Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay Kumar 1/8 on 16 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 712/00
PS : Paschim Vihar
Offence complained of : 279/337 IPC
Date of commission of offence : 27.08.2000
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R0231852001
C C No. : 2273/2/10
Sanjay Kumar
S/o Sukh Dev Singh
R/o H. No.6970, Gopal Nagar Ext.
Najafgarh, Delhi
............. Accused
Manoj
S/o Sh. Chandan Singh
R/o Naanpur, PO Vichpuri, PO-II
Sahara, PS Malpura, District Agra,
U. P.
........... Complainant
Date of Institution : 13.02.2001
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Date reserving for judgment : 02.03.2016
Date of pronouncement : 16.03.2016
Final Order : Acquitted
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1.Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/337 IPC.
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 27.08.2000 at about 2.15 FIR No. 712/2000 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 1/8 pm near Peera Garhi, Theka Sharab the accused Sanjay Kumar was driving a bus bearing number DL-1PA-3670 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in such a manner, the accused hit one pedestrian namely Arjun and caused injuries to him. Thus, the accused Sanjay Kumar is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 279/337 IPC. FIR
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of Manoj Kumar, an FIR bearing number 712/2000 under section 279/337 IPC was lodged at Police Station Paschim Vihar.
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 basis of the charge-sheet, a notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 279/337 IPC was served upon the accused Sanjay Kumar 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.
FIR No. 712/2000 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 2/8
7. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 9 witnesses, out of which, only four witnesses i.e. (1) J. S. Pawar (2) HC Maharaj Singh (3) Manoj Kumar and (4) ASI Hari Om have been examined.
8. PW-1 Mechanical Inspector J. S. Pawar had conducted the mechanical inspection of the bus and his report is Ex.PW1/A. The accused did not cross examine this witness.
9. PW-2 HC Maharaj Singh deposed that he had reached the spot alongwith the IO on receiving DD entry no.10 A. They found a blue line bus parked there in accidental condition. In the meanwhile, Ct. Sunder brought DD no.12 regarding admission of injured in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. IO HC Hari Om had recorded the statement of witness Manoj and prepared a rukka. The witness had got the FIR registered at the police station on basis of the rukka. He returned back to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. IO seized the blue line bus and Driving license of the accused vide memo Ex.PW2/A and Mark X respectively. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/C. This witness was also not cross examined by the accused.
10.PW-3 Manoj Kumar who was the eye-witness deposed that on the date of accident, he and his friend Arjun were working with a private Thekedar at Peera Garhi. They were going back to work after taking lunch. At about 2.00-3.00 pm when they were crossing the road, one bus came from Uttam Nagar side at the speed of 40-50 km/ph and hit Arjun due to which he fell down. He received injuries on his hands and leg. The witness shouted and the bus driver stopped the bus. He identified the accused as the driver of the said bus. The witness FIR No. 712/2000 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 3/8 deposed that accused got down and took Arjun to the hospital. His statement was recorded by the police on the same day and is Ex.PW3/A. He denied the suggestion that the bus driver had fled away from the spot.
11.PW-3 was declared as hostile by the prosecution and he was cross examined by the Ld. APP. During cross examination by Ld. APP, he admitted that the accident was not caused due to the fault of the accused and voluntarily stated that it was the injured Arjun who was crossing the road while running across it.
12.PW-4 ASI Hari Om deposed that on 27.08.2000 he was posted as HC at PP Mianwail Nagar, PS Paschim Vihar. On that day on receiving DD no.10 regarding accident at Outer Ring Road near Petrol Pump, Peeragarhi Chowk he alongwith Ct. Maharaj went to the spot and found one bus bearing registration no. DL-1PA- 3670 lying in accidental condition. He came to know that the injured has been shifted to hospital. In the meantime Ct. Sunder arrived at the spot and handed over to him DD no.12. He left Ct. Maharaj at the spot for the safe custody of case property and went to SGM hospital. He collected the MLC no.2596 of the injured. The doctor declared the patient fit for statement. He tried to find the complainant but no one was found there. From the address mentioned on the MLC no.2596, he went to Peeragrahi Chowk near petrol Pump, Quarters of Uttar Pradesh Setu Nigam and waited for the injured but he did not reach there. On enquiry, the witness came to know that injured had been shifted to an unknown hospital. Thereafter he returned back to the spot and found one eye-witness namely Manoj. The witness deposed that he recorded the statement of Manoj Kumar. After endorsing the same he prepared a rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Maharaj for registration of FIR at the PS. He prepared the site plan at the FIR No. 712/2000 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 4/8 instance of complainant which is Ex.PW4/A. Ct. Maharaj returned to the spot with the original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. The witness seized the offending bus.
13.On 28.08.2000 he got the offending vehicle mechanically inspected and served the owner of the offending bus with the notice of Section 133 MV Act. The owner of the said bus came to PP Mianwali Nagar alongwith accused. He arrested the accused Sanjay Kumar and conducted his personal search. He recorded the statement of witnesses. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge- sheet.
14.The Injured namely Arjun remained unserved even through the DCP(West). Accordingly, name of this witness was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 02.03.2016.
15.As the eye witness Manoj has failed to support the prosecution story and the injured Arjun has remained unserved even through DCP concerned, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. All the other remaining witnesses are formal witnesses and none of them is a witness to the accident, sufficient only to prove that the injured persons had received injuries and that an FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged on the same day at PS Paschim Vihar vide FIR bearing No.712/2000. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the accident was caused by the accused by driving vehicle bearing number DL-1PA-3670, in a rash and negligent manner. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences FIR No. 712/2000 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 5/8 u/s 279/337 IPC.
16.It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs". reported as 1996 JCC 507 , that "In case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". Accordingly, PE was closed. Recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was also dispensed with as no incriminating evidence has come on record against him.
17.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 any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of FIR No. 712/2000 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 6/8 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."
18.It has been 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.
19.In the case at hand, the prime witness of the prosecution is PW-3, being the sole eye-witness. This witness has narrated the whole incident in a clear and lucid manner and has deposed that accident had taken place wherein Arjun had received injuries. He has also identified the accused as the driver of the offending bus. However, he has clearly deposed that it was Arjun, and not the accused who had acted in a rash and negligent manner. He stated that the accident had taken place as Arjun was trying to cross the road by running across the road. Hence, as per the testimony of PW-3, there was no rashness or negligence on part of the accused. He has completely absolved the accused of all the allegations.
20.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 IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused.
Final Order
21.Since eye witnesses/injured have failed to support the prosecution story and the FIR No. 712/2000 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 7/8 injured has remained unserved and in the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the 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 under Section 279/337 IPC and hereby releases the accused Sanjay Kumar s/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh under sections 279/337 IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
22.As per section 437-A 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 IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.03.2016 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/16.03.2016 FIR No. 712/2000 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Sanjay Kumar 8/8