Delhi District Court
State vs . on 3 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI STATE VS. TC NO; Challan No. Circle U/s Vehicle No. JUDGMENT
Date of its institution Name of the complainant Date of Commission of offence Name of the accused Plea of accused Case reserved for orders Final Order Date of orders Arjun Berl 98/2020 0901-1841/19 LNC 185, 112(4)/177, 3/181, 146/196 M V Act.
DL 12CE 6909 23.12.2019 ASI Mitender, NO. 1340/T, Posted at Circle-LNC, New Delhi.
24.12.2019 Arjun Beri, S/o Sh. Rakesh Beri, R/o H. No. P-11, Sriniwas Puri, New Dethi.
Not Guilty 22.02.2022 Convicted.
03.03.2022 Were nnnt sy BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION--
1, Vide this judgment, | seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused Arjun Beri for having committed the offence punishable u/s 185, 112(4)/177, 3/181, 146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "MV Act').
2. Briefly stated, as per the prosecution that on 23.12.2019 at around 06:40 PM near Lal Sai Red Light, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, the accused was found driving vehicle bearing no. DL 12CE 6909 and was stopped for checking. Breathe analyzer test of the accused was conducted at the spot wherein it was found that accused was driving the said vehicle under the influence of liquor. Accused was found drunk beyond permissible limit and alcohol content was found to be 80 mg / 100 mi. Thereafter, accused was asked to produce DL and insurance which he failed to produce. Further, he was also found driving the said vehicle with light beam.
Consequently, the accused was challaned by the traffic police officials.
3. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out by Circle LNC and challan was filed against the accused. Thereafter, notice u/s 251 Cr.PC was framed against accused vide order dated 24.12.2019. Notice u/s 185, 112(4)/177, 3/181, 146/196 M V Act was framed upon accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4, in order to prove the guilt of accused, the Prosecution examined following two witnesses:
¢ ZO ASI Mitender Kumar was examined as PW-1;
« Ct. Subhash who was examined as PW-2;
5. PW-1 and PW-2 deposed in their examination in chief that on 23.12.2019 they were on Duty at Lal Sai red light Lajpat Nagar. They were on drunk and drive duty.
At about 06:40 PM, they had signaled one vehicle bearing DL 12CE 6909 to stop for checking. The said vehicle was coming from the side of Central Market, Lajpat Nagar with light beam. The said vehicle was driven by the accused. After stopping breathe analyzer test of accused was conducted wherein the alcohol content was found to be 80 mg / 100 mi ie. beyond permissible limit. Thereafter, they had asked the driver to produce the DL and other documents. Accused failed to produce his DL and insurance of the said vehicle. Thereafter, ZO had issued challan under the above mentioned provisions against the accused and also issued challan u/s 5/180 M V Act against the registered owner. The challan receipt, receipt of alcohol metre test are Ex. PW1/A to PW1/C respectively. Accused was correctly identified by PW1 and PWe before the court. Identity of the vehicle is not disputed.
6. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, PE was closed on 20.02.2020. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") on 18.11.2021 wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to him which he denied and took a defence that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused choose not to lead defence evidence.
7. | have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. defence counsel and have perused the case file.
&. The Ld. APP urged that testimonies of the material witnesses have remained unchallenged in the cross-examination and there is no reason to doubt their testimonies. The accused, on the other hand, argued that material contradictions have appeared in the testimonies of the PWs and prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
9, In the present case, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 in order to prove the guilt of the accused Arjun Beri beyond reasonable doubt. PW-1 in his testimony has supported the prosecution story. He has given a detailed account of the incident. Perusal of his testimony clearly shows that the accused was founding driving the vehicle under the influence of alcoho! beyond permissible limits. He was also found driving without having a valid driving license. Thereafter, challan was imposed by the PW-1 against the accused. PW-1 also proved the breathe analyzer test Ex. PW-1/C which clearly shows that the alcohol contents were found to be 80 mg/100 ml. He also maintained his stand during the cross-examination. There exists no material contradictions in his testimonies.
10. Similarly, PW-2 has also supported the case of prosecution by deposing that the accused was found driving the vehicle in an intoxicated state and without having a valid driving license. He also maintained his stand during the cross-examination.
11. {ft should be noted that during the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the present primarily on the following grounds:
* No public persons were examined by the prosecution; « There was no parameter for checking alcometer;
12, It is a settled proposition of law that the testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded away merely because of the fact that no public witnesses were examined. lt is another matter that their testimonies should be scrutinised in more detail. At this stage, reference can he taken from the decision of the Hon'ble i Supreme Court in the case of Tahir v. State (Dethi) [(1996) 3 SCC 338], dealing with a similar question, the Hon'ble Apex Court held interajia the following:
'In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only reauires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where ithe evidence of the police officials. after careful scrutiny. inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable. it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence. does not in any way affect ihe creditworthiness of the prosecution case. The obvious result of the above discussion is that the statement of a police officer can be relied upon and even form the basis of conviction when it is reliable. trustworthy and preferably corroborated by other evidence on record."
13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255 dealt with the issue of the requirement of the examination of an independent witness, and whether the evidence of a police witness requires corroboration. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that though the same must be subject to strict scrutiny, however, the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are either interested in the investigation or in the prosecution.
However, as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars should be sought.
14. Therefore, in view of the above mentioned case law, it becomes clear that while the testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded away forthwith in the absence of any public witnesses, however, it would be prudent to examine or scrutinise their testimonies more closely and should preferably be corroborated. Accused may be convicted on the basis of the testimonies of the police officials if their testimonies are found to be reliable and trustworthy.
15. in the instant case, testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 would clearly suggest that the public persons were not examined. It should be noted that the present case is related to traffic challans which are generally petty offences in nature. Rule of prudence would not always demand the examination of public witnesses in these cases. Special drunken driving drive was being carried out by the traffic police officials on the date of incident in the present case. It cannot be expected from the traffic police officials to make endeavour [0 examine the public witnesses in each and every traffic challans which they impose.
16. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, | am of the considered view that the non-examination of the public persons is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
Testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 can be easily relied upon in the present case.
17, Secondly, it should be noted that Ld. Counsel for accused during his cross examination of PW's did not raise question about the functioning of alcometre. Not even a suggestion was put in this regard before the PW's. Breathe analyzer test report also shows that the alcohol content was found to be 80 mg/100 ml. Hence, there is not even a single material on record which could suggest that the alcometer used in the present case was faulty. Doubt cannot be created in the case of prosecution merely on the apprehension of the accused.
18. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, | am of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case for the offences of drunk driving, driving the vehicle with low light beam, without having a valid driving license and driving uninsured vehicle.
6 L
19. Accused Arjun Beri stands convicted for offence u/s 185, 112(4)/177, 3/181, 146/196 M V Act.
& yi Ane ah Kee Announced in the open court (Animesh Kumar) © on 03.03.2022 MM-06, South East, New Delhi it is certified that this judgment contains 07 pages and each page bears my signatures.
An (Animesh Kumar) MM-06, South East, New Delhi/03.03.2022