Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay Kumar on 20 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI FIR No. : 126/11 PS : Paschim Vihar Offence complained of : 279/337/304A IPC Date of commission of offence : 27.04.2011 C C No. : 119/2/11 State vs Sanjay Kumar Sanjay Kumar S/o Mahavir R/o Nuruddin Pur, PS Khusrupur, District Patna, Bihar ............. Accused Sarju Ram S/o Sh. Itbari Ram R/o C-226, Chandan Vihar, Nihal Vihar, Delhi ........... Complainant Date of Institution : 22.07.2011 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. Date of reserving judgment/ order : 19.01.2016 Date of pronouncement : 20.01.2016 Final Order : Acquitted BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION ALLEGATIONS FIR No. 126/11 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 1/9 1.
Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/337/304A Indian Penal Code.
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 27.04.2011 the complainant Sarju Ram was going from Mangolpuri towards Nihal Vihar alongwith his Rickshaw Rehri. At about 5.15 pm, when he reached near Peera Garhi Fly over, Outer Ring Road, Paschim Vihar, he stopped on red signal. Suddenly, one truck bearing no. DL-1GB-2186 came from behind which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The truck struck one pedestrian who was crossing the road and also struck the rickshaw rehri of the complainant. Due to this, the pedestrian fell on the road and the rickshaw of the complainant was also broken. The truck driver i.e the accused Sanjay Kumar stopped his truck and helped the complainant to get up. The injured persons were taken to the hospital. The accused also accompanied them to the hospital and assured the complainant that he would get him treated in the hospital. However, the second injured Dukhi Mukhiya succumbed to his injuries and died on 03.05.2011 at Safdarjung hospital. Thus, accused Sanjay Kumar is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 279/337/304A IPC. FIR
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 126/11 under section 279/337/304A IPC was lodged at Police Station Paschim Vihar.
FIR No. 126/11 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 2/9 CHARGE
4. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice under section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 279/337/304A IPC was framed against the accused on 14.11.2011, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTION
6. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution, that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:-
(1)That the accident actually took place. (2)That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving. (3)That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
7. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 12 witnesses, out of which Sarju Ram was the sole eye witness.
8. Prosecution has examined six witnesses (1) Naresh Kumar, (2) SI Vikas Kundu, (3) Lady Ct. Laxmi, (4) HC Sajjan Singh, (5) Brahm Prakash and (6) SI Padmesh Tyagi.
FIR No. 126/11 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 3/9
9. PW-1 Naresh Kumar is the AR of the company Punit Gas Service, owner of the offending truck. He had deposed that the accused was driving the truck on the date of incident. He had got released the vehicle on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW1/A. Photographs of the vehicle are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
10.PW-2 SI Vikas Kundu has deposed that on the date of incident he alongwith ASI Padmesh Tyagi had reached the spot on receiving DD entry No.27 A. IO left the witness at the spot and proceeded to the hospital. IO came back to the spot alongwith accused Sanjay. IO prepared a rukka and get the present FIR registered through the witness. The witness further deposed that IO seized the truck and the rehri rickshaw vide memos Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B respectively. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/D. License of the accused and the documents of the truck were seized vide memo Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F.
11.PW-3 Lady Ct. Laxmi deposed that she had recorded the DD entry no.47 B regarding the death of the injured Dukhi Mukhiya on 03.05.2011. Same is Ex.PW3/A.
12.PW-4 HC Sajjan Singh had recorded the present FIR being the Duty Officer, on basis of the rukka sent by ASI Padmesh Tyagi through PSI Vikas Kundu.
13.PW-5 Brahm Prakash, Record Clerk from Transport Authority, Rajpur FIR No. 126/11 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 4/9 Road had brought the particular details of the offending truck. Copy of the same is Ex.PW5/A.
14.PW-6 SI Padmesh Tyagi has deposed that on 27.04.2011, he alongwith PSI Vikas Kundu had reached the spot on receiving DD No.27 A. There they found one truck and one rickshaw were lying in accidental condition. He left PSI Vikas Kundu at the spot and reached at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, where he met with injured Sarju Ram. He also learnt that the second injured Dukhi Mukhiya has been referred to Safdarjung Hospital. Injured Sarju Ram handed over to him the accused Sanjay Kumar. The witness recorded the statement of injured which is Ex.PW6/A. The witness reached back to the spot alongwith the accused. He prepared the rukka and directed PSI Vikas Kundu to get the FIR registered. He seized the truck and the rukka as well as the driving license of the accused and copy of the truck documents. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/B. The accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. The witness further deposed that on 29.04.2011, he got conducted the mechanical inspection of the truck. On 03.05.2011, DD no.47 B was received from Safdarjung hospital regarding the death of Dukhi Mukhiya. On 04.05.2011 postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Dukhi Mukhiya was conducted on the application of the witness. Body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased after postmortem. He further deposed that on 16.05.2011, he collected the postmortem report of the deceased. After completing the FIR No. 126/11 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 5/9 investigation, he filed the charge-sheet in the court.
15.Vide his separate statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C, the accused had admitted the genuineness of death report and postmortem report of Dukhi Mukhiya, FIR No.126/11, MLC of Sarju Ram, mechanical inspection report of the truck as well as dead body verification and handing over memo. Accordingly, the name of witnesses namely Dr. Rajesh Dalal, Dr. Manoj Dhingra, Dr. G. A. Sunil Kumar Sharma and ASI Davender Kumar was dropped from the list of witnesses.
16.PW Sarju Ram who was the sole eye-witness in the present case, compounded the offence under Section 337 IPC with the accused vide his statement dated 04.10.2013. However, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was moved on behalf of the accused for recalling PW Sarju Ram for cross examination. Another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, for recalling the same witness was moved by Ld. APP of State. Both the applications were allowed and PW Sarju Ram was summoned afresh by the court. However, PW Sarju Ram remained unserved with the report that he has already expired. Copy of the postmortem report of the PW Sarju Ram was attached alongwith the summons duly verified by the police station Nihal Vihar.
17.As the eye witness Sarju Ram has already expired, and all remaining witnesses are merely formal/police witnesses, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would FIR No. 126/11 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 6/9 have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/s 279/337/304A IPC. Hence, PE was closed. Since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, the recording of statement of accused was also dispensed with.
18.In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing FIR No. 126/11 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 7/9 any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts."
19.It has been also held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put to an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
20.The accused has admitted that he was driving the truck no. DL-1GB-2186 at the alleged date, time and place. However, there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that he was driving the said truck in a rash and negligent manner or that the death of Dukhi Mukhiya was a result of the rash and negligent act of the accused.
21.In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/337/304A IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused. Final Order
22.Since the sole eye witness has already expired and in the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the FIR No. 126/11 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 8/9 right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under section 258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Sanjay Kumar qua offences u/s 279/337/304A IPC and hereby releases the accused Sanjay Kumar under sections 279/337/304A IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
23.As per section 437A Cr.P.C accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount. ANNOUNCED ON 20.01.2016 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court /20.01.2016 FIR No. 126/11 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 9/9