Delhi District Court
State vs . Chander Prakash on 18 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAGANDEEP JINDAL: MM09:
SOUTHEAST DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No.464/2015
U/s 279/338 IPC and 146/196 MV Act
PS Defence Colony
State Vs. Chander Prakash
Date of Institution of Case : 23.03.2017
Judgment Reserved for : 10.08.2018
Date of Judgment : 18.08.2018
JUDGMENT:
(a) CIS Number : 1495/2017
(b) The date of commission of offence : 27.11.2015
(c) The name of complainant : Sh. Kunwar Pradeep Thukral
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Thukral
R/o F A335, Mansarover
Garden, New Delhi.
(c) The name, parentage of accused : Chander Prakash
S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar
R/o House No.11A, Dhobi
Basti behind Shalimar Cinema,
Hari Nagar, Ashram, New
Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of : 279/338 IPC & 146/196 MV
Act.
(f) The plea of accused : Not guilty
(g) The final order : Convicted u/s 279/337 IPC &
146/196 MV Act
(h) The date of such order : 18.08.2018
FIR No.464/2015, PS Defence Colony State Vs Chander Prakash Page 1 of 8
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1 Brief facts of the case are that on 27.11.2015, at about 10:00 PM, at
Andrews Ganj Bus Stop, Ring Road towards Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, accused Chander Prakash was driving a motorcycle bearing registration no.DL7SBW 1069 (hereinafter referred as 'offending vehicle') in a rash and negligent manner without having any motor vehicle insurance and while so driving, the accused hit a pedestrian namely Kunwar Pradeep Thukral and caused grievous injuries to him. Therefore, the accused was arrested for the offences under Section 279/338 IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
2 After the accused appeared in the court, copies of chargesheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. Notice under Section 279/338 IPC and 146/196 MV Act. was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
3 In the prosecution evidence, prosecution has examined nine witnesses to prove its case.
4 PW 1 Sh. Pratik Asnani deposed that after seeing the two persons and one bike in accidental condition near Mahajan Imaging Centre, Andrews Ganj, he made 100 number call. Police arrived at the spot and shifted the injured to the hospital. He correctly identified the driver of motorcycle in the court but he could not explain the cause of accident as he was ahead from the place of incident. 5 PW 2 Sh. Kunwar Pradeep Thukral is the complainant/injured in the present case. He has stated that in the year 2015, when he was standing at Andrews Ganj bus stop, accused came on motorcycle and hit him. He fell down on the road and became unconscious. Thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital. He further stated accused was driving the offending vehicle at very high speed FIR No.464/2015, PS Defence Colony State Vs Chander Prakash Page 2 of 8 and the accused was seems under the influence of alcohol at that time. He correctly identified the accused and photographs of offending vehicle in the court.
6 PW 3 Ct. Dhara Singh deposed that on 27.11.2015, he received a wireless message regarding accident. Thereafter, he went to the spot and saw a motorcycle and two injured in accidental condition. PCR van arrived and injured was shifted to the hospital in his presence. IO SI Deepak Panwar arrived at the spot and then the IO went to the hospital.
7 PW4 ASI Krishan Singh deposed that in the intervening night of 27/28.11.2015, he received a call regarding accident near Hyundai Showroom, Andrews Ganj. He alongwith driver and other constable arrived at the spot. They found one motorcycle make Hero Passion and two injured on the spot. They shifted both the injured to AIIMS Trauma Centre in PCR van. IO prepared site plan as Ex.PW3/X1.
8 PW5 Dr. Rakesh Kumar deposed that on 27.11.2015, he medically examined patient namely Sh. Kunwar Pradeep Thukral and prepared MLC as Ex.PW5/A. He proved MLC No.529800 dated 27.11.2015 as Ex.PW5/B. 9 PW6 Sh. Arvinder Singh, M.V. I. Expert, deposed that he mechanically inspected vehicle bearing registration number DL7SBW1069. He proved his report as Ex.PW6/A. He correctly identified the aforesaid vehicle in the two photographs as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 shown to him.
10 PW7 SI Deepak Panwar is is the IO of the present case. He deposed about the investigation conducted by him. He proved the documents i.e. rukka as Ex.PW7/A, site plan as Ex.PW3/X1, seizure memo of offending vehicle as Ex.PW3/A, mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle as Ex.PW7/C, arrest memo of accused as Ex.PW7/D, seizure memo of original driving license of accused and RC of offending vehicle as Ex.PW7/E, photographs of offending FIR No.464/2015, PS Defence Colony State Vs Chander Prakash Page 3 of 8 vehicle as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
11 PW8 Dr. Munir Ahmed, Senior Resident, AIIMS Trauma Centre, proved MLC No.529798 dated 27.09.2015 of injured Kunwar Pradeep Thukral. His authority letter is Ex.PW8/A. 12 PW9 Sh. Aditya Swaroop, M.R.T. JPNA, Trauma Centre AIIMS, proved abscond note as Mark PW9/1 and discharge note as Mark PW9/2 of injured Kunwar Pradeep Thukral.
13 Accused admitted the genuineness of documents in terms of Section 294 Cr.PC. The said documents are: FIR as Ex.A1 (contents denied), certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.A2, DD No.3A dated 28.11.2015 as Ex.A3, DD No.29A dated 27.11.2015 as Ex.A4, photostate copy of entry No.1366 of register No.19 of MHC(M) in respect of depositing and releasing offending vehicle as Ex.A5.
14 Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was listed for recording of statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused and explained him to which he stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police in this case and he was not driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. The accident was caused by the mistake of complainant, who was crossing the road in between the traffic. 15 Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
16 I have heard final arguments and I have perused the record. 17 I have bestowed my thoughtful considerations to the rival submissions made before me. Accused is indicted for offences u/s 279/338 IPC and 146/196 MV Act. Section 279 IPC punishes the offence of driving a vehicle in a manner "so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person" ; and Section 338 IPC provides punishment for FIR No.464/2015, PS Defence Colony State Vs Chander Prakash Page 4 of 8 causing grievous injuries while doing rash and negligent act. 18 Proof of rashness and negligence is required for section 279 IPC as also 338 IPC. To constitute either of the offences u/s 279 IPC or 338 IPC, proof of criminal rashness or criminal negligence is essential. In order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation and showed such a disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime.
19 In order to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 279/338 IPC, prosecution has to prove three aspects, firstly that the accused was driving motorcycle bearing registration no.DL7SBW1069 that the said offending vehicle was being driven by the accused in rash or negligent manner causing the accident in question and thirdly, in the said road accident victim Kunwar Pradeep Thukral sustained grievous injuries.
20 To prove the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant/injured, the prosecution has examined PW5 Dr. Rakesh Kumar, who proved the MLC of complainant as Ex.PW5/B. Prosecution has also examined Dr. Krishna, Senior Resident, Orthopedics, AIIMS Trauma Center, who produced the discharge summary of complainant which is Ex.P4. In the said MLC and discharge summary, the injuries sustained by complainant is described as 'abrasion on RT parietal region 2X2 cm'. The said injury cannot be terms as grievous injury as defined in Section 320 IPC.
21 PW8 Dr. Munir Ahmad failed to give his opinion regarding the nature of injuries as mentioned in the MLC. PW9 Aditya Swaroop deposed that complainant Kunwar Pradeep Thukral had absconded from TC6 Ward as mentioned in the discharge note Mark PW9/1. There is no other evidence available on record to show that the complainant had suffered any other injury which comes within the preview of grievous injury as defined u/s 320 IPC. The FIR No.464/2015, PS Defence Colony State Vs Chander Prakash Page 5 of 8 injury disclosed in MLC is a simple injury and not a grievous injury. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the complainant had suffered grievous injury in the accident.
22 It is worthwhile noting at this juncture that the above noted second aspect of the case that is rashness or negligence on the part of the accused can be deliberated upon only after the prosecution is successful in crossing the initial hurdle of proving first aspect that is the involvement of the offending vehicle as well as the accused to the driver of the same. To this effect prosecution had cited eye witness i.e. PW1 and PW2. During the arguments, the Ld. Counsel for accused fairly conceded that accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
23 The only defence raised by the accused is that the accident was not caused due to his rash and negligent driving but due to the mistake of the complainant, who was trying to road in between the traffic despite the fact that there was a subway for pedestrian to cross the road. To prove the rash and negligent driving of accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2. PW1 had turned hostile and deposed that he had not seen the accident as he was ahead of the place where the accident occurred. He stopped the car after hearing the noise. Even on his crossexamination by Ld. APP for State, PW1 did not support the case of prosecution.
24 PW2 deposed that he was standing at Andrews Ganj bus stop near the footpath, accused came on motorcycle at very high speed and hit him. The accused was under the influence of alcohol. He denied the suggestion that he was crossing the road, when the accident took place. The defence raised by the accused that complainant was crossing the road also disproved by the fact that after the incident, the offending vehicle and both injured including the accused in the extreme left lane of the road near the bus stop. In the MLC of accused also, it FIR No.464/2015, PS Defence Colony State Vs Chander Prakash Page 6 of 8 is mentioned that the alcohol breathe is suspected but no blood test was conducted in this regard. It might be because of accused had also sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in MLC Ex.PW5/B and it was the priority of doctors to give him treatment first because it was not known to the doctors at that accused had caused the accident.
25 The mere fact that accused hit his motorcycle against the complainant who was standing at the bus stop in itself proves a rash and negligent driving on the part of accused. Even if, complainant was not standing at the footpath but near the footpath the accused must not have hit the complainant and must deviate his path or must have applied the brakes. But in no circumstances, he was supposed to hit a person who was waiting for a bus at bus stop.
26 To substantiate and prove the guilt of the accused, only the statement of complainant is sufficient. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention that in Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of M.P, 2010 IX AD (SC) 615= (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the reliability of testimony of injured witness, held as under:
"The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
27 In view of the above discussion and appreciation of evidence, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused Chander Prakash that he was driving the offending motorcycle in rash and negligent manner beyond reasonable doubt and FIR No.464/2015, PS Defence Colony State Vs Chander Prakash Page 7 of 8 complainant sustained simple injuries in the said accident. Admittedly, accused was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Accused has failed to produce insurance policy of the offending vehicle. Therefore, accused Chander Prakash is convicted for the offence u/s 279/337 IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
Digitally signed by GAGANDEEP ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED IN THE GAGANDEEPJINDAL JINDAL Date: 2018.08.18 OPEN COURT on 18th August 2018 16:30:05 +0530 (GAGANDEEP JINDAL) MM09, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT SAKET: NEW DELHI FIR No.464/2015, PS Defence Colony State Vs Chander Prakash Page 8 of 8