Delhi District Court
State vs . Ranjeet Kumar on 7 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK KUMAR-II, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Cr Case No. 1199/2018
FIR No.375/2017
PS - Okhla Industrial Area
State Vs. Ranjeet Kumar
U/s 279/338 IPC
JUDGEMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 1199/18
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 26.02.2018
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 20.09.2017
D. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : ASI Omvir Singh
No.2551/SE
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : Ranjeet Kumar
S/o Shivnandan Yadav
F. OFFENSE COMPLAINED OF : 279/338 IPC
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
H. FINAL ORDER : Conviction
I. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 07.04.2021
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision :
1. Accused is facing trial before the court for the offence punishable under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
FIR No. 375/2017, PS OIA, U/s 279/338 IPC State v. Ranjeet Kumar No. 1199/18 Page 1 of 12
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20.09.2017 at unknown time in front of company no. D-93, OIA Phase-1, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS OIA, accused Ranjeet Kumar was found to be driving a truck bearing registration no. HR-55H-8196 in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and the personal safety of others, and while driving the said vehicle in the aforesaid manner, he hit the same against a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-9SAD-4529 and caused grievous injuries to its rider namely Nagendra Tiwari.
3. The present FIR was registered for offence under Section 279/337 IPC and after completion of investigation, IO/ASI Omvir Singh prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the court for the offence under Section 279/338 IPC.
4. Accused appeared before the court and copy of chargesheet was supplied to him on 27.02.2018 as per Section 207 CrPC. Further notice was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 279/338 IPC on 25.04.2018 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined seven witnesses:
5.1 PW-1 Sanjay Kr. Singh deposed that he is registered owner of offending vehicle/Truck bearing registration number HR-55H-8196 and on 20.09.2017, accused/his driver Ranjeet Kumar was driving the said FIR No. 375/2017, PS OIA, U/s 279/338 IPC State v. Ranjeet Kumar No. 1199/18 Page 2 of 12 vehicle at the time of incident. He correctly identified the accused and the offending vehicle from the photographs Ex.P1 (colly) in the court.
5.2 PW-2 Sanju deposed that on 20.09.2017, he was in his jhuggi near MCD Office, Okhla Phase-I between 05:00 am to 05:30 am and he heard a noise that one truck hit a motorcycle, upon which he reached at the spot where some public persons also gathered and he saw that injured was lying on the road and his motorcycle was also lying there. He further deposed that he alongwitih with some other public persons shifted the injured and motorcycle on footpath and thereafter PCR van and ambulance also reached at the spot and they shifted the injured to hospital. IO did not record his statement.
5.3 PW-3 Nagendra Prasad Tiwari deposed that on 20.09.2017 at about 4.00 am, he was coming from the side of NMS Yard on his motorcycle bearing no. DL-3S-4529 and when he reached near workshop of car service centre, he was hit from behind by a truck because of which he fell down on the road and sustained injuries on his head and he became unconscious. He further deposed that he was taken to hospital and he had not seen the driver of truck. He correctly identified his vehicle which was being driven by him on the day of incident from photographs vide Ex. P1 and P2 in the court.
FIR No. 375/2017, PS OIA, U/s 279/338 IPC State v. Ranjeet Kumar No. 1199/18 Page 3 of 12 5.4 PW-4 T. U. Siddiqui proved the mechanical inspection reports of offending vehicle and vehicle of the victim respectively vide Ex.PW4/A & Ex.PW4/B. 5.5 PW-5 Ct. Pooran deposed that on intervening night of 19- 20.09.2017, he was on emergency duty at PS-OIA and he received a call qua accident upon which he alongwith ASI Omveer Singh reached at the spot i.e. D-93, OIA Phase-1 at about 5.40 am. He further deposed that they found one motorcycle bearing no. DL-9SAD-4529 in accidental condition on the side of road and upon enquiry IO was informed that Ambulance had taken the injured to hospital. He further deposed that IO left him at the spot and went to AIIMS Trauma Centre after about half an hour. He further deposed that at about 10-10.30 am IO returned back to the spot, prepared the rukka Ex. PW5/C and handed over to him for registration of FIR and he left the spot at about 11.25 am for PS for registration of FIR and returned back to spot at about 12.15 pm after registration of FIR and handed over same to IO. He further deposed that accidental motorcycle was seized by IO and deposited in Malkhana vide Ex. PW5/A and on 22.09.2017, owner of offending truck namely Sanjay Kumar reached at the PS alongwith accused driver Ranjeet and offending vehicle bearing no. HR-55H-8196. IO seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and owner of offending vehicle produced all the documents of offending vehicle which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. He further deposed that after interrogation, accused FIR No. 375/2017, PS OIA, U/s 279/338 IPC State v. Ranjeet Kumar No. 1199/18 Page 4 of 12 Ranjeet was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/F. He further deposed that accused driver produced his DL which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. He correctly identified the accused, the accidental vehicle and offending vehicle.
5.6 PW-6 ASI Omvir Singh deposed that on 19.09.2017, he was on emergency duty and his duty hours were from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. He further deposed that on 20.09.2017, he received DD No. 11A regarding accident at D-93, OIA Phase-1 upon which he alongwith Ct. Puran Mal reached the spot and found one motorcycle no. 4529 make Hero Honda black colour in accidental condition. He further deposed that on making enquiry he came to know that injured has been taken to hospital by PCR and by the time he also received DD No. 14A regarding MLC at AIIMS Trauma Centre and he left Ct. Puran at the spot and went to the hospital. He further deposed that he obtained the MLC of injured Nagender Tiwari and as per MLC he was unfit for statement and at the hospital he did not come across any eye-witness and thereafter he returned to the spot and at the spot also he did not come across any eye-witness. He further deposed that he prepared rukka Ex.PW5/C on DD No. 11A and same was handed over to Ct. Puran for registration of FIR. He further deposed that Ct. Puran went to PS, got the FIR registered and returned back to spot with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. He further deposed that he seized the motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex.
FIR No. 375/2017, PS OIA, U/s 279/338 IPC State v. Ranjeet Kumar No. 1199/18 Page 5 of 12 PW5/A and seized motorcycle was deposited at PS and he recorded statement of Ct. Puran. He further deposed that meanwhile owner of offending vehicle bearing no. HR55H8196, Mr. Sanjay Tiwari informed him that accident took place by the aforesaid vehicle. He further deposed that on 21.09.2017, he gave notice u/s 133 MV Act Ex. PW6/A whereon owner of offending vehicle gave reply vide Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that on 22.09.2017, owner of offending vehicle Sanjay Tiwari came to PS alongwith driver of offending vehicle Ranjeet. He further deposed that he seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and seized the RC and insurance of offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that he also seized DL of accused Ranjeet Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B and he effected the arrest of accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/E. He further deposed that accused was released on bail as the offence is bailable and thereafter, he got both the vehicles mechanically inspected and he obtained result on MLC of injured.
He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he prepared site plan at the instance of eye-witness Sanju Ex.PW6/B and he also recorded statement of injured Nagender Tiwari, eye-witness Sanju and other witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. He further deposed that he got verified all the documents from concerned authorities and after completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and submitted before the court. He correctly identified the accused, the accidental vehicle and the offending vehicle from the photographs.
FIR No. 375/2017, PS OIA, U/s 279/338 IPC State v. Ranjeet Kumar No. 1199/18 Page 6 of 12 5.7 PW-7 SI Raghunath Prasad proved the copy of FIR vide Ex.PW7/B.
6. It is pertinent to state in here that accused admitted certain documents i.e., copy of FIR, MLC No.500049698, and X-ray report thereon which are Ex.A1 to A3 and his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C was recorded on 25.03.2019.
7. Further after completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 12.10.2020 wherein accused denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution against him stated that he is innocent and this incident occurred due to negligent driving of injured Sanjay Kumar Singh and he was driving the offending vehicle at the alleged point of date, time and place. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and there was no negligence on his part. Accused further chose not to lead any further defence evidence and matter was listed for final arguments.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused persons. I have carefully perused the case file.
9. The cardinal principle of criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable FIR No. 375/2017, PS OIA, U/s 279/338 IPC State v. Ranjeet Kumar No. 1199/18 Page 7 of 12 doubt. The burden of proving guilt of the accused exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
10. In the present case, prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 279/338 IPC that:-
(i) The accused was driving his offending vehicle on a public way;
(ii) He was driving the same in rash or negligent manner;
(iii) The said act/driving has endangered human life or pers onal safety of others; and
(iv) He caused grievous injuries to a person due to the aforesaid rash or negligent act/driving.
11. To impose criminal liability under this section it is necessary that the injury should have been the direct result of a rash or negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. Culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that the mischievous and the illegal consequence may follow but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. 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. A rash act is primarily FIR No. 375/2017, PS OIA, U/s 279/338 IPC State v. Ranjeet Kumar No. 1199/18 Page 8 of 12 an over-hasty act, and is thus opposed to a deliberate act, but it also includes an act which, though it may be said to be deliberate is yet done without due deliberation and caution. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is the genus of which rashness is a species. In order that rashness or negligence may be criminal it must be of such a degree as to amount to taking hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely to be caused thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk or doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences.
12. In the case in hand, the accused has been duly identified by PW1 who is the owner of the offending vehicle in question as he had stated in his reply to the notice under section 133 of the M.V. Act that accused was driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident and accused also in his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC have admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle on the date, time and place of incident. Moreover, PW3 has categorically deposed that his vehicle was hit from behind by the offending vehicle. In view of the testimony of the aforesaid PWs, there is no doubt regarding identity of the accused. In the similar fashion identity of the offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No. HR-55H-8196 has also been established beyond any reasonable doubt. It FIR No. 375/2017, PS OIA, U/s 279/338 IPC State v. Ranjeet Kumar No. 1199/18 Page 9 of 12 is also convincingly established from the testimony of PW2, PW3 and the documents viz MLC No. 500049698 and X-ray report of the injured which are Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 respectively that the victim sustained injuries in the accident which was committed by the accused. The fact that victim sustained injuries in the present road traffic accident is proved by the ocular testimony of the PW2 and PW3 as well as from the MLC and X- ray report of the injured. Moreso, the injuries sustained by the victim have also not been denied by the accused. In view of the above discussion, not only the identity of the accused and identity of the offending vehicle but also 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. Further, the accident took place in front of company No. D-93, OIA Phase-I, New Delhi, which is admittedly a public way.
13. Thus, the only point of contention in the instant case is whether the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash or negligent manner or not as it has been the defence of the accused that the incident occurred due to the negligent driving of the injured and it is not otherwise which has been alleged by the prosecution. In that regard PW3/injured has been examined by the prosecution wherein he deposed that he was hit from behind by the truck when he was riding on his motorcycle and because of the impact he sustained injuries on his head and lost his consciousness. It is clear from the testimony of PW-3 which remained unblemished that the FIR No. 375/2017, PS OIA, U/s 279/338 IPC State v. Ranjeet Kumar No. 1199/18 Page 10 of 12 said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. It was imperative on part of the accused to maintain safe distance so as to ensure that his vehicle does not hit other vehicle plying before him. However, the accused miserably failed to ensure that. 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 in haphazard and in rash and negligent manner. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW3 regarding the rash and negligent act of the accused. The injuries sustained by the victim in the accident clearly manifests that the accused failed to take due deliberation and caution. 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. The accident could not have resulted in unfortunate circumstances to the victim, had the accused would have taken sufficient precautions that were expected and required from him as a reasonable and prudent man confronted with the same situation. Hence, his act of driving is duly established to be criminally rash and negligent. Moreover PW4 T.U. Siddique i.e. mechanical inspector in his reports have categorically mentioned about the fresh damages to the offending vehicle and vehicle of the victim as Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively.
FIR No. 375/2017, PS OIA, U/s 279/338 IPC State v. Ranjeet Kumar No. 1199/18 Page 11 of 12
14. In view of the above discussion and combined evaluation of the testimony of eye witness, mechanical inspection reports and the site plan leads to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved all the essential ingredients of section 279/338 IPC beyond any reasonable doubt by leading convincing and clinching evidence against the accused. Hence, the accused Ranjeet Kumar is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under section 279/338 IPC.
Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence.
DEEPAK Digitally signed by
DEEPAK KUMAR
Pronounced in open Court on KUMAR Date: 2021.04.07
18:41:09 +05'30'
the 07.04.2021. (DEEPAK KUMAR- II)
MM-02/South-East/Delhi
07.04.2021
FIR No. 375/2017,
PS OIA, U/s 279/338 IPC
State v. Ranjeet Kumar
No. 1199/18 Page 12 of 12