Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjeev Arora on 16 March, 2022
__________________________________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK GOEL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
__________________________________________________________________________
State Vs. Sanjeev Arora
FIR No. 419/2008
PS. Model Town
U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act
JUDGMENT
1. The date of commission of offence : 13.12.2008
2. The name of the complainant : Sh. Krishan Lal Chadda
S/o Late Sh. Ramjidas Chadda
3. The name & parentage of accused : Sanjeev Arora
S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Arora
4. Offence complained of : u/s 279/338 IPC & 134/187 MV
Act
5. The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final order : Acquitted
7. The date of such order : 16.03.2022
8. Date of Institution : 15.07.2009
9. Judgment reserved on : 15.03.2022
10. Judgment announced on : 16.03.2022
State Vs. Sanjeev Arora
FIR No. 419/2008
PS. Model Town
U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 1 of 20
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.12.2008 at about 11:50 AM at Ring Road, Red Light, Model TownIII within the jurisdiction of PS Model Town, Delhi, the accused was found driving a car bearing number DL8SAM3574 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and hit the complainant Krishan Lal Chaddha and caused grievous injuries to the complainant and thereby, the accused Sanjeev Arora committed an offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet against the accused for offence u/s. 279/338 IPC and under section 134/187 MV Act was filed in the Court and after complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., arguments on charge were heard. Vide order dated 21.04.2010 charges were framed u/s. 279/338 IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses.
4. PW 1 is the complainant, Kishan Lal Chadha, deposed that on 13.12.2008 at about 11:45 a.m., he was crossing the road at Ring Road near red light to go to Azadpur then the accused came from the side of Azadpur by jumping the red light on his motorcycle. He do not remember the registration number of that motorcycle as the accused was driving the motorcycle in high speed, rash and negligent manner and hit him due to which he sustained injuries on his right leg. Some public persons helped him and put him by the side of the road. Someone asked him about his residence and that person sent the information about the accident at his house. His son Ashwani reached at the spot and an ambulance vehicle also reached there. He was shifted to Sushruta Trauma Centre in an ambulance. From Sushruta Trauma State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 2 of 20 Centre, he was shifted to Vinayak Hospital where some police officials reached and he narrated the incident to police who recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/A bearing his signatures at Point "A". The accused neither blew the horn nor gave any indication at the time of accident. The accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW 1/B and Ex. PW 1/C bearing his signatures at Point "A". He seeks permission to refresh his memory stating that due to lapse of time he was not able to recall the vehicle number. After refreshing the memory, he stated that the vehicle no. was DL8SAM3574. The motorcycle was of black in colour. He correctly identified the offending vehicle from the photographs which are marked as Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 and the motorcycle is marked as Ex. P1. He was duly crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
5. PW 2 Sh. Goldi Raj s/o Sh. Vijay Kumar r/o H. No. 65, Sanjay Enclave, Opposite GTK DTC Depot, Delhi, who is the brother of the accused deposed that he is the registered owner of motorcycle bearing number DL8SAM3574. He was served with notice 133 of MV Act which was endorsed by him vide Ex. PW 2/A bearing his signatures at point A. In pursuance of the above mentioned notice, he produced the driver of above mentioned motorcycle before the police i.e. the accused. The accused was arrested by police vide memo Ex. PW 1/B bearing his signatures at Point "B". The driving license of his brother was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/B bearing his signatures at Point "A". The above mentioned motorcycle was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/C bearing his signatures at Point "A". He also handed over the relevant document to the police and the same was also seized vide memo Ex. PW 2/D bearing his signatures at Point "A". He got released his motorcycle on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW 2/E bearing his signatures at Point "A". The motorcycle has already been marked as Ex. P1. He was not crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity being given.
State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 3 of 20
6. PW 3 ASI Balraj Singh, No. 1363/NW, PTS Jharoda Kalan, Delhi, deposed that on 13.12.2008, he was posted at PS Model Town as Head Constable and on that day, he was performing his duties as Duty Officer from 08:00 A.M. to 04:00 P.M. On that day, at about 12:10 P.M., he recorded DD No. 17A regarding the accident and the true copy of the same is Ex. PW 3/A(OSR). The said DD was marked to HC Ranvir and sent it through Ct. Mukesh. On the same day, at about 03:15 P.M., he received a rukka sent by HC Ranvir through Ct. Sri Bhagwan on the basis of which he registered the present FIR vide computer generated copy which is Ex. PW 3/B. He made endorsement on the original rukka from Point A to A vide Ex. PW 3/C bearing his signatures at Point A. Copy of the FIR and original rukka were handed over to Ct. Sri Bhagwan for handing over to the IO(OSR). He was not crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity being given.
7. PW 4 Dr. Satyendra Kumar, CMO, Sushruta Trauma Centre, 9 Metcalf Road, Delhi, deposed that on 13.12.2008, he was posted as CMO in Sushruta Trauma Centre. On that day, a patient namely Kirshan Lal Chaddha was brought to the Trauma Centre by ALFA 17, CATS Ambulance by Sh. Rajiv Tomar with alleged history of RTA. He medically examined the patient, who was found swelling deformity with two side fractured bone wound over lower 1/3 right leg and abrasion of forehead, right elbow and left knee. Upon medical examination, he referred the patient to Ortho Department. He found injury upon the patient to be grievous in nature as per the MLC No. 6966 dated 13.12.2008. The MLC is Ex. PW 4/A bearing his signature at Point A to A1. He was duly crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. PW 2 Sh. Sumit Garg, deposed that he has been residing at H. No. A311, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, with his family and doing private business. On 13.12.2008, he was going for some business work towards Old Delhi Railway State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 4 of 20 Station on his scooter bearing registration no. DL8SAJ8111 from his house at the abovesaid address via Ring Road. Then, at around 11:50 AM, when he was standing at Red Light at Raghuna Restaurant one motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 8SAM3574 which was being driven in rash and negligent manner and in a very fast speed as the area was very crowded and people were moving here and there so it was very wrong manner to drive at such a speed, whose age would be about 28 to 30 years had jumped the Red Light as the signal was red and hit against the old aged pedestrian, who was crossing the road. Due to which, the said pedestrian fell down and sustained injuries on his legs and other parts of the body. Then, the said rider of the motorcycle stopped his motorcycle for a while and when he saw the pedestrian sustained injuries, he ran away on his motorcycle from the spot. The public gathered at the spot and somebody from the public called at 100 number. Then, the CAT ambulance came at the spot and took the injured to the hospital. He was also in hurry so he left the spot. Then, after doing his work when he was going back to his house, he saw that police were investigating the matter. He stopped there and apprised all the above facts to the police officials. IO recorded his statement. He also apprised the police that he can identify the accused if shown to him. He cannot identify the accused as the accused was wearing helmet at that time. He cannot identify the case property i.e. offending motorcycle as long time has elapsed after that. He was duly crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the State as the accused turned hostile and resiled from his previous statement and Ld. Counsel for the accused.
9. PW 5 ASI Mange Ram, No. 879/NW, PS Model Town, Delhi, deposed that on 16.02.2019, he brought original register no. 19 regarding the entry no. 3850/08 dated 15.12.2008. The copy of the same is Ex. PW 5/A(OSR). As per the entry on 15.12.2008, case property i.e. one motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8SAN 3574 was deposited by HC Ranbir Singh and the same was released on 19.12.2018 State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 5 of 20 on superdari. He was not crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity being given.
10. PW 6 Sh. Ashwani Chadha, deposed that on 13.12.2008, at about 11:50 A.M., his father was crossing the road at zebra crossing at Model TownIII traffic light and the light was green. Motorcycle No. DL8SAM3574 in black colour jumped the red light coming from Azadpur. He correctly identified two photographs which is already Ex. P2 and Ex. P3. After jumping the red light the accused crashed into his father Sh. Krishan Lal Chaddha at a very high speed. Consequently, both of them fell down on the road, he ran towards his father and crowd gathered around. A couple of people caught hold of the accused and he saw his face as his helmet had come off. He correctly identified the accused in the court on 28.06.2019. He was taking care of his father and after some time when he looked around the accused had already disappeared with his motorcycle. In the meantime, PCR van arrived while he made a call to the CATS ambulance. They arrived in 1015 minutes and they collectively took his father to Sushruta Trauma Centre. He moved to emergency section of the hospital and the treatment started. After getting him the first aid, they moved him in Vinayak Hospital at Derawal Nagar, Delhi. He gave his statement to the police officials. He was duly crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
11. PW 7 ASI Shree Bhagwan, PIS No. 28871549, deposed that on 13.12.2008, he was posted at PS Model Town as Constable. He was on emergency duty from 08:00 A.M. to 08:00 P.M. PCR call was received at the Police Station regarding accident at 11:50 A.M. at Model Town, Red Light. He alongwith IO reached at the spot where they did not find the complainant or the car. They got to know that the injured has been taken by the CAT ambulance to Trauma Centre. IO tried to find eyewitness at the spot but did not find anyone. He alongwith IO went to Trauma Centre where the IO collected MLC of injured Kirshan Lal Chaddha. IO enquired about the injured but State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 6 of 20 he did not find him there. On enquiry, they got to know that the injured has been taken to Vinayak Hospital. He alongwith IO went to Vinayak Hospital. IO recorded the complaint of Sh. Kirshan Lal Chaddha, which is already Ex. PW 1/A. On the complaint, IO prepared the tehrir and gave it to him to take it to the Police Station for registration of FIR. He went to the Police Station and got the FIR recorded. He took copy of FIR and original tehrir and got it to the IO at the spot. IO investigated the spot, at the spot, one scooter was coming from Kingsway Camp after seeing them the said scooter stopped. IO inquired from the rider, who revealed his name as Sumit. IO recorded the statement of Sumit. Sumit informed them that one motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAM3574 being driven in rash and negligent manner and in high speed has hit one old man. The rider of the said motorcycle after hitting the old man applied break and thereafter, ran away from the spot. IO recorded his statement. He was duly crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
12. PW 8 HC Mukesh, No. 767 NW, PS Mahendra Park, Delhi, deposed that on 15.12.2008, he was posted at PS Model Town as Constable. He alongwith the IO went to STA Office at Wazirpur where they enquired about the owner of the offending motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8SAM3574. There they got to know that the said motorcycle is registered in the name of Goldy Raj s/o Vijay Kumar r/o Sanjay Enclave, Opposite GTK Depot. They also got the telephone number of Goldy Raj. IO called on the said number. Goldy Raj informed that on the date of incident his brother Sanjeev Arora was driving the said motorcycle and he has caused the accident. Thereafter, he alongwith the IO went to the Vinayak Hospital. At the hospital, they met the injured Ramji Lal Chaddha, accused Sanjeev Arora and his father Vijay Kumar. IO after inquiry arrested the accused in his presence vide arrest memo already Ex. PW 1/B bearing his signature at Point "B". IO conducted the personal search of the accused vide personal search memo Ex. PW 1/C bearing his signature at Point "B". IO seized the motorcycle vide seizure memo State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 7 of 20 Ex. PW 2/C bearing his signature at Point "B". IO seized the documents of motorcycle vide memo Ex. PW 2/D bearing his signature at Point "B". IO seized the driving license of the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/B bearing his signature at Point "B". Injured identified the accused at the hospital. One more person was also present at the hospital who had seen the accident, the IO recorded their statement and got the accused identified from the said person. IO recorded his statement. IO handed over him the seized motorcycle and documents for depositing the same in PS Malkhana. He correctly identified the accused in the court on 23.10.2019. He correctly identified the offending vehicle from two photographs which are already Ex. P2 and Ex. P3. He was duly crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
13. Statement of accused under Sec 294 Cr.P.C. has been recorded in which he admitted the genuineness of XRay report bearing CR no. 106888 which is Ex.P1, mechanical inspection report Ex. P2.
14. After Prosecution evidence, statement of the accused has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C in which the stand of the accused is of general denial. Accused has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials. However, the accused has opted not to lead defence evidence.
15. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
16. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for accused has taken the plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
17. It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 8 of 20 proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
18. It is stated by Ld. APP for the state that in accident cases, prosecution needs to establish the basic three requirements:
a) Identity of the accused.
b) Identity of the offending vehicle.
c) Rash or Negligent Act on the part of the accused.
It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that the prosecution has successfully established all the requirements to held the accused liable for the present accident.
It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that identity of accused as the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time of accident and identity of offending vehicle is successfully established by the testimony of injured/PW1, eyewitness/PW2 Sumit and superdar/registered owner PW2 Goldi Raj. It is further stated by Ld APP for State that PW2 prove the identity of the offending vehicle and the involvement of this vehicle in the present accident. It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that PW2 also proved that his brother/accused was the driver of the motorcycle at the time of the accident and his reply/endorsement Exhibit PW2/8 upon the notice under section 133 MV Act also substantiates his testimony that his brother/accused was driving the offending vehicle and caused the accident. It was further stated by Ld APP for the State that deposition of PW2 remain uncontroverted and thus it must lead to inference of tacit admission of his testimony by accused as held by Honourable Supreme Court of India in Anita Sharma versus New India State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 9 of 20 Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 1 SCC 171, Vinod Kumar versus State of Haryana AIR 2015 SC 1032 and Rajendra Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s versus Darshana. It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that PW1 also correctly identified the accused and offending vehicle in the court during his examination in chief. It is further stated by Ld APP for state that PW2 eyewitness Sumit has also correctly given the registration number of the offending vehicle and tentative age of accused which proves he had also seen the accused at the spot.
It is stated by Ld APP for the State that regarding the fact of rash or negligent act on behalf of the accused that negligence involves blame worthy carelessness on the part of accused which a normal prudent man exercising reasonable care and caution ought to avoid and negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do. It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that negligence and rashness on the part of accused have been very well proved by the injured PW1 himself and by the chance eye witness PW2 Sumit. It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that it has been categorically stated by both the witnesses that accused jumped the red light in a fast speed and it is also admitted and proved fact that accident occurred just near the red light and it has been specifically mentioned by Sumit PW2 that it was crowded place and people were moving here and there, thus it was a wrong manner to drive in such a high speed.
It is stated by Ld APP for the State that the fact of receiving grievous injuries by the injured in the accident and his nature of injuries are very well proved by PW4 Dr Satyendra and the facts are nowhere disputed by accused. It is stated by Ld APP for the State that there is no delay in reporting the matter to the police and in lodging the FIR which rules out any possibility of manipulation or concoctions as the time of incident is 11:50 AM and information received at PS through PCR Centre at State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 10 of 20 12:10 PM, MLC done at 12:40 PM, Rukka was at 3 PM and FIR was lodged at 3:15 PM which shows that all the proceedings have been done very promptly in the same transaction. It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that injured/PW1 gave a very consistent statement as PW1 from his earlier statement Exhibit PW 1/8 and there is no contradiction, discrepancy, omission or improvement in his statement and his statement is very well corroborated by the chance eyewitness PW2 Sumit, PW6 Ashwani and superdar/registered owner of offending vehicle PW2 Goldi Raj. It is further stated by Ld APP for the state that PW1 injured correctly identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle itself during the deposition and PW1 also specifically deposed about the rash and negligent act of the accused in which he caused an accident. It is further stated by Ld APP for state that PW2 Sumit Garg was a chance witness who was coincidentally present at the spot of accident and witness the accident and this witness has substantiated and corroborated the version of injured PW1 by giving a very natural and trustworthy statement which inspires confidence. It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that PW2 have very categorically deposed about how the accused was rash and negligent in his driving the motorcycle bearing number DL8SAM3574 in a very fast speed. It is stated by Ld APP for the state that PW2 has deposed the motorcycle no. of the accused which caused the accident, thus he proves the identity of the offending vehicle and not identifying the vehicle from the photographs is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as he had already given the correct registration no. of the motorcycle which caused the accident. It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that no suggestions have been given by the accused in the cross examination of PW2 that accused was driving the vehicle properly or that this motorcycle was not involved in the accident or that the driver of the said motorcycle never caused alleged accident at the date, time and place of alleged incident or that the motorcycle was not being driven in a rash or negligent manner or in a high speed. It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that since the accused has not challenged State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 11 of 20 and disputed the averments made by this natural chance witness in his examination inchief, thus all averments stands proved and even his presence at spot is not disputed by the accused. It is further stated by Ld APP for the state that PW2 Sumit also described the approximate age of the driver of the offending vehicle as 28 to 30 years of age which proves that he had an opportunity to saw a reflection of the accused at the spot which further proves the presence of PW2 at the spot and substantiates and corroborate the version of the injured PW1 and superdar PW2 who very well proved the identity of the accused. It is further stated by Ld APP for the state that the nonexamination of IO is not fatal to the case of the prosecution when all the relevant and related material documents i.e. statement of complainant, arrest memo, seizure memo, personal search memo are very well proved by PW1, PW7 and PW8, the police officials who remained and accompanied the IO during the investigation. It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that nonexamination of IO has not caused prejudice to accused nor effects the credibility of complainant evidence.
It is stated by Ld counsel for accused that as per the version of injured the accused after hitting the injured stopped for just a moment and ran away and alleged incident was eyewitnessed by PW2 i.e. Sumit. It is further stated by Ld counsel for accused that after the enquiry conducted by the police officials and as per the prosecution story, the police officials tried to search the eyewitness at the spot but no one is traceable and after that they reached Vinayak Hospital and recorded the statement of the injured and then the injured revealed the name of the eyewitness and on his instance the site plan was prepared and further investigation was conducted. It is further stated by Ld counsel for accused that accused was falsely implicated in the present case with connivance of the police just for taking the compensation and in order to succeed in evil motive, the concocted story was prepared and the false witnesses was also implanted. It is further stated by Ld State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 12 of 20 counsel for accused that during his first statement recorded by IO, it is stated by PW1 that accident was seen only by the one PW2 Sumit and during his examination inchief in the court he did not narrated a single word regarding the said incident. It is further stated by Ld counsel for accused that PW2 Sumit who was implanted as eyewitness turned hostile during his examinationinchief. It is further stated by Ld counsel for accused that site plan was not even signed by PW2 Sumit on whose instance site plan is stated to have been prepared. It is further stated by Ld counsel for accused that PW2 Sumit who is alleged to be eyewitness failed to identify the accused and offending vehicle in the court. It is further stated by Ld counsel for accused that PW6 Ashwani Chaddha during his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that he received the information about the said incident from someone at about 12:30 pm when he was at home but in order to save the present case after turning hostile of eyewitness PW2 Sumit, he presented himself as eyewitness and concocted a new story that he was present at the spot at the time of accident with his father PW 1 Kishan Lal Chaddha and the accused was caught hold by some people and he saw the face of the accused as his helmet had come off. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for accused that PW 7 during his examinationinchief stated that when he revisit the spot alongwith IO after getting the registration of FIR, then only he randomly met the eyewitness PW 2 Sumit and the statement of PW 2 Sumit was recorded on the spot but as per the prosecution case, the said eyewitness was enquired after revealing his name by injured PW 1. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for accused that from the prosecution case, it is very much clear that the said case was prepared by sitting in the PS and the spot was never visited by any police officials at any point of time. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for accused that regarding the said incident, the police received the information by 100 number call but nothing is on record regarding the said call because the said accident was caused by some car which is very well clear from the statement of PW 7 during his examinationinchief wherein he stated that PCR call was received at the PS State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 13 of 20 regarding accident at 11:55 AM at Model Town red light and he alongwith IO reached at the spot, where they did not find the complainant or the car. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for accused that the main eyewitness PW 2 Sumit completely denied the case of the prosecution and did not support the prosecution case in any manner whatsoever. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for accused that it is very much clear after the perusal of the prosecution case, the statement of witnesses and their crossexamination that the accused is falsely implicated in the present case and the statements of all the witnesses are contrary to each other and the prosecution could not establish their case against the accused and hence, the accused deserved to be acquitted in the present case.
It is stated by Ld APP for state in the rebuttal that PW2 Sumit was a natural chance witness who is neither related nor known to the injured and the omission of his name by PW1 in his evidence is just a minor omission which does not affect the root of the prosecution case and even in view of the fact that the injured has given his name and presence in a statement Exhibit PW 1/8 and that injured is an old age person of about 82 years. It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that minor omission, discrepancy or inconsistency is not fatal to the prosecution case and it might happen due to normal errors of faded memory due to old age or due to mental disposition which was held by Honourable Apex court in catena of judgements such as State of UP Vs. Krishna Master (2010)12 SCC 324, Bhag Chandra Vs. State of MP 2022(1) RCR(Cri) 411 SC and Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh AIR 2016 SC 5160. It is further stated by Ld APP for state that site plan amounts to giving of statement by witness and signature of witness on statement and site plan is bad and hit by section 162 Cr.P.C. It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that facts mentioned by accused are totally contrary to the prosecution case and the eyewitness was not enquired only after revealing his name by the injured. It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that PW2 Sumit and PW7 State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 14 of 20 have consistently deposed that eye witness PW2 himself stopped at the spot after seeing the police official investigating the matter and only then he was enquired and gave his statement. It is further stated by Ld APP for the State that prosecution has very well proved its case and accused is liable to be convicted.
19. Section 279 of IPC provides punishment for rash driving or riding on a public way and lays down that: "whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public away 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."
20. Section 338 of IPC provides punishment for causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others and lays down that: "whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so 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 five one thousand rupees, or with both."
21. In the present case, PW2 Sumit Garg was the only eyewitness in the present case who turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He failed to identify the accused in the court and also the offending vehicle from the photographs. Though the accused specifically told the registration no. of the motorcycle in his examinationinchief but this fact cannot be ruled out that there may be the chance that someone else has illegally affixed the registration no. of the said motorcycle on his motorcycle as the eye witness PW2 failed to identify the State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 15 of 20 motorcycle from the photographs. Moreover, it is stated by PW2 Sumit Garg during his crossexamination that he remained on the spot for about 15 minutes and the police also reached on the spot in the presence and IO enquired from him regarding the accident which is contrary to his deposition given in the examination in chief that when after doing his work, he was going back to his house, he saw that police was investigating the present matter and he stopped there and apprise all the above facts to the police officials. It is also stated by PW7 that IO tried to find a witness at the spot but he did not find anyone on the spot. The testimony of PW6 Ashwani Chadha shall not be considered or appreciated as the presence of PW6 is disputable as PW1 categorically deposed that he was crossing the road alone which shows that PW6 Ashwani Chadha is not with PW1 i.e. injured at the time of incident and also deposed that someone from the public sent the information about the accident at his house and thereafter his son Ashwani Chadda PW6 reached at the spot. Moreover, there are lot of contradictions in the testimony of PW6 Ashwani Chadha which cannot be ruled out. From the testimony of PW6 Ashwani Chadha, it is very well clear that PW6 has deposed falsely before the court to make sure the conviction of the accused in the present case as the eyewitness PW2 Sumit Garg turned hostile. PW2 Superdar Goldi Raj though deposed that accused was driving the motorcycle i.e. offending vehicle at the time of accident but PW2 is also not the eyewitness to the incident and his testimony cannot prove the presence of accused at the spot and that the accused is driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of accused and the offending vehicle in the present case. Since the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is driving the offending vehicle at the time of incident, there is no need to adjudicate the question whether the accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner or not.
22. It is settled preposition that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 16 of 20 beyond all reasonable doubt and that too by leading independent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. There is no controversy to the proposition that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt occurring in the prosecution case. The general principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, are to be borne in mind.
23. In Magan Bihari Lal V. the State of Punjab AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1091, the Apex Court held that the onus of proving all ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is the duty of the prosecution to show how hook the crook.
I am also of the view that intention, knowledge and motive are important aspects under criminal law and brief legal position concerning these words is given hereinbelow: Intention "Criminal intention" simply means the purpose or design of doing an act forbidden by the criminal law without just cause or excuse. The intention of the accused to produce a particular consequence shows his intention to do the act. An act is intentional if it exists in fact, the idea realizing itself in the fact because of the desire by which it is accompanied. The word 'intent' does not mean ultimate aim and object. Nor it is used as a synonym for 'motive'. Where the Legislature makes an offence dependant on proof of intention, the court must have the proof of facts sufficient to justify it in coming to the conclusion that the intention existed. No doubt one has usually to infer the intention from the conduct, and one matter that has to be taken into the account is the probable effect of the conduct. But that is never conclusive. As a general rule, every sane man is presumed to intend the necessary or the natural and probable consequences of his acts, and this State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 17 of 20 presumption of law will prevail unless from a consideration of all the evidence the court entertains a reasonable doubt whether such intention existed. This presumption, however, is not conclusive nor alone sufficient to justify a conviction and should be supplemented by other testimony. An accused must be judged to have the intention that is indicated by his proved acts. The burden of proving guilty intention lies upon the prosecution where the intent is expressly stated as part of the definition of the crime. Criminal intent as a psychological fact has to be proved even in regard to offences under the Special Acts unless it is specifically ruled out or ruled out by necessary implication.
Knowledge Where knowledge of a fact is an essential ingredient of an offence it must be distinctly proved. There are certain offences in the Penal Code where the accused who commits those offences is punished irrespective of this fact whether he had knowledge or not. Where a particular act is forbidden the question of knowledge is immaterial.
Motive Motive is not to be confused with intention. If a man knows that a certain consequence will follow from his act, it must be presumed in law that he intended that consequence to take place although he may have had some quiet different ulterior motive for performing the act. The motive for an act is not sufficient test to determine its criminal character. By motive is meant anything that can contribute to give birth or even to prevent, any kind of action. Motive may serve as a clue to the intention; but although the motive be pure, the act done under it may be criminal. Purity of motive does not purge an act of its criminal character. An act which is unlawful cannot, in law, be excused on the ground that it was committed from a good motive.
State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 18 of 20 Motive, though not a sine quo non for bringing the offence home to the accused, is relevant and important on the question of intention.
Though the prosecution is not bound to prove motive for the crime, absence of any motive is a factor which may be considered in determining the guilt of the accused. Thus, if there is really no motive and the crime is completely motiveless then that circumstance can be taken into consideration alongwith the evidence of prior insanity. But if the actual evidence as to the commission of the crime is believed, then no question of motive remains to be established. It is not the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove motive with which a certain offence has been committed. It is sufficient if the prosecution proves by clear and reliable evidence that certain persons committed the offence, whatever the motives may be which induced them to commit that offence. For, motive is a fact very often within the special knowledge of the person doing the act and thus it becomes extremely difficult to ascertain the motive in a given case but that does not mean that the offence was not committed.
The question of motive is not material where there is direct evidence of the acts of the accused and the acts themselves are sufficient to disclose the intention of the actor. But in the cases of circumstantial evidence, absence of motive is a factor in favour of the accused.
24. In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges u/s 279/338 IPC against the accused Sanjeev Arora beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to accused and he is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 279/338 IPC. Accused is directed to furnish fresh bail bond in terms of Section 437A of Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount. Accused through his surety furnished requisite bail bond u/s 437A State Vs. Sanjeev Arora FIR No. 419/2008 PS. Model Town U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 19 of 20 Cr.PC having affixed thereon photographs and address proof of accused as well as surety. Bail bond accepted.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL
GOEL Date: 2022.03.16
12:58:33 +0530
Announced in open Court (Mayank Goel)
on 16th March, 2022 MM03/North District
Rohini Courts/Delhi
State Vs. Sanjeev Arora
FIR No. 419/2008
PS. Model Town
U/s. 279/338 IPC & 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act page no. 20 of 20