Delhi District Court
State vs Manisul on 18 August, 2025
In the Court of Ms. Isra Zaidi: JMFC-04, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Manirul
FIR No. 93/2009
U/sec. 279/338 IPC
PS: Khajuri Khas
Date of institution of the case: 3/5/2010
Date for final arguments: 18/8/2025
Date on which judgment is delivered: 18/8/2025
CNR No.DLNE-02-000363-2010
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 464619/2015
b) Date of commission of the offence : 22.04.2009
c) Name of the complainant : Ravinder Kumar
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : Manirul
S/o Sh. Abdul Lafit
e) Offence complained of : Section 279/338 IPC
f) Offence charged of : Section 279/338 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 18/8/2025
Brief facts of the case
1. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint are that on 22.04.2009 at about 02:45 pm at Nanaksar Red Light, accused was found driving his vehicle Tempo Trolley bearing no. DL-1LG- 3849 in a rash and negligent manner and FIR No.93/2009 1/15 State Vs. Manirul he hit against a motorcycle bearing No. DL-7S-AX-2330 from back side and caused grievous injury to complainant Ravinder Kumar and his mother, namely, Ram Devi. Thereafter, an FIR against one Manirul (hereinafter, referred to as the accused) was registered under section 279/338 IPC.
Court Proceedings
2. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 279/338 was filed before the court against the accused. The then Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 03.05.2010 and accused was summoned to face the trial. On his appearance in the Court, copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to him as per norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.07.2012 notice under sections 279/338 IPC were framed against the accused Manirul to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
Prosecution Witnesses S. No. Witness number Name of the witness
1. PW1 Ravinder Kumar
2. PW2 Smt. Rama Devi
3. PW3 Ct. Kukeshwar Nath
4. PW4 Retd. SI M.L. Dhyani
5. PW5 Retd. SI Virender Kumar
6. PW6 Sh. Bhupesh Bansal
7. PW7 Retd. ASI Rajesh Pal FIR No.93/2009 2/15 State Vs. Manirul Documents relied upon by the prosecution S. No. Ex./Mark Nature of documents
1. Ex.PW1/A Complaint
2. Ex.PW1/B Seizure memo of offending vehicle,
3. Ex.PW1/C, Seizure memo of vehicle DL 7SAX 2330
4. Ex.PW1/D, Arrest memo of accused,
5. Ex.PW1/E Seizure memo of driving license of accused
6. Ex.PW1/F, Seizure memo of copy of RC
7. Ex.PW1/G Seizure memo of insurance papers of offending vehicle
8. Ex.PW3/A Personal search of accused
9. Ex.PW5/A Tehrir
10. Ex.PW5/B Site Plan Statement of the Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C
4. The accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C examined on 28.05.2025. The accused stated that his vehicle was already damaged. There was no damage which was caused due to accident. He is innocent. He was not driving the offending vehicle. He was falsely implicated at the instance of one child. No accident had occurred from his vehicle.
Evidence of the Defence
5. No defence evidence was led by the accused despite granting him an opportunity.
FIR No.93/2009 3/15 State Vs. Manirul Final Arguments
6. The court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on 4/8/2025. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the case against the accused is false and frivolous and has prayed that accused be acquitted of the offence charged. He pointed out various discrepancies in the version of the prosecution witness. Learned APP for the state submitted that accused be convicted of the offences under the above- mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused. This court has heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
7. In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC beyond reasonable doubt:
Section 279 IPC:-
"Section 279 IPC provide that "whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with bot Section 338 IPC:
"Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be FIR No.93/2009 4/15 State Vs. Manirul punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.".
8. Section 279 IPC makes rash driving or riding on a public way so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person an offence. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. The question whether conduct of the accused amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
9. Relevantly, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is observed that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC inter alia are that there must be,"rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person."
10. Section 279 IPC makes rash driving or riding on a public way so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person an offence. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. The question whether conduct of the accused amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would FIR No.93/2009 5/15 State Vs. Manirul consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused. Relevantly, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is observed that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC inter alia are that there must be,"rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person."
11. In order to prove the ingredients of section 337 IPC, it is to be proved that accused caused hurt by doing an act in a rash and negligent manner and consequently endangered the safety of the complainant. In order to prove the ingredients of section 338 IPC, it is to be proved that accused caused grievous hurt by doing an act in a rash and negligent manner and consequently endangered the safety of the complainant.
Points for determination The following points arise for consideration:
1. Whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle bearing No. DL-1LG-
3849 on the date and time of the incident?
2. Whether the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on a public way?
3. Whether such rash and negligent driving caused grievous injuries to Ravinder Kumar and Ram Devi?
4. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?
FIR No.93/2009 6/15 State Vs. Manirul
12. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
13. PW1 Sh. Ravinder Kumar deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 22.04.2009 he alongwith his mother were going to Bhajanpura from Timarpur on motorcycle bearing no. DL 7SAX 2330. When he was standing on motorcycle at red light of Nanaksar, one Tempo number of which he did not remember today, had come from behind and hit his motorcycle. Due to the impact he alongwith his mother had fallen down on the road. The driver of the Tempo tried to flee away and in, that process he ran over the Tempo over the hand of his mother. Public persons gathered at the spot, apprehended the accused and handed over him the key of Tempo. Somebody from the public made a call to 100 number. He did not notice if there were police officials at the Nanaksar Red Light. There were no vehicles infront of his vehicle at Nanaksar Red Light. He stopped his vehicle towards the side of the footpath at Nanaksar Red Light. There was no vehicle behind his vehicle at Nanaksar Red Light. The vehicle of accused hit his vehicle almost as soon as he had stopped his vehicle at Nanaksar Red Light.
14. In his cross examination, he deposed that there was no vehicle on his left side towards the footpath. There was no vehicle on his right side also between his vehicle and the divider. He fell on his right side after the impact. A jam was caused at the spot due to the accident. The public persons handed him the key of the offending vehicle while he was attending his mother. His mother received injuries on her left hand. His mother also fell on the same side as him that is right side. He suffered fractured on his thumb. He deposed in his cross examination conducted by Ld. APP that his supplementary statement was not recorded by the police. He further deposed that site FIR No.93/2009 7/15 State Vs. Manirul plan was prepared at his instance.
15. PW2 Smt. Ram Devi deposed in her examination-in-chief that on 22.04.2009 she was going to Bhajanpura on the motorcycle alongwith her son Ravinder. Her son was driving the motorcycle and she was a pillion rider. At about 02.45 p.m., when they reached Nanaksar Red Light and they were standing near the red light, she saw that one truck like vehicle was coming from behind and at that time the driver of the same was driving it in a rash and negligent manner with fast speed and the driver of the said vehicle hit our motorcycle from behind due to which, they fell down on the road. She became unconscious. She received an injury on her left hand. She could not notice the registration number the offending vehicle. However, she had seen the driver at the time of accident.
16. In her cross examination, she testified that she had seen the driver of the abovesaid offending vehicle at the time of incident. She did not remember whether the police also recorded the statement of her son Ravinder on the same day when her statement was recorded. She had left her house at about 02.35 pm. She had not noticed whether there were crowd at the spot at the time of accident. At the time of accident, no other vehicle except the offending vehicle, was coming from behind towards our motorcycle. He had not noticed as to whether other public persons were standing near the spot. She further testified that no vehicle was standing either side as well as behind our motorcycle. Our motorcycle was standing near the footpath. She did not remember the time when she had seen the accused. She could not tell the speed of the offending vehicle. She did not remember whether she signed any document prepared by the police.
17. PW3 Ct. Kukeshwar Nath deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 22.04.2009, he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas. On that day on receipt of DD no. 10 A, went to the spot i.e. Nanaksar red light where one cantor bearing No. DLILG 3849 and motorcycle bearing No. DL7SAX 2330 were standing The driver was also FIR No.93/2009 8/15 State Vs. Manirul present at the spot. It was revealed that injured was taken to hospital. He was asked to remain at the spot by the IO and IO went to the hospital alongwith driver. Thereafter, IO came from the hospital at the spot alongwith driver of the offending vehicle and prepared rukka and handed over to him. IO seized the cantor no. DLILG 3849 vide memo already Ex. PW1/A.
18. In his cross examination, he testified that the vehicle in question i.e. DL 1 LG 3849 and DL 7SAX 2330 were standing at the Nanaksar Red Light when they moved from Khajuri Khas to Wazirabad side on road. There was a police booth at the abovesaid red light. Public persons were also present there. He did not remember from whom they came to know that the injured was shifted to hospital by the PCR Van. There was a traffic jam at the abovesaid red light when they reached there. The driver was standing outside the vehicle on the road when they reached there. IO on inquiry came to know the person, who was standing there is the driver of the offending vehicle. He reached at the spot at about 02:45 pm. He did not remember the exact time when the IO came at the hospital. He did not remember whether blood was present at the spot or not. IO remained at the spot for about 45 minutes.
19. PW4 Retd. SI M.L. Dhyani deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 22.04.2009, he mechanically inspected the Truck bearing No. DL 1LG 3849 and vehicle bearing no. DL 7SAX 2330 in the PS at request of HC Virender Kumar, IO of the case. The detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW4/A & Ex.PW4/B respectively.
20. PW5 Retd. Virender Kumar deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 22.04.2009, he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas as HC. On that day on receipt of DD no. 10A, he alongwith Ct. Khusheshwar reached at Nanaksar Red Light where motorcycle No. DL 7SAX 2330 and EICHER Canter bearing no. DL 1LG 3849 were found in an accidental condition. The driver of EICHER canter was also found at the spot who revealed his name as Manirul. On enquiry, he came to know that the injured has been taken to GTB Hospital. He left Ct. Kusheshwar at the spot and he alongwith FIR No.93/2009 9/15 State Vs. Manirul the driver Manirul reached at GTB Hospital where he received MLC of injured Ram Devi and Ravinder. He recorded statement of injured Ravinder which is already Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter he alongwith complainant and accused Manirul arrived at the spot, he prepared tehrir Ex.PW5/A. He handed over original tehrir to Ct. Kusheshwar and sent him to PS for registration of FIR. He went to PS and got FIR registered and returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original tehrir to him. He prepared site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex.PW5/B. Thereafter, he seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/C.
21. In his cross examination, he testified that the public persons were moving there while the driver of the offending vehicle was present on the side of the road near the red light. The offending vehicle was standing lying about 6-7 meters away from the red light of Nanaksar. The motorcycle was lying about 2-3 meters ahead of the offending vehicle. There was no traffic police officials at the red light. He came to know from the persons who installed their rehries near the red light that injured were taken to hospital by the PCR Van. He did not record the statement of that person who informed him for taking the injured to the hospital by PCR van. He remained there for about 10-15 minutes. He had noticed the sudden brake marks on the road during this period. He has not shown said sudden brake marks on site plan.
22. He had not recorded the statement of other injured, namely, Rama Devi because she was unfit for statement. When he left the red light of Nanaksar, driver of offending vehicle namely Manirul also accompanied him. He reached at Nanaksar red light again from the hospital at about 04.45 pm. No eye witness was present there, therefore, he did not record statement of any eye witness at that place. He had not prepared any documents during the period at Nanaksar Red Light. He had made arrival entry in the police station. He did not remember the arrival entry number. He had mentioned about the description of the seized article and the accused person in the said entry at police station. He released the offending vehicle on superdari from the police station at the direction of SHO.
FIR No.93/2009 10/15 State Vs. Manirul
23. PW6 Sh. Bhupesh Bansal deposed in his examination-in-chief that he did not remember the date of incident due to lapse of time. He further deposed that he received a call on phone from PS regarding accident from his tempo which was driven by the driver Manirul @ Manisul at the time of accident. He went to the PS and got released his tempo from PS.
24. PW7 Retd. ASI Rajesh Pal deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 22.04.2009, his duty hours were from 8 am to 8 pm. On that day, he received the PCR call. he went to the spot, where he met Rama Devi and Ravinder, who were in injured condition. He took then to GTB Hospital and got their MLC conducted. Thereafter, he again reached to the spot. In his cross examination, he testified that he did not remember the time, when he reached the spot. He along with with a constable, who accompanied him, took the accused in the hospital in a car. He did not remember the time, when he reached the hospital. He did not remember for how long he remained in the hospital. He did not remember, if any other police official was present on that day in the hospital.
25. PW1 and PW2 both stated that a tempo hit their vehicle, they could not recall the vehicle number. PW2 claimed to have seen the driver but at the same time she deposed in her examination in chief that she fell unconscious after the driver of the motorcycle had hit from behind. No test identification parade of the accused was conducted by the IO which could have been relevant U/s 9 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. PW1 deposed that the driver of the tempo tried to flee away and in that process, he ran over his tempo over the hand of his mother. The same has also not been stated in his initial complaint Ex. PW1/A. It appears to be an embellishment in the testimony of PW1. However, the testimony of the PW2 is also silent on that aspect.
FIR No.93/2009 11/15 State Vs. Manirul
26. In the case of Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar (2004) 9SCC 186, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
"9. Exaggeration per se do not render the evidence brittle but it can be one of the factor to test the credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on touchstone of credibility".
27. PW3 and PW5 were not an eye witnesses to the incident. They stated that the accused was present at the scene and was identified as the driver, but this identification appears to be based on hearsay from public persons who were present on the spot. Perusal of the DD No. 10A is silent about the fact that a tempo hit the complainant's bike from behind and caused the accident.
28. There is no independent public witness produced despite several being allegedly present. No statement from such persons was recorded, nor did any vendor or local person were examined by the prosecution. The lack of any independent witness casts serious doubt on the prosecution story, especially regarding identity of the accused. In case of Pradeep Narayan State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 1930 held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused. PW5, the IO, stated that brake marks were visible on the road but these were not shown in the site plan, nor photographed or otherwise documented. No accident reconstruction or forensic expert was examined to establish rashness or negligence. The site plan Ex. PW5/B fails to clearly indicate positions of vehicles and the directions from where they were coming. Also, the IO admitted in cross-examination that no markings or photographic evidence were made at the scene.
29. The mechanical inspection did not reveal any specific findings supporting a high - speed impact or serious mechanical failure. It has been observed FIR No.93/2009 12/15 State Vs. Manirul that there was no fresh damage on the tempo/truck. It has also been observed that there were scratches on head light. However , the case of the prosecution is the tempo hit the bike from behind but apparently no damage was observed on the back side of the bike by the mechanical inspector.
30. The site plan annexed is inadequate. In the site plan Ex.PW5/B, it is not depicted from which direction the offending vehicle was going. It is also not clear if there was any divider on the road. The speed at which both the vehicles were being driven has not been ascertained. Point' A' is shown where accident took place. It was incumbent upon IO to scale an accurate site plan. The exact point of impact as well as tyre skid marks and the point at which offending vehicle had come to rest after the collision should have been specified. No photography or videography was conducted by the IO just immediately after the accident. The photography or videography of site and surrounding areas ought to have been conducted so that the exact topography could have been discerned by this Court. The entire testimony of the prosecution witnesses is silent about the rash and negligent manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused.
31. The evidentiary value of the spot map/sketch map prepared by the investigating officer is relevant under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and since it is based on the actual observation of the officer at the crime scene, it is treated as direct evidence and is admissible u/s 60 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is well settled that every defect in the site plan cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution though non-mentioning of the essential features in the site plan can create a doubt on the story of the prosecution. In the case of Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana (2003)12 SCC 758 it was held that any defect in the site plan creates a doubt regarding the place of occurrence and accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. The site plan prepared by the IO was not even signed by the complainant. It is doubtful that the site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant. Though the injuries suffered by PW1 and PW2 are supported by MLCs FIR No.93/2009 13/15 State Vs. Manirul and they qualify as grievous injuries, the prosecution failed to establish a clear causal connection between those injuries and rash/negligent driving by the accused.
32. Adverting to the testimonies of the Police witnesses they were not an eye witness to the incident. None of the police witnesses witnessed the accident. The investigation has been conducted in a routine and a stereotypical manner. Mere testimonies of the police witnesses are insufficient and cannot be made a sole basis of the conviction of the accused person.
33. In the present case also a mere bald statement that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving in a rash and negligent manner, does not prove the guilt of the accused. There is no evidence to show the speed of vehicle or the manner in which the vehicle was being driven to show his rashness or negligence. The gravamen of the offence consists in conduct of accused being rash and negligent which has not been proved by the prosecution. In a criminal trial, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time has not been established beyond doubt. There is insufficient evidence to conclusively prove rash and negligent driving by the accused. The injuries sustained, though grievous, cannot be attributed with certainty to the accused's actions.The investigation appears to lacking objectivity and corroboration by independent witnesses.
34. It is an adage that law works on the wheels of evidence. Every criminal trial is a journey of discovering and unfolding the truth. But in the present case no sufficient evidence is there on record to warrant the conviction of the accused person. In the case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI 178 (2011) DLT 529 it was held that where it is possible to have both views one in favor of prosecution and one in favor of accused, the later one should prevail. The prosecution could not prove by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never FIR No.93/2009 14/15 State Vs. Manirul shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt.
35. For the reasons outlined above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to discharge the heavy burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
36. Consequently, accused Manirul is Acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today i.e 18-08-2025.
This judgment contains 15 pages and each page bears my signature.
Judgment could not be digitally signed as digital signature key has expired and not yet renewed.
(Isra Zaidi)
JMFC-04/NE/KKD/Delhi
18.08.2025
FIR No.93/2009 15/15 State Vs. Manirul