Delhi District Court
State vs . Kuldeep Singh on 31 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST):SAKET
COURTS:NEW DELHI
Presided by : Ms. SONAM SINGH-I
State vs. Kuldeep Singh
FIR No. 463/2015
Police Station : Badarpur
Under Sections: 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
"IPC")
Date of institution : 14.07.2017
Date of reserving : 21.09.2022
Date of pronouncement : 31.10.2022
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 3203/17
b) Date of commission of : 15.07.2015 offence
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Girish Chand
d) Name, parentage and : Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh. Mahavir address of the accused Singh, R/o. H.No. F-21/410, Molarband Extn. Badarpur, New Delhi.
e) Offences complained of : Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short 'IPC')
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Convicted under Section 279 and 338 IPC.
h) Date of final order : 31.10.2022
State vs. Kuldeep Singh
FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 1 of 22
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
OF THE CASE:
1. Vide this judgment, the accused Kuldeep Singh stands convicted of the offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC in this case for the reasons mentioned below:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') is that on 15.07.2015, at/about 09.00 AM at Main Mathura Road, Near Gurudwara, Badarpur, within jurisdiction of PS Badarpur, the accused Kuldeep Singh was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 3SCW 4338. It is alleged that accused Kuldeep Singh was driving the said motorcycle in high speed and in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and safety of other road users. Further, it is alleged that while driving the said motorcycle in said manner, he hit the complainant Sh. Girish Chand from behind while the complainant was deboarding from a bus and thereby, caused him grievous injuries. Hence, it is alleged that the accused Kuldeep Singh committed offences punishable under Section 279 and Section 338 IPC.
3. The investigation was done by the IO/HC Parmender Singh who filed the police report under Section 173 State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 2 of 22 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS:
4. The learned predecessor of this court took cognizance upon the said police report on 14.07.2017 and issued summons and on 20.02.2018 accused was supplied with the copies of police report and documents.
NOTICE U/S 251 CrPC:
5. Vide order dated 04.04.2018 the notice U/s. 251 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC") was served upon the accused Kuldeep Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSEUCTION
6. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
(i) Prosecution Witnesses:
7. In support of its case prosecution examined six witnesses.
Designation and Name Role in the present case Sr. No. of the Witness State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 3 of 22
1. PW 1 Sh. Girish Chand Complainant/Injured
2. PW2 Sh. Het Ram Owner of offending vehicle i.e. Motorcycle bearing Registration No. DL 3CW 4338.
3. PW3 Dr. Niraj Kumar Witness who identified signatures of Dr. Ankita Aggarwal, Radiologist who had prepared the X-Ray report of the injured/Sh.
Girish Chand.
4. PW 4 ASI Praminder 2nd Investigating officer
5. PW 5 Sh. Tasnim Uddin Govt. approved Surveyor and Siddiqui Loss Assessor.
6. PW 6 ASI (Retd. SI) 1st Investigating officer Shiv Ram
(iii) Documents on record:
8. The prosecution witnesses relied on the following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibits/Marks Nature of documents
1. Ex.PW1/A Original complaint of the complainant/injured Sh. Girish Chand
2. Ex.PW2/A Reply to Notice U/s. 133 MV Act by PW2 Sh. Het Ram, owner of the offending vehicle.
3. Ex.PW2/B Superdarinama of offending vehicle.
4. Ex.PW3/A X-ray report of Injured prepared by Dr. Ankita Aggarwal.
5. Ex.PW3/B X-ray plate of the injured State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 4 of 22 Girish Chand and wrongly mentioned in testimony of PW3 Dr. Niraj Kumar as Xray report.
6. Ex.PW4/A Arrest memo of accused
7. Ex.PW4/B Personal search memo of accused
8. Ex.PW4/C Seizure memo of offending motorcycle.
9. Ex.PW4/D Seizure memo of driving licence of accused.
10. Ex.PW4/E Copy of insurance of offending vehicle.
11. Ex.PW 4/F Site plan
12. Ex.PW4/G Inspection report
13. Ex.PW4/H Application for TIP of accused Kuldeep and proceedings wherein Accused refused to participate in TIP.
14. Ex.PW6/1 Rukka
15. Ex.P1 Photograph of the Offending Vehicle ADMISSION AND DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS U/S 294 CrPC
9. On 12.12.2018, 25.10.2018 and 24.08.2022 accused examined U/s. 294 CrPC wherein he admitted the following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibits/Mark Nature of Documents
1. Ex. A-1 DD No.27A dated 15.07.2015
2. Ex.A-2 Copy of FIR No. 463/2015.
State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 5 of 22
3. Ex.A-3 TIP proceedings
4. Ex.A-1 (on Register No.19 12.12.2018)although it should have been given an identity of Ex.A-4 (to be read as Ex.A-4 in the judgment, in order to avoid confusion).
6. Ex.A-5 MLC No. 502714 dated 15.07.2017 of injured prepared by Dr. Gana Swaroop Rai
10. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 24.08.2022.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C/DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED:
11. Statement of accused U/s.313 CrPC was recorded wherein he denied all incriminating evidence put to him and impleaded his innocence. He stated that he took a left turn, when the bus was taking a left turn,. He stated that thereafter, suddenly, the bus driver put the brakes. He stated that the complainant stepped out from the bus while the bus was moving slowly, and his bike inadvertently touched the complainant. He stated that the complainant had fallen down due to which he got injuries on his left leg. He stated that he did not want to lead DE. Thereafter, the case was fixed for final arguments.
State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 6 of 22 FINAL ARGUMENTS:
12. The Court heard the final arguments on 21.09.2022.
ARGUMENTS:
13. Sh. Shree Krishan Pandey, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, in final arguments submitted that the accused had been identified by complainant/injured/PW-1 Sh.
Girish Chand and that the identity of the offending vehicle was not disputed by the accused. He argued that the prosecution has also successfully established that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner as deposed by PW-1 Sh. Girish Chand. He contended that grievous injuries have been proved to have been caused to the complainant. He contended that the police witnesses including IO proved the subsequent proceedings and the investigation carried out. Further, he argued that the accused could not dent the deposition of prosecution witnesses to the extent of demolishing the case of State. He submitted that the prosecution has accordingly successfully established its case warranting conviction of the accused.
14. On the other hand, Sh.Nitish Bhardwaj, learned Legal Aid counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish the identity of the offending vehicle in relation to the accident alleged to have been caused by the accused. He argued that a mere statement by a witness to the State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 7 of 22 effect that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner without describing the exact manner in which the vehicle was being driven in order to provide basis for terming the same as rash or negligent cannot be deemed sufficient for the purpose of Section 279 I.P.C. He argued that the alleged accident did not take place due to any fault on part of the accused. He contended that the said fact was evident from the fact that the motorcycle was not found having any scratch in photographs proved as Ex.P-
1. Further, he argued that PW1/complainant Sh. Girish Chand failed to tell the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle which creates a doubt in the story of the prosecution. He also pointed out certain contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, which are discussed in detailed in the subsequent paragraphs. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of these submissions, he prayed to acquit the accused.
15. I have heard the submissions of ld. APP for the State as well as that of ld. Legal Aid counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents and the entire material on record.
16. It would be appropriate to have glance at the legal provisions of offences charged i.e. Section 279 and Section 338 IPC :
"Section 279 IPC as under :
279. 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 State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 8 of 22 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 338 IPC as under :
338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others-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 one thousand rupees, or with both."
17. The prosecution was under obligation to prove the ingredients of Section 279 and Section 338 IPC.
18. To impose criminal liability under the Section 279 and 338 IPC, it is necessary to understand what falls under the definition of "culpable rashness" and "culpable negligence". Culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that the mischievous and the illegal consequence may follow but with the hope that they will not. It is done with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. On the other hand, culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution required of him, and that if he had he would have had the consciousness. Rash or negligent act is an act done not intentionally or designedly. Further, the injury should have been the direct result of a rash or negligent act of the accused, and that State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 9 of 22 act must be the proximate cause without the intervention of another's negligence.
19. In this regard, it is relevant to quote the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka AIR 2007 SC 1064 wherein it is defined as to what is "rashness or negligence". The relevant paragraphs in this regard are quoted below:
"7. ...Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.(underlining added)
8. As noted above, "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 10 of 22 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
20. The Prosecution has relied upon the testimony of sole eyewitness who is the complainant PW1 Sh. Girish Chand who is the injured to prove its case. The Court shall examine and appreciate the testimony of PW1 Sh. Girish Chand who is the star witness to find out whether prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused Kuldeep Singh.
IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED AND THE OFFENDING VEHICLE
21. PW1 Sh. Girish Chand categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 15.07.2015 he was travelling in a bus. He further testified that at the Badarpur bus stand as soon as he got off from the bus, the accused came driving on a motorcycle on the wrong side. He deposed that he hit against him and he received injuries on his left leg. He stated that the accused was driving the motorcycle in the side where passengers were alighting from the bus. Further, he deposed that the incident occurred at around 09.00 AM in the morning and the accused did not stop the motorcycle and escaped with the motorcycle. He testified that at the time of incident, firstly the wheel of the motorcycle of accused hit against his left leg and the motorcycle fell on him. He deposed that the accused lifted his motorcycle, started the same and ran away. He deposed that he seen the driver of the offending motorcycle. The witness had pointed out towards the accused as the same person who was driving the State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 11 of 22 offending vehicle and caused accident on the date and time of incident. He also deposed that after the accident the injured/complainant fell down and some people standing at the bus stop helped him to stand and brought him to the side of bus stand. He testified that he called the police by dialing 100 and police took him to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi and thereafter he was referred to Holy Family Hospital. He deposed in his examination in chief that he did not remember the number of offending motorcycle but had mentioned the same in his complaint Ex.PW1/A. The witness correctly identified the accused as well as offending motorcycle in photograph Ex.P-1 in the court. He deposed that he had undergone treatment for 3-4 months and a steel rod was inserted in his leg.
22. Ld. Defence counsel contended that PW1 Girish Chand deposed in his examination-in-chief that he did not disclose the number of the motorcycle and name on the accused in his statement . It was also argued by the ld. Counsel for the accused that PW1 Sh. Girish Chand he deposed in his cross- examination that, "I had not told the police in my statement that one of the public person had noted down the registration number of the offending motorcycle and told me. The slip on which the public person noted down the number of the offending motorcycle was not given to the police official." He also argued that there were no scratch marks on the offending vehicle as per photograph Ex.P-1. In view of the aforesaid testimony and argument, ld. Counsel for the accused emphasized that there is a doubt in regard to the identity of the accused and the offending State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 12 of 22 vehicle However, the aforesaid arguments of the Ld. Defence counsel cannot be accepted, since the presence of accused at the spot and the factum of his driving the offending vehicle/motorcycle on the date and time of alleged accident is not disputed. During cross examination of PW1 Sh. Girish Chand, a specific question was put by ld. Defence counsel: "When did you see the accused ?, the witness replied to the same stating that "I saw him at the spot and he was driving the offending motorcycle". PW1 further in his cross examination regarding identification of accused specifically deposed that the accused was wearing spectacles on that day to which no suggestion was put by ld. Defence counsel to the witness denying the same.
23. It was also the argument of Ld. defence counsel that PW1 Sh. Girish Chand, during his cross examination deposed that the witness was not wearing spectacles when the accident took place and hence, a doubt in regard to identity of the accused is created. It is pertinent to note that the Ld. APP for state had re- examined the witness on this aspect. In this respect, the PW1 categorically deposed that he can identify the face even without wearing spectacles.(underlining added for emphasis). However, the ld. Defence counsel did not put a suggestion denying the same, during the further cross examination conducted after the re-examination by ld. APP for state.
24. Further, the accused in his statement u/s 313 CrPC did not deny his presence at the spot of accident. In fact, the accused admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle on the State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 13 of 22 day of incident. He also admitted that his bike had touched against the complainant. It is settled law that admission under Section 313 Cr.PC can be taken to be a relevant fact in deciding the fate of the accused. This question has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Janki Dass Vs. State 1995 CriLJ2175, (1994) ILR Delhi 392. In the said case, the only question of law that arose for consideration was as to whether a admission made under section 313 of the Cr.PC can form the basis of conviction. The court held that statements made u/s 313 C.r.PC can be taken into consideration in judging not only the innocence but also the guilt of the accused. It held that the admission made in a statement under Section 313 of the C.r.PC can also be made the basis of conviction. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced below:
"7. .... It has to be borne in mind that the underlying object behind S. 313 is to give an opportunity to the accused to be heard not only on what is prima facie proved against him but on every circumstance appearing in evidence against him so that he is not condemned unheard. It enables the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him in evidence. For the present case, the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of S. 313 Cr.P.C., are very significant. The said section, inter- alia, provides that the answer given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial in which the answers are given. The statement given by the accused may not be evidence in the strict sense of the term but at the same time the full meaning and effect has to be given to sub-sec. (4) of S. 313. A bare reading of this provision shows that the answers given by an accused may be taken into consideration in judging not only his innocence but also judging his guilt. There is nothing in the language of S. 313 to suggest that answers given by an accused admitting the evidence or circumstances proved against him, have to be ignored and have not to be taken into consideration for judging his guilt."
State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 14 of 22 (underlining added for emphasis)
25. Further, the presence of the accused on the spot has also been proved by the testimony of PW2,Sh. Het Ram the owner of the offending vehicle. PW2,Sh. Het Ram categorically deposed that the offending vehicle was with the accused who is his son-in-law.
26. It is also pertinent to note that the statement of complainant/PW1 wherein he has alleged involvement of accused was recorded without delay which is on the day of incident i.e. 15.07.2015.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the factum of the identity of the accused and the fact that the accused was driving the offending vehicle have been established by his own admission as well as by him being identified by the injured. Thus, the presence of accused on the spot and his identification by the injured/PW1 on the spot has been successfully proved by the prosecution.
RASH OR NEGLIGENT ACT OF ACCUSED AND NATURE OF INJURIES SUFFERED BY INJURED/PW1:
28. Ld. APP for state argued that the fact of driving of offending motorcycle in a rash or negligent manner on the alleged date, time and place of accident has been successfully proved by the prosecution. It is seen that the PW1 Sh. Girish State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 15 of 22 Chand in his testimony has categorically stated that he has been hit by the accused with the offending motorcycle on his leg while he was alighting from the bus. He explicitly deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accused was driving his motorcycle on the wrong side and hit against him, due to which he received injuries on his left leg. The act of rash and negligent driving by the accused as he was driving on the wrong side as deposed by the PW1/complainant/Sh. Girish Chand has remained unchallenged. There is no such suggestion put to PW1 Sh. Girish Chand denying that the accused was not driving the motorcycle on the wrong side. In fact, the accused in his statement U/s. 313 CrPC has himself admitted the fact that the complainant deboarded from the bus and that his bike had inadvertently touched the complainant who fell down and got injuries on his left leg. Further, it is settled law that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa vs. State of Karnataka 1994 SUPP (3) SCC 235, the court held that, "deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradiction and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the incident." Hence, from the testimony of PW1 Sh. Girish Chand, it is duly proved that it was the accused who was driving on the wrong side of the road.
State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 16 of 22
29. When it is duly proved that it was the accused who was driving on the wrong side of the road, rashness on his part can be presumed. In such circumstances, it was for the accused to prove on record that it was not negligence or rashness of accused which has caused the accident, but the accused had failed to establish this fact.
30. A reasonable man ought to have been more circumspect and cautious in driving his vehicle. However, in the present case, the accused culpably omitted to take the aforesaid requisite precaution and drove his vehicle on the wrong side which itself is a rash and negligent act. The manner in which the accident took place and the harrowing consequences that followed it, can lead to only one inescapable inference that the accused was culpably rash and negligent. Moreover, the legal maxim "res ipsa loquitor" i.e. the things speaks for themselves further fortifies the allegations of the prosecution regarding the rash and negligent act of the accused. Hence, his act of driving is duly established to be criminally rash and negligent.
31. Apart from the eye witness, Sh.Girish Chand, PW-3 Dr. Niraj Kumar was examined in place of Dr. Ankita Aggarwal who had prepared s the X-ray report which is Ex. PW3/A. PW-3 Dr. Niraj Kumar identified signatures of Dr. Ankita Aggarwal and deposed that the X-ray report was prepared by her. As per the MLC which is Ex. A-5, the complainant/injured Sh. Girish Chand suffered grievous injury which was admitted by the State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 17 of 22 accused in his statement u/s 294 CrPC. Further, as per the X-ray report which is Ex. PW3/A, the complainant/injured Sh. Girish Chand sustained fracture on left tibia and fibula. In his cross- examination, PW3 Dr. Niraj Kumar deposed that "it is correct that injuries in the question can be sustained by fall on a hard surface". This testimony further strengthens the case of the prosecution, as the injured Sh. Girish Chand after being hit by the motorcycle by the accused had fallen on the road.
32. In view of the aforesaid MLC and X-ray report, i.e.. Ex.A-5 and Ex.PW3/B, the fact that the victim sustained injuries in the present accident is proved by the ocular testimony of the PW1 Sh. Girish Chand 2 as well as corroborated from the MLC and X- ray report of the injured i.e. Ex.A-5 and Ex.PW3/B. Further, the injuries sustained by the victim have also not been denied by the accused. In fact, he has admitted that Sh. Girish Chand got injuries on his left leg in his statement u/s 313 CrPC. In view of the above discussion, the fact that the injured sustained grievous injuries in the accident as alleged by the prosecution, have been duly established beyond any shadow of doubt. Thus, the injuries sustained by the victim in the accident clearly manifests that the accused failed to take due deliberation and caution.
33. Further, the PW5 Sh. Tasnim Uddin Siddiqui, Government Approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor was examined by the prosecution. He proved the mechanical inspection report of offending motorcycle bearing No. DL State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 18 of 22 3SCW 4338 as Ex.PW4/G. In the said mechanical inspection report, the witness has deposed the offending vehicle was seen with fresh damages. The testimony of PW5 Sh.Tasnim Uddin Siddiqui remained unshaken and unchallenged. Hence, the said mechanical inspection report again proves the factum of accident caused by the offending vehicle.
34. Further, ASI Parminder Singh has been examined as PW4. He is the investigating officer and conducted the entire material investigation in this case. He proved all the documents prepared by him during investigation except rukka Ex.PW6/1 which was prepared by IO SI Shiv Ram and has been proved by him as PW6. The investigation after registration of FIR was conducted by IO ASI Parminder Singh. The testimony of IO ASI Parminder Singh remained unshaken and unchallenged on record during his cross examination conducted by the accused.
DEFENCE AND ARGUMENTS OF THE ACCUSED
35. It is pertinent to note that the accused in his statement u/s 313 C.r.PC has taken a defence that that when the bus was taking a left turn, he also took a left turn and suddenly, the bus driver put the brakes. He stated that subsequently, the complainant stepped out from the bus, while the bus was moving slowly, and his bike inadvertently touched the complainant who fell down and got injured on his left leg. However, from perusal of the site plan which has been proved as Ex.PW4/F, no such State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 19 of 22 turn as alleged by the accused in his statement U/s. 313 CrPC has been shown. The preparation of site plan Ex.PW4/F by the IO ASI Parminder Singh has also not been disputed by the accused in the cross examination of PW4. Further, this defence was not put to the injured/PW1 Sh. Girish Chand. Hence, the defence of any left turn being taken by the accused and the bus driver suddenly putting the brakes, due to which the complainant fell down and received injuries seems to be an afterthought and hence, cannot be accepted.
36. Ld. Defence counsel argued that there are several contradictions and defects in the testimony of PW1 Girish Chand who is the injured/star witness in this case. Firstly, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that PW1 Girish Chand in his cross examination, deposed that his statement was recorded only once, whereas as per record the statement U/s. 161 CrPC was also recorded by the police. Further, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the witness PW1 Sh. Girish Chan deposed that he did not remember in how many pages his statement was recorded and that his statement was not read over to him and hence, his testimony cannot be relied upon. Another argument which was made on behalf of the accused was that the complainant/PW1 Sh. Girish Chand deposed in his cross-examination that "I disclosed in my statement that the motorcycle fell down on my leg". However, when the PW1 Girish Chand was confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A it was not found so recorded.
State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 20 of 22
37. All the aforesaid arguments made by the Ld. Defence counsel are herein discussed together. It is pertinent to note that the incident in question occurred in the year 2015 and statement of complainant/injured as a witness in the court on oath was recorded in the year 2018, which is after a gap of almost three years. The said arguments only highlight minor contradictions. It is settled law that minor contradictions cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of any witness as normal contradictions are bound to occur if evidence is recorded after a lapse of time. The relevant case law in this regard is of Shankar vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2302 and the relevant paragraph is reproduced below:
"17. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observations, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility."
Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions." The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars, i.e, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, State vs. Kuldeep Singh FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 21 of 22 render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited."
CONCLUSION
38. In view of the above discussion and combined evaluation of the testimony of eye witness, MLC, X-ray report , mechanical inspection reports and the site plan leads to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved all the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC and Section 338 IPC beyond any reasonable doubt by leading convincing and clinching evidence against the accused. Hence, the accused Kuldeep Singh is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under section 279 and section 338 IPC.
Dictated and announced (SONAM SINGH-I)
in the Open Court ACMM (SOUTH EAST):
on 31.10.2021. SAKET COURTS :NEW DELHI
Copy of judgment supplied to
the accused free of costs.
State vs. Kuldeep Singh
FIR No. 463/2015, P.S. Badar Pur page 22 of 22