained the same after being hit by right side of the vehicle. At first blush, it may not appear convincing enough that a person having been hit by right side of a truck had sustained injuries on his right hand only but if facts at hand are appreciated in its proper context that the truck was not being driven in very high speed, the sequence of events as deposed by PW-2 Akshay Kumar seems plausible. Also as mentioned earlier, there is no dispute to the fact that accused was in fact driving his vehicle on the wrong side as stated by him in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Such an admission on the part of accused can certainly be relied upon for the purpose of examining the question of his guilt. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Paul Vs. The State of Kerala, AIR 2020 SC 966 wherein it was held as under:-
"We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. even it contains inculpatory admissions cannot be ignored and the Court may where there is evidence available proceed to enter a verdict of guilt."
23. Ld. Defence Counsel has attributed the injuries sustained by Ct.
FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 13 / 17
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.27
18:45:04
+0530
Akshay to his mistake as he had allegedly hit front right side head light of the truck with a danda available with him. There is nothing on record to substantiate this theory.
24. The injury sustained by PW-2 HC Akshay Kumar has been opined as grievous though it is not clear as to on what basis such an opinion has been given. Ld. Addl. PP has also expressed doubt on the opinion so given. As mentioned earlier, Dr. Arun V. Jaitley who had given that opinion could not be examined by the prosecution as he had left the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known. As per the discharge summary (Ex.PW-2/B), Ct. Akshay had suffered laceration at distal forearm volar aspect as well as laceration at radial aspect of base of thumb. Section 319 IPC defines Hurt whereas Section 320 IPC provides the injuries which can be designated as Grievous Hurt. It is settled law that the Court has to form its own opinion regarding nature of injuries in a given case. On this aspect, this Court is guided by the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Atma Singh Vs. The State of Punjab 1980 Crl. LJ 1226 wherein it was held as under:-
"17. We are of the view that the Court is not absolved of the responsibility while deciding a criminal case to form its own conclusion regarding the nature of the injury, Expert's opinion notwithstanding. The Court has to see the nature and dimension of the injury, its location and the damage that it has caused. Even when an injury is described as to be one which endangers the life the court has to apply its own mind and form its own opinion in regard to the nature of injury, having regard to the factors that should weigh with the Court, already mentioned. We are also firmly of the view that wherever a doctor describes an injury as 'dangerous to life' and the nature of the injuries is such which FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 14 / 17 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.27 18:45:11 +0530 could merit such a conclusion then such an injury has to be treated as 'grievous hurt' of the description mentioned in first portion of clause (8) of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code."
25. Examining the injury of the victim in said perspective, this Court is of the view that same cannot be termed as grievous. The victim admittedly did not suffer any fracture. There is nothing on record to suggest that he had suffered destruction or permanent impairing of powers of any member or joint. Apart from this, it has also not come on record that he had suffered severe bodily pain or was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for 20 days. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that injury in question cannot be termed as 'grievous' within the meaning of Section 320 IPC.
26. Considering the above discussion, this Court holds that prosecution has successfully proved that accused Laxman had not stopped his vehicle while he was driving the same in wrong direction despite having been signaled to do so by Ct. Akshay and continued to drive ultimately hitting him from right side of the vehicle which resulted in simple injury to him. Hence, accused Laxman is hereby convicted for the offences U/s 332 and 353 IPC. He stands acquitted for the offence U/s 333 IPC.
27. As mentioned earlier, accused has also been charged with commission of offences u/s 184 and 66/192A M.V. Act. Section 184 M.V. Act provides as under:-
"184. Driving dangerously:- Whoever, drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 15 / 17 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.27
18:45:18
+0530
which is dangerous to the public 1[or which causes a sense of alarm or distress to the occupants of the vehicle,other road users, and persons near roads,] having regard to all the circumstances of case including the nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term 2[which may extend to one year but shall not be less than six months or with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees but may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both], and for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three years of the commission of a previous similar offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine 3[of ten thousand rupees], or with both.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section,--
(a) jumping a red light;
(b) violating a stop sign;
(c) use of handheld communications devices while driving;
(d) passing or overtaking other vehicles in a manner contrary to law;
(e) driving against the authorised flow of traffic; or
(f) driving in any manner that falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and where it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that manner would be dangerous, shall amount to driving in such manner which is dangerous to the public."FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 16 / 17
Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.27
18:45:26
+0530
28. As mentioned earlier, accused was driving on the wrong direction. PW-1 Ct. Jai Pal, PW-2 HC Akshay Kumar and PW-3 Inspector Manjeet Kumar have deposed to that effect. Accused also admitted this fact in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. which in itself was sufficient to show that he was driving dangerously as driving against the authorized flow of traffic amounts to dangerious driving as provided in Section 184 M.V. Act reproduced above. Section 66/192A M.V. Act has been invoked against the accused apparently for his failure to produce valid permit for the commerical vehicle bearing no. HR 38R 4050 being driven by him at the relevant time however, it has not been proved on record that accused was driving the vehicle at the relevant time without having valid permit. Though, it has been mentioned in the mechanical inspection report Ex.PW-4/A that permit was not available however that in itself was not sufficient to prove the offence. Interestingly, none of the witnesses examined by prosecution has deposed anything on this particular aspect. So, the offence U/s 66/192A M.V. Act remains unproved.
29. In nutshell, accused Laxman is acquitted for the offences U/s 186/333 IPC and 66/192A MV Act however, he is convicted for the Digitally offences U/s 332/353 IPC and 184 MV Act. signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.27 18:45:33 Announced in the open (Sunil Gupta) +0530 Court on 27.03.2025 Additional Sessions Judge-06, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No.233/2020 State Vs. Laxman Page No. 17 / 17