Delhi District Court
State vs Akash on 23 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHHAVI BANSAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-11
SOUTH EAST : SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Cr CASES 382/3/2015 94301/2016
STATE Vs. AKASH
FIR No. 204/2015
UNDER SECTION : 279/338 IPC & 3/181 M.V. ACT
PS: JAITPUR
A. CNR No. of the Case : DLSE020078392015
B. Date of Institution : 06.10.2015
C. Date of Commission of : 12.03.2015
Offence
D. Name of the Complainant : Upender
E. Name of the Accused : Akash
Person, their Parentage & S/o Sh. Mukesh Chand
Addresses R/o H. No. K-339/&, Saurabh
Vihar, Jaitpur New Delhi
F. Offence complained of : U/s 279/338 IPC &
u/s 3/181 M.V. ACT
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial
H. Judgment reserved on : 11.02.2026
I. Date of Judgment : 23.02.2026
J. Final Order : Convicted for offences u/s
279/338 IPC.
Convicted for offence u/s 3/181
MV Act.
Digitally
signed by
CHHAVI
CHHAVI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2026.02.23
16:39:58
+0530
FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash Page No.1/14
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.03.2015 at about 10:30am near Durga Mandir nala Road Saurav Vihar, New Delhi, complainant Upender Prasad - who was travelling by his bicycle - was hit by a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL3SCR 4283, that the driver of the said motorcycle was driving in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and that, as a result said accident, the complainant sustained grievous injuries (dislocation of his right shoulder). During investigation, it emerged that the owner of the offending vehicle was accused Manish and that the offending vehicle was driven at the aforesaid date and time by his nephew/ accused Akash. It was also discovered during investigation that the accused Akash did not have a valid Driver's Licence (hereinafter referred to as, "DL").
2. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, chargesheet was filed with relevant documents and cognizance was taken of the offences involved. Both the accused - Akash and Manish - were summoned to face trial vide Order dated 06.10.2015. Upon appearance of both the accused and after procedural compliance, notice was framed u/s 279/338 IPC and u/s 3/181 MV Act against accused Akash to which the accused Akash pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, and notice u/s 5/180 MV Act was framed against accused Manish, to which the accused pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced on 03.01.2017. Thus, Digitally signed by CHHAVI FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash Page No.2/14 CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.02.23 16:40:04 +0530 the prosecution evidence was led only qua accused Akash.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses to substantiate the accusations against accused Akash.
4. As part of PE, PW-1/injured Upender Prasad deposed that he was going to his office on his cycle on the day of the incident (described to be in March 2015 without mentioning the exact date). PW-1 stated that he was on the left side of the road when he reached near Durga Mandir, Jaitpur nala road, when the accused came on his motorcycle from behind him and hit him. PW-1 stated that he got unconscious, that public persons had gathered at the spot and that PW-1 called 100 number upon regaining consciousness. PW-1 stated that a stranger gave the key of the offending vehicle to PW-1, that PCR officials reached the spot and that PW-1 handed over the keys of the offending vehicle to the police officials who reached the spot. PW-1 stated that he did not remember the registration number, make or colour of the offending vehicle. PW-1 deposed that he and Akash were taken to the hospital in the police vehicle. Crucially, PW-1 initially stated that he was not aware as to who was driving the offending vehicle, but PW-1 subsequently correctly identified the accused during his examination in chief. PW-1 stated that both he and accused Akash were taken to Trauma Center for their medical examination.
5. PW-1 was cross examined by Ld. APP for State as PW-1 was observed to be resiling from his previous statement. In the said Digitally signed by FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash Page No.3/14 CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.02.23 16:40:09 +0530 cross-examination conducted by Ld. APP, PW-1 stated that the incident occurred on 12.03.2015 in the morning. PW-1 stated that he had not told the police that the registration number of the offending vehicle was DL3SCR4283 black colour but that he had told the police that offending vehicle had hit him from behind. PW-1 stated that the police had called him to the police station and had told PW-1 that the key handed over by PW-1 to the police was of the motorcycle bearing registration number DL3SCR4283, and that the witness thus deduced that the accident occurred from the said offending vehicle. PW-1 deposed that when he was riding his cycle on the day of the accident, accused Akash hit the cycle of PW-1 from the backside from his motorcycle. PW-1 stated that he did not know if the accused himself had fallen down after hitting him. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he had seen the accused fall down after the accused hit him. PW-1 stated that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at a high speed when he was hit and that PW-1 and fell at a distance of about 5m away from the spot of the accident. PW-1 stated that accused Akash was also treated in the hospital on the same day when he was treated. PW-1 stated that the accused was arrested in his presence and that his personal search was carried out. PW-1 correctly identified the offending vehicle. PW-1 also identified his bicycle during the examination in chief.
6. In his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, PW-1 reiterated that he lost his consciousness when he was hit from Digitally signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL Page No.4/14 BANSAL Date:
FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash 2026.02.23 16:40:23 +0530 behind and that he regained his consciousness at the spot itself after sometime. On the point of identification of the bicycle, PW-1 stated that his cycle was similar to what was produced before the Court but that PW-1 could not say with certainty that the bicycle produced before the Court was his as he was seeing the cycle after about 5 years from the date of the incident. PW-1 accepted the suggestion that there were no accident marks on the cycle produced in Court. PW-1 stated that the name of the accused was told to him by the police but PW-1 volunteered to state that the accused and PW-1 - both went to the hospital after the accident. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he was not hit by the accused and PW-1 further denied the suggestion that the accused was not driving the offending vehicle. PW-1 denied the suggestion that some unknown vehicle had hit both him and accused Akash - who had also suffered injuries.
7. PW-2 T.U. Siddiqui deposed that he carried out the mechanical inspection of the motorcycle make Hero Passion Pro Black and Silver colour bearing number DL3SCR4283 and one hero cycle black colour. PW-2 exhibited his reports. In his cross- examination, PW-2 stated that he did not remember when the mechanical inspection was carried out or who was present at the time of carrying out the said mechanical inspection. PW-2 denied the suggestion that he prepared false mechanical inspection reports at the behest of the IO.
8. PW-3 HC Lalit Mohan deposed that on 12.03.2015, he was the duty officer and that he received a call regarding an accident Digitally signed by CHHAVI FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash Page No.5/14 CHHAVI BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2026.02.23 16:40:27 +0530 near Jaitpur Nalewala Road. PW-3 deposed that mentioned the facts in DD No. 21A and marked the same to SI Sanjay for further action. PW-3 deposed that on 14.03.2015 at about 07:00PM, SI Sanjay handed over the original rukka to PW-3, that PW-3 made an endorsement on the rukka and registered the FIR. PW-3 was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
9. PW-4 Rajender Singh, Recort Clerk, AIIMS Trauma Centre brought the certified copy of the MLC and the discharge summary of the victim/PW-1 Upendra Prasad. PW-4 also brought the certified copy of the MLC of accused Akash. PW-4 stated that both the MLCs were prepared by Dr Alka Maurya and that he could identify her signature as he had worked with her. In his cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he was not present at the time of the medical examination and that he had no personal knowledge of the present case. PW-4 denied the suggestion that no medical treatment was conducted by Dr Alka Maurya and that all the documents including the MLC and the discharge summary were false.
10. PW-5 Dr Pancholy Karthik Nithin deposed that the MLC of victim/PW-1 Upendra Prasad, MLC no. 479271/15 was prepared by Dr Alka Maurya on 12.03.2015, and the nature of injury as mentioned in the MLC was grievous. PW-5 stated that the victim sustained injury on his shoulder and that his right shoulder was dislocated due to the said injury. PW-5 also deposed that the MLC of accused Akash, MLC no. 479272/15 was also prepared by Dr Alka Maurya on 12.03.2015, and that FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash Page No.6/14 Digitally signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.02.23 16:40:32 +0530 the nature of injury mentioned in the MLC of accused Akash was simple as he sustained soft tissue injury on his right knee. In his cross-examination, PW-5 stated that he did not prepare the MLC and that he was not present at the time of the medical examination. PW-5 deposed that he did not have any personal knowledge of the case. PW-5 denied the suggestion that the documents including the MLC and the discharge summary were false.
11. PW-6 Dr Shrea Gulati deposed that on 12.03.2015, The X-ray of patient/PW-1 Upendra was examined by Dr Anuradha Singh and that it was opined that the right shoulder joint of the victim/PW-1 Upendra was dislocated. The X-ray report of the victim was exhibited. In her cross-examination, PW-6 accepted the suggestion that injured Upendra was not examined in her presence and that the X-ray report was also not prepared in her presence.
12. PW-7 ASI Abaad Khan deposed that he visited the place of the incident with the complainant and prepared the site plan on 14.03.2015. PW-7 stated that he searched for the accused and the offending vehicle but that they were not traceable. PW-7 deposed that he found the bicycle and the offending vehicle after he received certain secret information on 14.04.2015, after which the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles was carried out. PW-7 was duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused wherein he stated that he was not aware about the driver of the offending vehicle or its owner till 14.04.2015.
FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash Page No.7/14 Digitally signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.02.23 16:40:47 +0530
13. PW-8 Insp. Sanjay Rawat deposed that on 12.03.2015, he received information regarding an accident at Nala Road, Durga Mandir, Saurabh Vihar, after which he went to the spot along with Ct. Bajrang. PW-8 deposed that no injured or eyewitness was found at the spot but that it was informed after the enquiry that the injured had already been taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre. PW-8 stated that he went to AIIMS Trauma Centre and collected the MLCs of PW-1 Upender and accused Akash. PW-8 deposed that injured/PW-1 Upender went to the police station on 14.03.2015 and gave his statement. In his cross-examination, PW-8 stated that he did not carry out any investigation except recording the statement of the injured, sending the rukka and collecting the MLC of the injured including the accused. PW-8 denied the suggestion that the injured did not make any statement to him.
14. PW-9 ASI Mamchand deposed regarding the recovery of the offending vehicle and the bicycle from Nala Road, Saurabh Vihar on 14.04.2015 which was effected by PW-7 ASI Abad Khan in his presence. PW-9 was duly cross-examined.
15. PW-10 Retd. SI Jagbir Singh deposed that further investigation of this case was marked to him on 13.05.2015.
PW-10 stated that he served notice under Section 133 MV Act to the owner of the offending vehicle, that the owner of the offending vehicle, named Manish, came to the police station with accused Akash on the same evening and that he produced certain documents. PW-10 deposed that he completed the Digitally signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash Page No.8/14 BANSAL Date:
2026.02.23 16:40:51 +0530 investigation and filed the chargesheet, and PW-10 correctly identified the accused in court. In his cross-examination, PW-10 stated that no separate statement of the owner was recorded by him.
16. Thereafter, PE was closed and the matter was listed for recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the same, the accused denied any accident ever occurring.
Accused stated that the complainant/injured was lying injured on the left side of the road, and that the accused stopped to help him and took the injured to the hospital. The accused did not state anything else. The accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
17. During final arguments, Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as the complainant identified the accused in open Court and deposed regarding the incident without material contradictions. It was highlighted that all other PWs supported the case of the prosecution and that there is no reasonable dent in the story of the prosecution. It was prayed that the accused to be convicted for the offence under section 279/338 IPC and the offence under section 3/181 MV Act.
18. Opposing the same, it was argued on behalf of the accused that the complainant was the only eyewitness in the present case and that he stated in his testimony that he was not aware as to who was driving the offending vehicle and that the complainant did CHHAVI FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash Page No.9/14 BANSAL Digitally signed by CHHAVI BANSAL Date: 2026.02.23 16:40:58 +0530 not even identify his bicycle in Court. It was argued that the case of the prosecution was laden with inconsistencies. It was thus prayed that the accused be acquitted for the offences charged.
19. Submissions heard. Record perused.
20. In the present case, the only eyewitness was the complainant/injured himself who deposed regarding the incident in detail. The complainant/injured/PW-1 fairly deposed that he was hit from behind by a motorcycle and that he did not see the face of the driver or the offending vehicle when he was hit. The complainant/PW-1 stated that he got unconscious when he was hit, and that he regained consciousness soon after.
21. These facts appear to flow from a natural course of events: a person who rides a bicycle would face forward while riding the same; in the case of any impact sustained from behind, it cannot be imagined that the victim would pay more attention to his culprit over his own safety or balance. In the case at hand, the victim/injured/PW-1 stated that he fell about 5 meters away from the spot of the accident due to the impact and that he lost consciousness due to the impact.
22. The point of identification of the accused arose from the fact that the accused was also taken to the hospital with the complainant after the accident, and on the basis of certain statements allegedly made by the accused while sitting in the police vehicle on the way to the hospital. The statements were repeated by PW- 1/complainant during his testimony. The offending vehicle was Digitally signed by Page No.10/14 CHHAVI FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.02.23 16:41:03 +0530 identified as the key of the offending vehicle/motorcycle was stated to have been taken out by certain public persons at the time of the accident and was handed over to the complainant when the complainant regained consciousness, and that the keys of the motorcycle belonged to the offending vehicle. Moreover, during investigation, when the notice was issued to the registered owner, even the registered owner named Manish told the police that his nephew/accused Akash was driving the offending vehicle.
23. The mechanical inspection reports of both the vehicles are also on record Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B. Both the vehicles were reported to have fresh damages. The report of the motorcycle bearing no. DL3SCR4283 Ex. PW-2/A indicates front impact on the vehicle with the remarks that the front numberplate was pressed, that the headlight visor was scratched and that the right side leg guard was scratched. The report of the cycle make hero black colour Ex. PW-2/B indicated rear impact on the cycle and it was remarked that the rear wheel rim was misaligned. Thus, it can be observed that the mechanical inspection report of the vehicles is in consonance with the story of the prosecution - that the offending vehicle/motorcycle hit the bicycle of the victim from behind.
24. The MLC of the complainant and the accused was conducted on the same day, and it was opined by the concerned doctors that the complainant sustained grievous injuries due to the dislocation of his shoulder, and that the accused also sustained FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash Page No.11/14 Digitally signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.02.23 16:41:08 +0530 simple injuries. Perusal of both the MLCs Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B shows the allegations of road traffic accident.
25. However, curiously, despite the MLC of the accused being on record with history/allegations of road traffic accident, the accused denied any accident ever occurring when asked about the present case during his SA. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused merely that he saw the injured lying on the road and that he was the one to take him to the hospital. This shift in stance is also noticeable when compared with the suggestions put to the complainant in his testimony as PW-1. While the accused suggested to the complainant that the accident was caused by an unknown person in which the complainant and the accused both sustained injuries, the accused abandoned his claim in his SA and completely denied any accident ever taking place. Despite opportunity, the accused did not explain anything else - especially the reason behind his injuries - during his SA. No defence evidence was led by the accused despite opportunity.
26. Thus, in the present case, it can be seen that the complainant identified the accused and the offending vehicle in his examination in chief. The complainant also identified his bicycle, although he stated that the bicycle produced in court resembled his and that he could not claim ownership too clearly as five years had lapsed between the incident and the date on which the evidence was recorded. The MLC of the complainant Ex. PW-6/A is on record which clearly mentions about the dislocation of his right shoulder and the other MLC Ex. PW-4/A Page No.12/14 Digitally FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.02.23 16:41:50 +0530 states that the complainant suffered from a grievous injury in the background of a road traffic accident. The accused also suffered simple injuries in the background of road traffic accident on the same date, as per MLC Ex.PW-4/B. The accused could not create any substantial dent in the story of the prosecution, and this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt even in the absence of any other public witnesses. Despite lapses in investigation - such as the absence of the police witness who took the injured to the hospital or the witness who is stated to have handed over the key of the offending vehicle to the complainant -, all the PWs who were examined have materially supported the case of the prosecution.
27. As far as offence under Section 3/181 MV Act is concerned, the responsibility was upon both the accused to produce a valid Driver's License, which he failed to produce. No evidence was led by the accused on the point that the accused possessed a valid DL as on the date of the accident. The onus to prove the existence of a valid DL was on the accused, and it is observed after the trial that the accused failed to discharge such onus. Accordingly, allegations qua the sections 3/181 MV Act are proved against the accused.
28. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that accused Akash was driving the offending vehicle bearing no. DL3SCR4283 on 12.03.2015 at about 10:30 am near Durga Mandir, Nala Road, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, and that the accused Digitally signed by CHHAVI CHHAVI BANSAL FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash Page No.13/14 BANSAL Date:
2026.02.23 16:41:15 +0530 was driving the vehicle without a valid DL and in a manner so rash and negligent that he caused an accident with the cycle driven by victim/complainant Upender Singh, and that the victim/complainant sustained grievous injuries (dislocation of his right shoulder) as a result of the said accident. Thus, accused Akash stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC and for the offences punishable under Section 3/181 MV Act.Digitally signed by CHHAVI
CHHAVI BANSAL Date:
Pronounced in Open Court. BANSAL 2026.02.23 16:41:19 +0530 (Chhavi Bansal) JMFC-11/South East Saket Courts New Delhi/23.02.2026 FIR No. 204/15 State v. Akash Page No.14/14