Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/18/2003 on 9 September, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. PURVA SAREEN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH EAST DELHI, SAKET
State v. Jasbir Singh
FIR No.18/03
PS HN DIN
U/s 279/304A IPC
JUDGMENT
Date of Institution : 10.04.2003
Date of Commission of Offence : 11.01.2003
Name of the complainant : Dharam Singh S/o Sh. Ratan Singh
Name & address of the accused : Jasbir Singh S/o Sh. Jag Singh
R/o Q-1/A, Jungpura Extension,
New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 279/304A IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 09.09.2011
Date of announcing of judgment : 09.09.2011
Vide virtue of this judgment I propose to dispose off the case u/s 279/304A IPC.
State v. Jasbir Singh 2 The case of prosecution is as under:-
1) That on 11.01.2003 at about 06.15 pm at Lala Lajpta Rai Marg near SN Taxi Stand, Surya Petrol Pump, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS HN DIN accused Jasbir Singh was driving a red line bus bearing no.DL-1T-2927 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving hit against maruti car bearing no. DL-2CK-3269 which cause death of one Surjeet Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 279/304A IPC.
2) The charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter notice was served upon the accused on 19.02.2004 u/s 279/304A IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses namely (1) Manjeet Singh, (2) Dharam Singh, (3) Ct.
Ghanshyam, (4) HC Rampal and (5) SI Balbir Singh. State v. Jasbir Singh 3 (I) PW1 was Manjeet Singh who identified the dead body of the deceased at Mortuary AIIMS.
The accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness. (II) PW2 Dharam Singh deposed before the court that on 11.01.2003 he was working at NS Taxi Stand. Witness further deposed that at about 06.15 on hearing noise of accident he along with other staff reached at the spot where one Taxi bearing No.DL-1P-2927 and another car whose number he did not remember due to lapse of time were found in accidental condition. One passenger of aged about 70/75 was found in unconscious condition. It is further deposed that the accused present in the court was found on the seat of taxi. There was police booth near the taxi stand. The police personnel just after the accident reached at the spot and called PCR and took the injured to hospital.
Witness after seeing photographs identified both the vehicles. Ld. APP seeks permission of the court for cross examine the witness. Same was granted.
In his cross examination by ld. APP for the state it is stated by State v. Jasbir Singh 4 witness that HC Giriraj was present at police booth. It is admitted by witness that the accused name was Jasbir Rawat and taxi was coming from Oberoi Hotel side. It is admitted by witness that maruti car was seized, accused was arrested, his personal search was conducted and DL was seized.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel it is admitted by witness that he had not seen the accident from his own eyes and reached just after the accident.
(III) PW3 was Ct. Ghanshyam deposed that on 11/01/2003 he was on emergency duty from 08.00 pm to 08.00 am. At about 06.15 am on receipt of of DD No.22A he along with ASI Balbir Singh reached at Lala Lajpat Rai Marg where two vehicles i.e. Ambassador Car (Taxi) and one Maruti Car were found in accidental condition. The injured was already removed to hospital in PCR van. One Dharam Singh and HC Meer Singh met them at the spot. HC Meer Singh revealed that the driver of the taxi namely Jasbir Singh has struck against the Maruti Car by crossing the divider. Accused Jasbir Singh was handed over to IO ASI Balbir Singh. IO went to State v. Jasbir Singh 5 hospital and left him at the spot. After sometime IO returned back at the spot and prepared rukka. Rukka was handed over to him for registration of FIR at PS. It is further stated by witness that after registration of FIR he returned back at the spot along with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to IO. During investigation the said taxi and maruti car were taken into possession. Accused Jasbir Singh was arrested and his personal search was conducted. Postmortem of the dead body of deceased Surjeet Singh got conducted and thereafter that body was handed over to the relatives. Accused was sent behind the bars. IO recorded his statement. Accused and case property were correctly identified by the witness.
In his cross examination by Ld Counsel for accused it is stated by witness that IO recorded his statement at about 07.00 am on the spot. The accused was arrested at about 07.15 am. It is admitted by witness that accident had not taken place before him. The photographs were taken by police official but he did not remember his name. It is further stated by witness that at the time of arrest of accused no public person were present at the spot.
State v. Jasbir Singh 6 (IV) Prosecution examined PW4 HC Rampal who deposed that on 11.01.2003 he was posted at photographer in crime team. On receipt of information from Duty Officer he went to Lala Lajpat Rai Marg where one ambassador car bearing no.DL-1T-2927 and one maruti Car bearing no.DL-2CK-3269 were found in accidental condition. He took the photographs of vehicles and after preparation handed over to IO.
In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel it is stated by witness that he did not remember the name of Duty Officer. (V) Prosecution lastly examined PW-5 SI Balbir Singh who deposed that on 11.1.2003 on receipt of DD No. 22 A he alongwith Ct. Ghan Syham reached at the spot where one Maruti bearing no. DL2 CK 3269 and one Taxi bearing No. DL 1T 2927 were found in the accidental condition and HC Meer Singh handed over accused to him. He left Ct. Ghan Shyam at the spot and went to AIIMS Hospital where and collected the MLC of injured. The injured was declared brought dead by the doctor. It is further stated by witness that he came back at the spot where eye witness Dharam Singh met him. His statement was recorded. Endorsement was made on State v. Jasbir Singh 7 rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Ghan Shyam for registration of the FIR. After registration of the case Ct. Ghanshyam came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him. Site plan was prepared at instance of complainant. Both the vehicles were taken into possession. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. DL of the accused was also taken into possession. Both the vehicles were got mechanically inspected. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted and dead body was handed over to the relative of the deceased. After completion of investigating the challan was filed.
In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel it is stated by witness that he reached at the spot at about 06.30 AM alongwith Ct. Ghan Shyam. Duty Officer informed him regarding accident vide DD No. 22 A. He did not remember the name of Duty Officer. He reached at AIIMS Hospital at around 07.10 AM. Eye witness Dharam Singh met him at the spot at around 07.35 AM when he came back from AIIMS Hospital. He arrested the accused at around 09.30 AM on same day. State v. Jasbir Singh 8
4) Thereafter PE was closed and the statement of accused u/s 281 CrPC was recorded to which accused denied the prosecution version and claimed himself to be innocent. However, he did not produce any witness in his defence.
5) I have heard the arguments addressed by the prosecution and counsel for the accused. I have gone through the documents on record and heard the contentions of both the parties.
6) The version of the prosecution is that the accused was driving the taxi in rash and negligent manner and while so driving hit against maruti car which caused into death of one Sujreet Singh.
7) The eye witness of the accident namely Dharam Singh deposed in the court that he had not seen the accident with his own eyes. When he reached at the spot of accident, the same had already happened and he only saw the accused on the driver's seat. The factum of negligence has not been established.
8) It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond any reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. (Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H)(DB), 1997(1) RCR(Criminal) 662).
9) In the criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions.
10) Regarding the rash and negligent driving it is to be seen that what is rash/negligence varies from case to case and there cannot be any fixed parameters for judging rashness/negligence. At the same time, there cannot State v. Jasbir Singh 10 be any assumption/presumption of the same. 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 or proper case and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstance out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. Thus, the main criterion for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard to the obligation of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a risk indifferent to the harmful consequences resulting from it. In a case of this nature, the test is whether the prosecution has proved that :
(i) the accused was driving the vehicle in such a manner as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to some other person who might happen to be using the road or of doing substantial damage to the property , (ii) in driving the vehicle in that manner the accused did so State v. Jasbir Singh 11 without having given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk, or, having recognized that there was some risk involved, had nonetheless gone on to take it; and (iii) the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of the death of the deceased Niranjan Singh v. state (Delhi Administration, (Delhi) 1997(1) RCR (Criminal) 320 and AIR 1968 SC 829, Suleman Rahim Mulani v. State of Maharashtra.
11) The prosecution failed to prove the rash and negligent aspect of the driving as there was no eye witness to the accident examined by the prosecution. The only public witness examined was also not an eye witness. Merely stating that the driver was negligent does not attribute rashness and negligence unless disregard to the consequences is shown or there has been lack of cautiousness on the part of the driver which a prudent person is supposed to be having is proved. In the case in hand there is no negligence or rashness proved as the vehicle was stationary and the accused was not seen by anyone driving. Rather he was only seen sitting on the driver's seat after the alleged accident. State v. Jasbir Singh 12
12) In these facts and circumstances, the prosecution has failed miserably to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The act of negligence could not be proved by prosecution. Hence the section 279/304A IPC is not made out against the accused. The accused stands acquitted.
13) Bail bond is cancelled. Surety is discharged.
14)File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (PURVA SAREEN)
th
on 9 September 2011 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST DELHI,SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State v. Jasbir Singh
13
State v. Jasbir Singh
FIR No.18/03
PS HN DIN
U/s 279/304A IPC
Present : Ld. APP for the state.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Vide my separate order the accused stands acquitted for the offence u/s 279/304A IPC.
Bail bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Endorsement, if any, also stands cancelled.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(PURVA SAREEN) MM/SE/SAKET Dt.09-09-2011 State v. Jasbir Singh