Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunil on 29 October, 2015
FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 177/14 Unique Case ID No. 02404R1002722007 State Vs. Sunil S/o Sh. Ram Kishan R/o Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi. Permanent resident of: Village Chhinoli, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat, Haryana FIR No. : 401/06 Police Station : Prashant Vihar Under Sections : 308/279/337/338 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court: 16.10.2012 Date on which judgment was reserved: 29.10.2015 Date on which Judgment pronounced: 29.10.2015 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The accused was chargesheeted to face trial in respect of offences punishable U/s 279/337/338/308 IPC and U/s 3/181, 5/180 & 119/177 of M.V. Act on the allegations that on 27.05.2006 at about 4 pm at AB Road Red Light Signal, Sector11, Rohini, he dashed his RTV bearing no. DL1V8542 against RTV bearing no. DLIV7784 thereby causing injuries to several passengers namely Hari Ram, Sunil, Hitesh, Pawan State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 1 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 Kumar, Maharajdin, Prem, Dharmender, Bhanwar Singh, Hira Lal and Deepak. It was further alleged by the prosecution that accused was driving the offending RTV without any driving licence and he had also jumped traffic signal before causing the accident.
2. The case of prosecution as mentioned in the chargesheet is as under:
(i) That on 27.05.2006, an intimation regarding accident was received in PP Sector16, PS Prashant Vihar and same was recorded vide DD No. 36PP. Copy of said DD entry was entrusted to ASI Sultan Singh for appropriate action;
(ii) On receipt of DD No. 36PP, ASI Sultan Singh (since expired) alongwith Ct. Suresh (PW13) reached the place of accident, where RTV Bus bearing no. DLIV7784 was found lying in turtle condition and another RTV bearing no. DL1V8542 was also found in accidental condition. On enquiry, it was revealed that injured had been taken to BSA Hospital and ESI Hospital. After leaving Ct. Suresh at the spot, ASI Sultan Singh rushed to BSA Hospital, where he collected MLCs of injured persons;
(iii) It is further case of prosecution that ASI Sultan Singh recorded statement of complainant namely Dharmender S/o Mahender Singh, wherein he claimed that while he was driving RTV bearing no. DLIV7784 at about 4 pm and reached at traffic signal situated near Welcome 36 Restaurant, Sector11, State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 2 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 Rohini, driver of another RTV bus bearing no. DL1V8542 jumped red light signal and dashed said RTV against his RTV bearing no. DLIV7784 while driving the offending RTV in rash and negligent manner. As a result of that, his RTV turned turtle and passengers travelling in his RTV sustained injuries. PCR Van came and removed them to BSA Hospital. He further claimed that accused herein, who was previously known to him, had been driving the offending vehicle;
(iv) On the basis of said statement, ASI Sultan Singh got the FIR in question registered in respect of offences U/s 279/337/338/308 IPC. He also prepared rough site plan of the place of accident at the instance of complainant; recorded statements of relevant witnesses and also took photographs of the place of incident. He also got mechanical inspection of both the RTV vehicles conducted and seized the said buses;
(v) It is further case of prosecution that IO arrested the accused and collected results on MLCs of injured persons. He also added relevant offences punishable U/s 119/117 & 5/180 of M.V. Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Ld. MM.
3. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 3 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED
4. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame the charge for the offences punishable u/s 308 IPC and also u/s 3/181 and 119/177 of M.V. Act against accused Sunil vide order dated 06.11.2012 to which said accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses namely PW1 HC Rishi Prakash, PW2 Ct. Naresh, PW3 Dharmender, PW4 Sh. Hitesh Kumar, PW5 Dr. Bhavana Jain, PW6 Dr. S.S. Gupta, PW7 Dr. Sanjay Sharma, PW8 ASI/Tech. (Retd.) Devender Kumar, PW9 SI Bineet Pandey, PW10 Sh. Bhoop Singh, PW11 Dr. Bhavana Jain, PW12 Sh. Maharajdeen, PW13 HC Suresh Kumar, PW14 Sh. Hira Lal, PW15 Sh. Narender and PW16 Sh. Pawan Kumar during trial.
6. It may be noted here that summons were repeatedly issued to PW Vishal S/o Sh. Raju and PW Prem S/o Sh. Khem Chand at given addresses but same were received back unserved with the consistent reports that given addresses were not traceable and no other fresh address of said two witnesses could be ascertained. Consequently, the opportunity of prosecution to produce both the said public witnesses during trial were closed on 26.08.2015 and 27.08.2015 respectively. IO namely ASI Sultan Singh was reported to have expired during the course of trial as per the report on summons issued to him during trial.
7. It may also be mentioned here that Ld. Additional PP dropped State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 4 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 PW Dr. Manoj Mittal, the then Radiologist from the list of witnesses on 27.08.2015 on the ground that there was no medical document or opinion, if any, given by said witness, available on record and even in the list of witnesses, the relevancy of said witness had not been mentioned or disclosed.
8. Thereafter, statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused Sunil was recorded during which all the incriminating evidence were put to him. However, he denied the same and claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He claimed that he was not driving the RTV in rash and negligent manner. Infact, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of another RTV Bus and the traffic signal at the place of accident, was not working properly at that time. However, he opted not to lead any evidence towards his defence.
9. I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and ld. Counsel Sh. Sachin Narwal, Adv. on behalf of accused. I have also gone through the material available on record.
10. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The said testimonies are detailed as under: PUBLIC WITNESSES:
11. PW3 Dharmender: This witness was driver of RTV vehicle State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 5 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 bearing no. DLIV7784. He deposed that on 27.05.2006 after taking passengers, he was going towards Bawana in said RTV and when he reached at traffic signal of Sector11, Rohini and was going towards Sector11, another RTV bearing no. DL1V8542 coming towards Sector11 Rohini, came in a very fast and negligent manner and without caring for traffic signal, the driver of said vehicle struck against his RTV and he alongwith 1314 passengers sustained injury due to said accident. He further deposed that RTV bearing registration no. DLIV8542 was being driven by accused herein. PCR Van came and removed injured passengers as well as accused to BSA Hospital. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A and also prepared site plan at his instance. Police had also seized his RTV bearing no. DLIV7784. He further deposed that speed of offending RTV (Ex.P2) was not less than 3035 km per hour as per his assessment, at the time of causing accident in question.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he had not read his police statement (Ex.PW3/A) before signing the same as he was having serious injury over his head. He also deposed that vehicle driven by accused had hit his vehicle as he suddenly turned his RTV. His RTV was hit from driver side of offending RTV. He admitted that traffic signal was not working properly at the place of accident and due to said reason, persons who were driving the vehicles, were not able to assess about their right to take right turn. He admitted that accused had not intentionally hit his vehicle and it was an accident. He could not say whether accused had State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 6 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 tried to avoid the accident.
12. PW4 Sh. Hitesh Kumar & PW10 Sh. Bhoop Singh: These two witnesses were travelling as passengers in RTV Bus bearing registration no. DLIV7784 on 27.05.2006 when accident in question took place. They deposed that the offending RTV jumped red light signal and hit against RTV in which they were travelling at Tiraha (joint of three roads) at about 4 pm. They sustained injuries on their right shoulder and head and other passengers also sustained injuries in the said accident. They alongwith other passengers were removed to BSA Hospital. PW4 further deposed that accused was driving the offending RTV. However, PW10 was declared hostile on the point of identity of accused.
In his cross examination, PW4 testified that IO did not ask him to produce the ticket of his travelling in the said RTV. He could not produce said ticket during trial and explained that no ticket was issued to him by conductor of said RTV. He admitted that it was not possible for him to see the traffic signal for the vehicles coming from the opposite direction. He also admitted that he came to know about the offending vehicle only after the accident. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on the lines of prosecution.
In his cross examination, PW10 testified that no ticket was issued to him by the conductor of said RTV and he had not seen traffic signal turning green for their side of way or traffic signal turning red for the offending RTV vehicle.
State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 7 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015
13. PW12 Sh. Maharajdeen: As per the case of prosecution, this witness was also travelling in RTV bearing no. DLIV7784 at the time of accident in question. However, he did not support the case of prosecution at all. He deposed that he had no knowledge as to how accident in question took place and due to whose fault, the accident had taken place.
He was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP as he was not supporting the case of prosecution. During said cross examination, he denied all the relevant suggestions put to him on the lines of prosecution story. He categorically denied to have made statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Mark PW12/A) before the police. He also failed to identify the accused during trial to be driver of offending RTV bearing registration no. DL1V8542 and denied the suggestion that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused, he deposed that the conductor had issued ticket to him but neither police official asked him to produce said ticket nor he himself produced any such ticket to the police during the course of investigation. He could not produce any ticket during trial. He further deposed that RTV in which he was travelling, was overcrowded with passengers. About 1520 public persons had gathered at the spot, where the accident took place.
14. PW14 Sh. Hira Lal: This witness was also travelling as one of the passengers in RTV Mini Bus involved in the accident in question. Although, he could not disclose the registration number of said RTV but State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 8 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 categorically deposed that it was accused Sunil who was driving the offending RTV in rash and negligent manner and had struck the offending RTV against another RTV from its right side after jumping the red light signal, due to which he alongwith other passengers of offending RTV, had received injuries. He deposed that he himself sustained injuries on his head and he was medically examined at BSA Hospital. He categorically deposed that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the RTVs.
On that aspect, he was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP on behalf of State. During said cross examination, he admitted to have told the police that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of RTV by accused. He also admitted that he had told the police that another RTV, which was struck by RTV of accused, was moving in right direction as it was green signal for said RTV.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused, he could not tell route number of RTV bus in which he was travelling. He deposed that no ticket was issued to him by conductor of RTV despite fare amount paid by him. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused.
15. PW15 Sh. Narender & PW16 Sh. Pawan Kumar: These witnesses were also travelling as passengers in RTV Bus involved in the accident in question. Although, they could not disclose the registration number of said RTV in which they were travelling but deposed that another RTV which was coming from the side of Sector16, Rohini and had jumped State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 9 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 red light traffic signal, had struck against RTV in which they were present on its right side, due to which they alongwith other passengers had sustained injuries. They also deposed that RTV in which they were travelling, turned turtle and injured persons were removed to BSA Hospital by the police officials. However, they deposed that they cannot identify driver of offending RTV due to lapse of time but categorically deposed that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending RTV.
These witnesses were cross examined by Ld. Additional PP on the aspect of identity of accused. During their respective cross examination, they did not support the case of prosecution on the aspect of identity of accused herein, to be the driver offending vehicle. They also denied to have made statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Mark P15 & Mark P16) before the police.
In their respective cross examination on behalf of accused, they denied the suggestion that they were not travelling in RTV bus or that no accident took place in the manner deposed by them during their chief examination.
POLICE WITNESSES:
16. PW1 HC Rishi Prakash: This witness was posted as Duty Officer at PS Narela in the intervening night of 27/28.05.2006. He proved factum about recording of FIR in question on the basis of rukka produced by Ct. Suresh on 27.05.2006 at 7 pm. He proved computerized copy of FIR State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 10 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 as Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/B. This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
17. PW2 Ct. Naresh: This witness deposed that on 27.05.2006, he had gone to BSA Hospital, Rohini on receipt of information regarding an accident. He met IO ASI Sultan Singh in said hospital and IO instructed him to retain custody of accused who was driver of vehicle. After medical treatment of accused, he was directed to take him to the spot i.e. traffic signal of Sector11, Rohini. Accordingly, he had handed over custody of accused to IO ASI Sultan Singh.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he came to know after reaching at the spot that there was road accident between two vehicles.
18. PW8 Retd. ASI / Tech. Devender Kumar: This witness had conducted mechanical inspection of both the RTV buses i.e. RTV bearing no. DL1V8542 and RTV bearing no. DLIV7784 and proved mechanical inspection reports as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively. He deposed that there were fresh damages on both the said RTV vehicles as detailed in his reports Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
19. PW9 SI Bineet Pandey: This witness was examined by prosecution to lead secondary evidence in lieu of IO ASI Sultan Singh who was reported to have expired during pendency of the case. This witness identified the signatures and handwriting of IO ASI Sultan Singh on State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 11 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 documents i.e. on statement Ex.PW3/A of complainant, on rukka Ex.PW1/B, on site plan Ex.PW9/A, on seizure memos Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C of both the RTV vehicles, on arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW9/D and Ex.PW9/E respectively of accused and on kalandra Ex.PW9/F for offence U/s 3/181 & 119/177 of M.V. Act.
In his cross examination, he admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding the investigation carried out in this case. However, he denied the suggestion that he had never worked with ASI Sultan Singh.
20. PW13 HC Suresh Kumar: This witness had accompanied ASI Sultan Singh (since expired) to the place of information on 27.05.2006 after receipt of DD no. 36PP. He deposed on the lines of prosecution story as mentioned in the chargesheet. He testified that ASI Sultan Singh seized both the RTV Mini Buses vide seizure memos Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C and had also arrested accused Sunil in his presence, vide memo Ex.PW9/D. In his cross examination, he deposed that 810 public persons were present at the spot when they had reached there. Although ASI Sultan Singh had made oral enquiries from them but he did not record statement of any of those public persons in his presence. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused.
MEDICAL WITNESSES
21. PW5 Dr. Bhavna Jain: ( Also examined as PW11) This witness deposed that she had examined injured Hari Ram S/o Sh. Subha State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 12 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 Chand at about 5 pm on 27.05.2006 at BSA Hospital. She had conducted medical examination of said patient vide MLC No. 2663/06. She proved said MLC as Ex.PW5/A. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Hari Ram:
1. Small lacerated wound over mid forehead.
2. Patient was complaining of pain over left infrascapular region.
On the same day at about 5.20 pm, she had also examined injured Sunil S/o Sh. Ram Kishan in the same hospital vide MLC no. 2664/06. She proved said MLC as Ex.PW5/B. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Sunil (accused herein):
1. Patient was having small abrasion over left knee.
2. Patient was also complaining of pain over left knee.
On the same day at about 5.30 pm, she had also examined injured Hitesh S/o Late Sh. Bhure Lal in the same hospital vide MLC no. 2665/06. She proved said MLC as Ex.PW5/C. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Hitesh:
1. Abrasion approximately 3 cm x 2 cm over left elbow.
On the same day at about 5.40 pm, she had also examined injured Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. S.D. Pathak in the same hospital vide MLC no. 2666/06. She proved said MLC as Ex.PW5/D. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Pawan Kumar:
1. CLW 6 cm x 0.5 cm over right fronto parietal region. State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 13 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 On the same day at about 5.45 pm, she had also examined injured Maharaj Dev S/o Sh. Matba Lal in the same hospital vide MLC no. 2667/06. She proved said MLC as Ex.PW5/E. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Maharaj Dev:
1. CLW over right scapular region approx. 2 cm x 1 cm.
2. Abrasion approximately 3 cm x 1 cm over right scapular region.
On the same day at about 5.55 pm, she had also examined injured Prem W/o Sh. Khem Chand in the same hospital vide MLC no. 2668/06. She proved said MLC as Ex.PW5/F. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Prem:
1. Pain over dorsolumbar region.
On the same day at about 7 pm, she had also examined injured Dharmender S/o Sh. Mahender Singh in the same hospital vide MLC no. 2669/06. She proved said MLC as Ex.PW5/G. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Dharmender:
1. Linear abrasion over right parietal region approximately 7 cm.
2. Linear abrasion over right parietal region approximately 5 cm.
3. Linear abrasion over right knee approximately 4 cm.
On the same day at about 7.15 pm, she had also examined injured Bhanwar Singh S/o Sh. Shriya in the same hospital vide MLC no. 2670/06. She proved said MLC as Ex.PW5/H. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Bhanwar Singh:
1. Abrasion over left shoulder and left parietal region. State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 14 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015
2. CLW over first web space left hand 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm.
3. CLW over sub mandibular region 2.0 cm x .5 cm.
On the same day at about 6.15 pm, she had also examined injured Hira Lal S/o Sh. Munai Ram in the same hospital vide MLC no. 2671/06. She proved said MLC as Ex.PW5/J. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Hira Lal:
1. CLW over right parietal region 4.0 cm x 1.0 cm.
On the same day at about 7.45 pm, she had also examined injured Deepak S/o Sh. Subhash in the same hospital vide MLC no. 2672/06. She proved said MLC as Ex.PW5/K. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Deepak:
1. CLW over mid forehead 2.0 cm x .5 cm.
2. CLW over right forearm 2 cm x .5 cm.
3. CLW over right forearm 6 cm x 3.5 cm.
She has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
It is pertinent to note that Dr. Bhavana Jain again entered into witness box on behalf of Dr. Brijesh Mishra and was examined as PW11 at that time. She identified signatures of Dr. Brijesh Mishra on MLCs Ex.PW5/F, Ex.PW5/H and Ex.PW5/G of injured Prem, Bhanwar Singh and Dharmender at pointsB. She deposed that in all said three MLCs, nature of injury has been opined as simple by Dr. Brijesh Mishra. She further deposed that she had also medically examined injured Deepak on State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 15 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 27.05.2006 at BSA Hospital. She proved said MLC as Ex.PW11/A. On the said MLC, nature of injury has been opined as simple by Dr. Brijesh Mishra. She further deposed that she had also medically examined injured Hitesh on 27.05.2006 at said hospital and proved said MLC as Ex.PW11/B. She has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
22. PW6 Dr. S.S. Gupta: This witness deposed that he had examined injured Narender Kumar at about 4.45 pm on 27.05.2006 at ESI Hospital. He had conducted medical examination of said patient vide MLC No. 62/06. He proved said MLC as Ex.PW6/A. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Narender Kumar:
1. Blunt injury on his right hand and right wrist.
On the same day at about 4.45 pm, he had also examined injured Manish in the same hospital vide MLC no. 63/06. He proved said MLC as Ex.PW6/B. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Manish:
1. Small CLW over scalp.
On the same day at about 4.45 pm, he had also examined injured Vishal in the same hospital vide MLC no. 64/06. He proved said MLC as Ex.PW6/C. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Vishal:
1. Small CLW on forehead about 3 inches in length.
On the same day at about 4.45 pm, he had also examined injured State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 16 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 Bhoop Singh S/o Sh. Ranjit Singh in the same hospital vide MLC no. 65/06. He proved said MLC as Ex.PW6/D. According to said MLC, the following injuries were found on the body of injured Bhoop Singh:
1. Small CLW over scalp.
Nothing material has come on record during cross examination of said witness conducted on behalf of accused.
23. PW7 Dr. Sanjay Sharma: This witness appeared to depose on behalf of Dr. Pushp Raj Singh who had examined injured Hari Ram S/o Sh. Subha Chand on 27.05.2006 vide MLC no. 2663/06. He deposed that after going through all the relevant material including Xray report of said patient, Dr. Pushp Raj Singh gave nature of injuries as simple on said MLC Ex. PW5/A. This witness further deposed that Dr. Pushp Raj Singh also examined injured Dharmender S/o Sh. Mahender Singh on 27.05.2006 vide MLC no. 2669/06. He deposed that after going through all the relevant material including Xray report of said patient, Dr. Pushp Raj Singh gave nature of injuries as simple on the said MLC Ex. PW5/G. In his cross examination, he deposed that the nature of injuries sustained by patients namely Hari Ram and Dharmender as mentioned in their respective MLCs Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/G can also be sustained due to several reasons like falling down on the ground, hitting them with some blunt object by some other person from front side or any other physical assault. He further deposed that such type of injuries are not peculiar to State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 17 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 road traffic accident alone.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED
24. After referring to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial, Ld. Additional PP for the State vehemently argued that prosecution has been able to establish that it was accused who was driving offending RTV Mini Bus bearing no. DL1V8542 in rash and negligent manner at the given date, time and place and he had struck said RTV against RTV bearing no. DLIV7784. He further argued that due to said accident, several passengers had sustained injuries on various parts of their bodies. He further argued that accused could not produce any valid driving license at the time of causing the accident and had also jumped red light traffic signal and therefore, prosecution has established the relevant offences charged against him in this regard. Therefore, accused should be convicted accordingly.
25. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel vehemently argued that there is no cogent evidence led by prosecution to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s 308 IPC. For the said purpose, ld. defence counsel vehemently argued that none of the prosecution witnesses including public witnesses deposed during trial that accused had any intention to cause death of any of the passengers or he had requisite knowledge that act of hitting of RTV would result into death of any person. He contended that even if the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are presumed to be correct, it was at the most an act of rash and/or negligent State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 18 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 driving resulting into road accident in which few passengers sustained injuries. He also argued that no proper evidence has been led on record to show that accused was not holding valid driving licence or had jumped the traffic signal before causing the accident. He also referred to the testimonies of PW15 and PW16 in support of his contention that said two public witnesses have not identified the accused as driver of offending RTV, due to which reasonable doubt is created in the case of prosecution. Therefore, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
26. Firstly, I shall deal with offence punishable U/s 308 IPC charged against the accused. In order to prove the offence U/s 308 IPC, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused attempted to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder by doing any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if by his said act, he would have caused the death of any person, he would have been guilty of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
27. Now adverting back to the facts of the present case. As per undisputed case of prosecution, accused was driving offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner due to which, he struck the offending vehicle against another RTV bus bearing no. DLIV7784. However, no intention can be inferred from the circumstances proved on record during the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that accused had requisite intention to cause death of any person or that he was having knowledge that his act of driving the offending vehicle in such manner, would result into death of State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 19 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 some one. The very fact that the prosecution claimed that accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and/or negligent manner, shows that necessary ingredients of Section 308 IPC are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, there is no clinching evidence available on record showing that accused has committed offence punishable U/s 308 IPC. Rather, complainant namely Dharmender (PW3) has been categorical during his cross examination that accused had not intentionally hit the offending RTV against his vehicle and it was purely a case of accident. Accordingly, it is held that prosecution has failed to establish the charge for the offence punishable U/s 308 IPC against the accused.
28. Nevertheless, the prosecution has been able to establish beyond pales of reasonable doubt that it was accused Sunil Kumar who was driving the offending RTV vehicle in rash and/order negligent manner and while driving the offending vehicle in said manner, he had hit the same against RTV mini bus no. DLIV7784 as a result of which said vehicle turned turtle and passengers travelling therein sustained injuries on various parts of their body.
29. There is no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of accused that since PW15 Narender Kumar and PW16 Pawan Kumar have failed to identify the accused as driver of the offending vehicle, reasonable doubt is created in the case of prosecution or that he is entitled to benefit of doubt. No doubt, said two public witnesses failed to identify the accused during trial but there is an overwhelming evidence available on record in State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 20 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 the form of testimonies of PW3 Dharmender, PW4 Hitesh Kumar, PW10 Bhoop Singh and PW12 Maharajdeen which conclusively established that it was the accused who was driver of the offending vehicle and also that accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. It is relevant to note that PW3 Dharmender and PW4 Hitesh Kumar have categorically testified in their respective testimonies that accused Sunil was driving offending RTV no. DL1V8542 in rash and negligent manner and had caused the accident in question resulting into several passengers sustaining injuries. Likewise, PW10 Bhoop Singh and PW12 Maharajdeen have also correctly identified accused herein to be the driver of offending RTV bus. Not only this, both the said witnesses have also been categorical in their deposition that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending RTV driven by the accused. All the said four public witnesses have successfully withstood the test of cross examination and accused could not elicit anything contrary to the case of prosecution through litmus test of cross examination.
30. At this juncture, it would also be appropriate to refer to the provision contained in Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, which expressly provides that no particular number of witness shall in any case be required for proving any fact. In the matter titled as "Sheelam Remesh & Anr. Vs. State of A.P." reported in JT 1999 (8) S.C. 537, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court as under: "Courts are concerned with the quality and not quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based on a State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 21 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 sole evidence of a witness, if it inspire confidence".
31. In the matter titled as Darya Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported at (1964) 3 SCR 397 and in subsequent judgment in the matter titled as Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported at (2011) 10 SCC 158, it has been observed as under: "(i) While appreciating the evidence of witness considering him as the interested witness, the Court must bear in mind that the term 'interested' postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some other reason.(Vide:
Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar(1996) 1 SCC 614; and Rakesh and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh JT 2011(10) SC 525).
(ii) This Court has consistently held that as a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the Court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The timehonoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 22 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 to a Competent Court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence".
32. Out of total seven public witnesses examined during trial, four public witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution on all material aspects leading to the guilt of accused herein for the offences punishable U/s 279/337 IPC. Out of remaining three public witnesses, PW15 and PW16 have also supported the prosecution story to considerable extent in so far as the rashness and negligent driving of offending RTV vehicle is concerned. The relevant portions of the testimonies of said two witnesses to the extent they have supported the case of prosecution, can certainly be relied upon by the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of accused.
33. The ocular evidence in the form of testimonies of above mentioned public witnesses are also duly corroborated by medical evidence in the form of MLCs Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/C to Ex. PW5/K and MLCs Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/D and MLCs Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B coupled with the testimonies of PW5 Dr. Bhawna Jain, PW6 Dr. S.S Gupta and PW7 Dr. Sanjay Sharma as available on record. In view of the testimonies of said three doctors and the MLCs available on record, it has been duly established by prosecution that several public persons who were travelling in the offending RTV as well as in the RTV which was struck against by the offending vehicle, had sustained injuries on various parts of State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 23 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015 their body. It is relevant to note that PW Dr. Bhavna Jain has testified during trial that nature of injuries sustained by patients/injured persons examined vide MLC Ex.PW5/C(also Ex.PW11/B), Ex.PW5/F, Ex.PW5/H, Ex.PW5/G and Ex.PW5/K(also Ex. PW11/A) were 'simple' in nature. The MLC Ex.PW5/B pertains to accused herein. The nature of opinion as regards the injuries sustained by patients/injured persons examined vide MLCs Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/J are opined to be 'simple' in nature. In view of testimonies of PW7 Dr. Sanjay Sharma, it is quite evident that nature of injuries sustained by patients/injured persons examined vide MLCs Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/G were opined to be 'simple' in nature.
34. Likewise, nature of injury sustained by patients/injured persons examined vide MLCs Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/C and Ex. PW6/D are opined to be simple in nature. Although, the patient/injured namely Manish examined vide MLC Ex.PW6/B, is shown to have sustained grievous injuries but neither the said injured person entered into witness box during the course of trial as he was reported to be untraceable nor the concerned doctor who gave the nature of injuries as 'grievous' on said MLC, has been examined in this case. Not only this, the relevant xray reports of injured Manish have also not been placed on record by the investigating agency for the reasons best known to it. In the absence of sufficient evidence being available on record, it is not safe to hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable U/s 338 IPC.
35. In the light of aforesaid discussion, there is no iota of doubt that prosecution has been able to establish guilt of accused Sunil in respect of offences punishable U/s 279/337 IPC.
State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 24 of 25 FIR No. 401/06; U/s 308/279/337/338 IPC; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D.: 29.10.2015
36. This brings me down to the offences punishable U/s 3/181 and Section 119/177 of M.V. Act also charged against the accused. It is the case of prosecution that accused was driving the offending vehicle without holding any valid driving license on the date of accident in question and he had also jumped traffic signal before causing the accident in question. In view of testimonies of public witnesses i.e. PW3, PW4 and PW10, it has proved beyond doubt that accused had jumped red light traffic signal before hitting the offending vehicle against RTV mini bus no. DLIV7784. There is no cross examination on the relevant portions of testimonies of said three public witnesses from the side of accused. Thus, there is no reason to reject the testimonies of said public witnesses in this regard or to disbelieve them. Likewise, it has come on record that accused was not holding valid driving license to drive the offending RTV mini bus as on the date of accident in question. Therefore, Court is of the view that prosecution has also been able to establish guilt of accused for the said offences also.
37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of accused Sunil S/o Sh. Ram Kishan in respect of offences punishable U/s 279/337 IPC as also for the offences punishable U/s 3/181 and 119/177 of M.V Act beyond shadow of doubt. Consequently, accused Sunil stands convicted for the said offences.
Announced in open Court today
On 29.10.2015 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State V/s Sunil ("Convicted") Page 25 of 25