Delhi District Court
State vs Ramesh Kumar on 28 February, 2020
State versus Ramesh Kumar
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV MEHTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NORTH) 05,
ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Ramesh Kumar
FIR No. 388/11
PS SB Dairy
U/s. 279/304A IPC
JUDGMENT
1 Serial No. of the case : 5282271/16
2 Date of commission : 30.11.2011
3 Date of institution of the case : 18.04.2013
4 Name of complainant : Sh. Bhim Singh
5 Name of accused : Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh.
Dhir Singh, R/o H. No. 3078,
VPO Katewara, PS Bawana,
Delhi.
6 Offence complained of : U/s. 279/304A IPC
7 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8 Arguments heard on : 28.02.2020 VAIBHAV
9 Final order : Acquitted MEHTA
10 Date of judgment : 28.02.2020 Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV MEHTA
Date: 2020.03.02
15:37:53 +0530
FIR No. 388/11 PS: SB Dairy 1 of 12
State versus Ramesh Kumar
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 30.11.2011, at 11.15 Pm, at Bus Stand, Shahbad Dairy, accused was found driving DTC bus bearing no. DL 1PB 1404 in rash and negligent manner and hit parked DTC bus bearing no. DL 1PC 9588 from behind and the complainant Sh. Bhim Singh and deceased Rambir by accelerating his offending vehicle in reverse direction at a very high speed as a result of which deceased Rambir got crushed between two buses and sustained injuries and later died. Thereafter, the present FIR got registered against accused for offence U/s. 279/304A IPC.
NOTICE
2. Prima facie case of commission of offences under Section 279/304A IPC was made out against accused and charge was framed upon the accused on 24.10.2013 wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION U/S 294 Cr.PC
3. During the course of evidence, statement of accused was recorded under section 294 Cr.PC wherein he did not dispute the identity of certain documents and admitted the same in terms of section 294 Cr.P.C. Accused had admitted the following FIR No. 388/11 PS: SB Dairy 2 of 12 State versus Ramesh Kumar document:
(i) DD No. 7B as Ex PX1;
(ii) MLCs bearing no. 12051/11 of injured Rambir as Ex. PX2; &
(iii) PM report no. 580/11 as Ex. PX3.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION
4. The prosecution has examined 13 witness.
PROSECUTION WITNESS
PW1 Mahavir Singh Identified the dead
body
PW2 Jai Karan Eye witness
PW3 Bhim Singh Complainant
PW4 ASI Mahavir Duty Officer
PW5 Sajjan Kumar Asst. Foreman
PW6 Ct. Amit Assisted the IO
PW7 Subhash Kumar Foreman
PW8 Chander Pal ATI
PW9 Ram Kishan TI
PW10 Ct. Bijender Assisted the IO
PW11 Lalit Kumar Present at the spot
PW12 Retd. SI Padmanabhan First IO
PW13 Retd. SI Sugan Lal 2nd IO of the case
FIR No. 388/11 PS: SB Dairy 3 of 12
State versus Ramesh Kumar
5. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents: Exhibited by Contents Exhibits PW1 Identification statement PW1/A & PW1/B and handing over memo PW2 Statement PW2/A PW3 Statement and Site plan PW3/A & PW3/B Arrest memo PW3/C PW4 Copy of FIR and PW4/A and PW4/B endorsement on rukka PW5 Inspection report PW5/A PW7 Inspection report PW7/A PW8 Duty certificate PW8/A Seizure memo PW8/B PW9 Superdarinama PW9/A PW10 Seizure memo PW10/A Documents PW10/B Seizure memo PW10/C PW12 Notice u/s 133 M. V. 12/A Act Personal search memo PW12/B Seizure memo of DL PW12/C
6. PW1 Sh. Mahabir Singh identified the dead body of Rambir and proved his identification statement as Ex.PW1/A and also proved handing over memo as Ex.PW1/B.
7. PW2 Sh. Jai Karan deposed that he alongwith deceased FIR No. 388/11 PS: SB Dairy 4 of 12 State versus Ramesh Kumar Rambir and Bhim Singh were standing at the DTC depot Rohini Sector4 between DTC buses bearing no. DL1PC9588 and DTC Bus No. DL1PB1404 as it was very cold and they tried to protect themselves from cold when in the meantime the driver of DTC bus no.1404 drove in back direction at fast speed as a result of which Rambir got crushed between the two buses and Bhim Singh some how managed to escape. PW2 correctly identified the accused and further stated that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of accused and further identified the photographs of DTC bus and the same are Ex.P1 (colly).
8. PW3 Sh. Bhim Singh deposed on same lines as deposed by PW2 and proved his statement as Ex. PW3/A and further deposed that IO prepared site plan Ex. PW3/A at his instance and proved arrest memo Ex. PW3/C.
9. PW4 ASI Mahavir proved the FIR as Ex.PW4/A (OSR) and also proved the endorsement on original rukka as Ex.PW4/B.
10. PW5 Shri Sajjan Kumar deposed that he mechanically inspected the Bus no.DL1PC9588 and proved inspection report as Ex.PW5/A. PW7 Shri Subhash Kumar deposed that he mechanically inspected the Bus no. DL1PB1404 and proved inspection report as Ex.PW7/A. FIR No. 388/11 PS: SB Dairy 5 of 12 State versus Ramesh Kumar
11. PW8 Shri Chander Pal deposed that he was deputed to depose on behalf of Shri RK Hooda Retd. ATI, DTC Rohini Depot IV, Delhi and proved the duty certificate of Sh. Bhim Singh as Ex. PW8/A which bears the signature of Sh. R.K Hooda at point A and he also proved duty certificate vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B bearing the signature of Shri R.K Hooda at point A and also identified the signature of Shri R.K Hooda as he has worked with him and seen him writing and signing during the course of officials duties and also identified the photographs of the bus which are Ex.P2 and P3.
12. PW9 Shri Ram Kishan deposed that he received notice u/s 133 MV Act and produced the duty certificate of driver Bhim Singh which was seized by IO and proved the same as Ex.PW8/B and badge no. of driver Bhim Singh was 12578 and stated that Bhim Singh was on duty on route no.165 with bus no. DL1PC9588 and further deposed that he had taken above said DTC bus on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW9/A.
13. PW10 Ct. Bijender deposed that IO seized the DTC bus no.
DL1PB1404 vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A and also seized the documents i.e. copy of RC, permit, fitness and insurance of above said bus vide seizure memo is Ex.PW10/B and IO also seized DTC bus no. DL1PC9588 vide seizure memo as Ex.PW10/C. PW10 FIR No. 388/11 PS: SB Dairy 6 of 12 State versus Ramesh Kumar identified both the buses through the photographs which are already Ex.P1 and P.
14. PW11 Lalit Kumar did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
15. PW12 Rtd. SI Padmanabhan deposed that on 06.12.2011 he sent a notice u/s 133 MV Act to DTC depot which is proved as Ex. PW12/A and prove the seizure memo of the bus already Ex. PW10/B and PW10/C and stated that arrested the accused and conducted personal search vide arrest memo and search memo already Ex.PW3/C and PW12/B respectively and proved the seizure memo of DL of accused as PW12/C.
16. PW13 SI Sugan Lal deposed that on 27.06.2012 he received the duty certificate of Bhim singh and seized the same vide memo already Ex.PW8/B bearing his signature at point B.
17. Thereafter, PE was closed on. 18.01.2020.
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
18. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 27.01.2020 separately and he opted not to lead defence evidence and matter was listed for final arguments.
FIR No. 388/11 PS: SB Dairy 7 of 12
State versus Ramesh Kumar
FINAL ARGUMENTS
19. The Ld. APP for the State has argued that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are consistent and corroborate each other and the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.
The Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has argued that there are serious inconsistencies in the deposition of prosecution witnesses and therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and he should be acquitted in the present case.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
20. Section 279 IPC states as under:
Rash driving or riding on a public way 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 both.
Section 304A IPC states as under: Causing death by negligence Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which FIR No. 388/11 PS: SB Dairy 8 of 12 State versus Ramesh Kumar may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both"
In order to convict the accused u/s 304A IPC, the prosecution must be able to establish:
a) There must be death of the person in question.
b) The accused must have caused such death.
c) That such act of the accused was rash and negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide.
COURT OBSERVATIONS:
21. After going through the material on record including the testimony of prosecution witnesses, this court makes the following observations:
(a) PW2 Sh. Jai Karan is the eyewitness who stated that on 30.11.2011 he saw that the deceased Rambir alongwith one Bhim Singh was standing between DTC buses bearing nos. DL1PB1404 and DL1PC9588 and the driver of the DTC bus no. DL1PB1404 drove in the back direction in a very fast speed as a result of which the deceased Rambir got crushed.
(b) PW3 Bhim Singh is the complainant and is the main witness of prosecution who as per the prosecution version was present at the spot alongwith the deceased Rambir and he also stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving FIR No. 388/11 PS: SB Dairy 9 of 12 State versus Ramesh Kumar of the offending vehicle i.e. DL1PB1404.
(c) Both the PWs i.e. PW2 Jai Karan and PW3 Bhim Singh are not specifically stated the rashness/negligence on part of the accused. Both have only stated that the accused reversed the offending vehicle at a fast speed as a result of which the accident took place.
(d) Nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution to show that the accused acted in a rash and negligent manner. The accused was not aware that the deceased was standing between the buses. The prosecution has nowhere alleged that the accused despite knowing the presence of the deceased behind the bus continued reversing the bus which led to the injuries on the deceased.
(e) The mechanical reports placed by the prosecution witness further weaken their case.
(i) The mechanical inspection report of bus no. DL 1PC9588 shows front big glass cracked, rear bumper damaged, rear engine flap bent.
(ii) The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle i.e. bus no. DL1PB1404 reports no fresh damage on the vehicle in question.
(f) It is the case of the prosecution that the driver of the FIR No. 388/11 PS: SB Dairy 10 of 12 State versus Ramesh Kumar offending vehicle i.e. DL1PB1404 reversed at a very high speed as a result of which injuries were sustained by the deceased who was standing between this bus and another bus bearing no. DL1PC 5988. So, the mechanical inspection report should have shown damages on the rear portion of the offending vehicle, however, no such damage has been found and in fact damages have been found on the other bus i.e. DL1PB1404.
(g) The accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC has admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle i.e. DL1PB1404, however, he was not driving in rash and negligent manner.
(h) PW8 Lalit Kumar who is alleged to have been present at the spot on the day of the incident, did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
(i) Even in the testimony of PW2 Jai Karan and PW3 Bhim Singh are believe at face value, it does not prove that the accused acted in a rash and negligent manner and was callous with utter disregard to life and safety of the passers by the road. The accused could not have known whether anyone was behind his bus or not and therefore, no negligence/rashness can be imputed to him.
(j) After going through the material on record including the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, this court is of the view that FIR No. 388/11 PS: SB Dairy 11 of 12 State versus Ramesh Kumar the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt and this court is of the view that benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
22. For the reasons mentioned above, this court acquits the accused Ramesh Kumar for offences u/s 279/304A IPC. Accused is directed to furnish bail bond u/s 437A Cr.PC.
Announced in the open (VAIBHAV MEHTA)
court on 28.02.2020 MM5 (North), Rohini Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 388/11 PS: SB Dairy 12 of 12