Delhi District Court
State vs . Umed Singh on 29 June, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM-02(SOUTH DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Umed Singh
FIR No.937/02
U/s : 279/304-A IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of case : 03.06.2005
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 24.06.2013
Date of judgment : 24.06.2013
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 937/02
2.Date of the Commission : 29.10.2002
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : Umed Singh S/o Sh. Deep Chand
: R/o H. No. 508, Bijwasan, New Delhi.
4.Name of the complainant : Sh. Sonu s/o Sh. Parkash
: r/o H. No. S-83/236, Indira Camp,
: Begampur, New Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : 279/304-A IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Acquitted
State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 1/14
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 29.10.2002 at about 9.00 A.M. at in front of C Block, Shivalik Road, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, the accused Umed Singh was found driving his vehicle i.e. bus bearing no. DL-1PB-2991 in a rash and negligent manner and hit against Smt. Suman and caused her death and thereby accused committed offences punishable under section 279/304-A IPC.
2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 937/02 under section 279/304-A IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 03.06.2005.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, charge for the offence punishable under section 279/304-A IPC was framed against the accused person namely Umed Singh and read out to the said accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 01.03.2007.
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses:
Appreciation of Evidence
6. PW-1 W/ASI Usha Rani who is a formal witness was examined on 24.10.2007 and proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW-1/A and endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW-1/B.
7. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he stated that the complainant had not come to him along with said constable. He further stated that he could not say the place where the complaint was recorded.
State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 2/148. PW-2 Sh. Om Prakash being formal witness was examined on 24.10.2007 and deposed that he does not remember the date of accident but on that day his bhabi Suman had died in an accident. He further deposed that when he came to know about the accident he immediately rushed to the spot where he came to know that she had already been removed to the hospital. He immediately went there and found her dead. He had identified the dead body of Suman before and after its postmortem vide his statement Ex. PW-2/A. He had also received dead body of his bhabi vide Ex. PW-2/B.
9. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he stated that his brother namely Prakash was also with him at that time. He had also put his thumb impression on the said memos.
10. PW-3 Sh. Prakash being formal witness was examined on 24.10.2007 and deposed that he does not remember the date of accident however, it has happened before five years back. He further deposed that on that day he was working at a hotel at Malviya Nagar and his son came to him and informed that his wife Suman had met with an accident. He immediately rushed to the spot his wife was there however, she has already been died. He had identified the dead body of his wife Suman before and after its postmortem vide Ex. PW-3/A. He had also received dead body of his wife vide Ex. PW-3/B. His son had also with him when he reached the spot.
11. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunities given.
12. PW-4 Sonu being the complainant was examined on 24.10.2007 and deposed that he was working at City Select Mall. However, on the day of incident he was working as a housekeeper at Safdarjung State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 3/14 Enclave. His mother was also working with him and he was helping her in doing the said work. On 29.10.2002 after finishing their work he along with his mother was going back to their home. It was 8.30am, they boarded a bus bearing No. DL-1PB-2991 plying on route no. 512 at Green park bus stand. When the bus stopped at Bhavshnidhi bus stand, his mother was alighting from the bus. His mother had just put out her leg outside the foot step of the bus of the front door of the bus, driver of the bus accelerated the bus all of a sudden. His mother fell down from the bus and came under the rear wheel of the bus and succumbed to her injuries. He further deposed that the driver of the bus did not blow horn or gave any indication to alert the passenger alighting from the bus and accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused present in the court. Accused was apprehended by public persons of the bus. He informed the police from nearby PCO and his father who was working at Sagar Ratna Restaurant at Malviya Nagar. Thereafter, he along with his father came back on the spot and police also reached there and removed dead body of his mother to hospital. Police recorded his statement vide Ex. PW-4/A. He had pointed out the place of occurrence to the police. He was able to identify the accused and offending vehicle.
13. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he stated that a large number of people were in the bus. They had taken the ticket for travelling from Greenpark to Bhavshnidhi bus stand. His mother was carrying a purse (Batua) which was seized by the police in his presence. He further deposed that he does not remember whether the police prepared any seizure memo for the said Batua and whether his signature was taken as a witness on the said memo. His statement was recorded by the police at the PS. He denied the suggestion State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 4/14 that they had purchased the ticket up to Panchsheel Enclave. The police had also recovered the bus ticket from the Batua of his mother. He further deposed that he does not know if any writing work was done in this regard. He had stated the fact in his statement that it was his mother who was getting down from the bus before me. Confronted with the statement Ex. PW-4/A where it is not so recorded. He denied the suggestion that his mother had jumped down from the bus to avoid the checking of the ticket by the checking staff. He denied the suggestion that there is no bus stand at the place of occurrence. He further deposed that he does not know if police had done some writing work and recorded the statement of any public persons on the spot. He had not seen the site plan vide Ex. PW-4/DA at the spot. He further stated that no bus stand has been shown in the site plan. He denied the suggestion that the accident was caused on account of fault of his mother or that driver/accused was not apprehended on the spot or that he was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that he had made a false complaint in order to claim the compensation.
14. PW-5 Shiv Narain was examined on 28.02.2008 and deposed that on 30.10.2002 he was working as ATI in DTC and posted at Sarojini Nagar Depot. On that day he went to PS where he moved an application for getting the bus bearing No. DL-1PB-2991 on superdari. The vehicle was released on superdari vide Superdginama vide Ex. PW-5/A. He had also given the duty slip of the accused to the police which was handed over to him by Depot Manager. His statement was recorded to this effect.
15. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunities given.
16. PW-6 Udaiveer Singh being Assistant Foreman DTC, was examined on 28.02.2008 and proved the mechanical inspection of vehicle State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 5/14 i.e. bus bearing no. DL-1PB-2991. His detailed report in this regard is Ex. PW-6/A. He further deposed that on inspection rear both wind screen glass broken and left side one conductor window and two last corner window were found broken. The bus was on road worthy and O.K.
17. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunities given.
18. PW-7 V. Sagar being UDC from AIIMS Hospital was examined on 28.02.2008 and deposed that he had brought the summoned record i.e. postmortem report pertaining to deceased Smt. Suman. As per the record the dead body of deceased Suman was brought to the mortuary of AIIMS Hospital on 29.10.2002 at about 3.15pm and the postmortem was conducted on her dead body by Dr. Shamal Sarkar who prepared postmortem report in his own handwriting. The same is Ex. PW-7/A bearing the signature of Dr. Shamal Sarkar at point A. He identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Shamal Sarkar as he had seen him writing and signing in the official course of his duties. He further deposed that Dr. Shamal Sarkar has left the services of the hospital and his whereabouts are not known.
19. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunities given.
20. PW-8 Ashok Kumar was examined on 28.02.2008 and deposed that on 29.10.2002 he went to the study point near malviya nagar by bus route no. 512 bearing no. DL-1PB-2911. He further deposed that at about 8.30/9am when the said bus stopped at Panchsheel Park one lady namely Suman was de-boarding the bus from the front door while the bus was still in the running condition due to which she fell down on the road. At that time the driver tried to stop the bus but the back wheel of the left side State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 6/14 ran over upon her and she died on the spot itself. Thereafter, accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW-8/A and B respectively. The DL of the accused was seized vide memo Ex. PW-8/C.
21. On resiling from his previous statement this witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for state wherein he denied the suggestion that the above mentioned bus had stopped at the Panchsheel Park and while smt. Suman was boarding the bus the accused present in the court immediately accelerated the bus due to which the back wheel of the left side ran over Smt. Suman. He further denied the suggestion that he had not intentionally told this fact in his statement above as he had been won over by the accused.
22. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused wherein he stated that in the bus checking staff of the DTC had also started checking the passengers ticket. He further deposed that on getting panic from the checking staff perhaps she was not having ticket she de-boarded the bus without giving any indication of her de-boarding and the bus was in a slow speed running condition, thus this incident took place due to her fault.
23. PW-9 HC Devi Singh was examined on 07.02.2009 and deposed that on 29.10.2002 he was posted in the crime South District. On that day on the request of the IO of this case he along with his team reached in front of C-63, Shivalik where he took the photographs of the spot. Further examination in chief was deferred.
24. PW-10 Ct. Rajesh Kumar being police official was examined on 07.02.2009 and deposed that on 29.10.02 he was posted at PS Malviya Nagar and on that day at about 9.00am on receipt of a call regarding the accident in pursuant of which, he along with SI Vijay Singh went to the spot State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 7/14 of accident Main Road, Shivalik where he found one DTC bus no. DL-1PB-2991 of route no. 512 in an accidental condition and body of one lady was lying near the wheel of the said bus. Public persons pointed out towards the driver of the bus to whom he apprehended and interrogated. He was asked to take the dead body to the hospital so, he took the dead body at AIIMS Hospital. Thereafter he came back at the spot. He further deposed that the offending vehicle and DL of the accused present in the court were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-10/A and B respectively.
25. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he deposed that in his presence the statement of Mr. Sonu was recorded and site plan was prepared by the IO. He further deposed that he could not tell whether there was any bus stand near the place of accident. He had not seen the checking staff of the DTC when they reached there. He denied the suggestion that he was not with the IO at the spot and entire paper work was done at PS and signed by him. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the IO or that he knew nothing about the case.
26. PW-11 HC Gajraj was examined on 09.12.2011 and deposed that on 29.10.2002 he was on patrolling duty from 8pm to 8am on motorcycle bearing no. DL-1SL-5022 (SM-11). He further deposed that at about 9.15pm he received message on wireless set regarding accident at Shivalik Road so he accordingly, reached the spot where he found bus no. DL-1PB-2991 route no. 512 standing there and one lady beneath the bus who was dead on the spot. Later on her name was revealed as Suman. He further deposed that IO met there who after preparing tehrir handed over the same to him and he got the case FIR registered in PS. After registration of case FIR he came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 8/14 original rukka to the IO. Thereafter he left the spot.
27. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunities given.
28. PW-12 SI Vijay Sanwal being the IO in this case was examined on 12.12.2012 and deposed that on 29.10.02 he was posted at PS Malviya Nagar as SI and on that day on receipt of DD no. 3-A, he along with Ct. Rajesh went to the spot of accident i.e. C-63, Shivalik road where he found bus no. DL-1PB-2991 in a standing position and body of one lady was lying beneath the back side tyre of the said bus and the accused (driver of the said bus) was also found standing at the place of accident and one eye witness namely Sonu was also present at the spot. In the meanwhile, a patrolling motorcycle also reached the spot. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Sonu which is already Ex. PW-4/A and on the basis of which he prepared a Tehrir which is Ex. PW-1/A and got the case registered through Ct. Gajraj who had reached the spot on patrolling motorcycle. In the meantime, crime team was called at the spot and the photographs were clicked by them and Ct. Gajraj came to the spot after registration of FIR and handed over original tehrir and copy of FIR to him. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the AIIMS Mortuary. He prepared the site plan which is already Ex. PW-4/DA at the instance of complainant Sonu. He further deposed that the offending vehicle and DL of the accused present in the court were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-10/A and B respectively. Thereafter, accused was arrested and his arrest memo and personal search memo were being prepared vide memo already Ex. PW-7/A and B respectively. The postmortem of the dead body was done at AIIMS hospital and after the same the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his husband. He further deposed that on 30.10.02 vehicle was mechanically State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 9/14 examined vide memo already Ex. PW-6/A. The MLC/PM report was obtained from the hospital. The identity of the case property was not disputed hence, the production of the same was dispensed with.
29. This witness was examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he stated that the statement of complainant was recorded at the spot at about 9.50am and accused was arrested around 11.15am on the basis of statement of Sonu and other public witness namely Ashok Verma. He further deposed that no bus ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased and complainant Sonu. The accident has taken place at bus stand C Block, Shivalik. He further stated that as per the statement of complainant it comes on record that the deceased was de-board at Shivalik C Block, bus stand. He further deposed that he can not tell the name of bus stand which is next to the Shivalik bus stand. He denied the suggestion that he came to know that she was travelling without ticket in the bus and ticket checker was also present in the said bus and seeing them since she was without ticket she jumped from the bus. He further denied the suggestion that he came to know through various news papers that this occurrence had taken place where the ticket less deceased had jumped from the bus and died or that he came to know that the department of the DTC also held an inquiry about this accident and concluded that the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the lady passenger who jumped from the running bus without informing the driver and lady herself was at fault. He further deposed that it has come in the statement of the complainant Sonu that the deceased was supposed to de-board at Bhavishnidhi at bus stop and not at C Block. He denied the suggestion that he had wrongly arrested the accused and he was not at fault any manner.
30. As all the witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PE was State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 10/14 ordered to be closed on 12.12.2012. The statement of accused under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 16.01.2013 wherein he stated that he wants to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, matter was listed for DE.
31. DW-1 Sh. Amar Singh was examined on 20.04.2013 and deposed that he had brought the summoned record. He further deposed that the department has conducted the inquiry at S.N Depot and decision of said inquiry in respect of accident case no. 10/2002 dated 29.10.2002, nature of accident fatal, driver name Sh. Umed Singh, Badge No. 9782, Bus No. DL 1P B 2991, driver challan U/s 279/304A IPC, FIR No. 937/02 P.S Malviya Nagar. The decision of the accident committee is Ex. DW1/A (O.S.R) bears the signature of various officers. He further deposed that he was able to identify the signature of Sr. Manager (Traffic) Syndhi House, Sh H.C Gupta. His signature is at mark A. He further deposed that he was able to identify his signature as he had seen him signing the official documents at various times. He had attested the same and his signature is at mark B.
32. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he stated that he had no personal knowledge about the report of committee i.e. Ex. DW-1/A and he was not the member of said committee.
33. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. Heard.
Reasons for Decision
34. Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in the present matter. PW-4 Sonu is a material eye witness who has deposed that he was accompanying his mother when they boarded the bus bearing no. DL-1PB-2991 plying on route no. 512 from Green Park bus stand. He further deposed that when they were trying to get down from the bus at State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 11/14 Bhavishnidhi bus stand, the driver of the bus present in the court accelerated the bus all of a sudden as a result of which his mother fell down and came under the rear of the bus and succumbed towards injuries. He further deposed that the driver of the bus did not give any indication to alert the passengers alighting from the bus and hence the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the accused present in the court.
35. This witness was cross examined by ld. Defence counsel wherein he deposed that he does not remember whether the tickets taken by them were found on the person of his mother or recovered from her Batua. He admitted the suggestion that the Batua was seized by police in his presence.
36. Apart from this witness PW-8 Ashok Kumar is another public witness who is not an interested witness and who deposed that on the date of incident the victim/deceased was trying to de-board the bus from the front door when the bus was still in running condition due to which she fell down on the road. He further deposed that the driver tried to stop the bus but the back wheel of the left side ran over her and she died at the spot.
37. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for state wherein he denied the suggestion that while the deceased was de-boarding from the bus the accused immediately accelerated the bus.
38. This witness was further cross examibed by Ld. Defence counsel wherein he deposed that on account of checking by DTC checking staff the deceased panicked and tried to deboard as a result of which she fell down and came under the rear wheel of the bus.
39. In this matter there are two public witness of the incident. One is PW-4 Sonu who is an interested witness being the son of the deceased who has deposed as regards the rashness and negligence of the accused which State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 12/14 resulted into the deceased falling and coming under the rear wheel of the bus. On the other hand, PW-8 Ashok Kumar is another independent witness who is not an interested witness and who has deposed that the deceased fell down after she was trying to deboard the bus on panicking after seeing the ticket checking staff.
40. It is settled law that testimony of an interested witness cannot be thrown out at its very threshold however, the same has to be corroborated with other corroborating documentary and ocular evidence. Corroboration by other evidence of the testimony of an interested witness is rule of caution to rule out any possibility of tutoring. In the present matter, there are two public witnesses, one supporting the story of prosecution being an interested witness and the other resiling from the story of prosecution being an independent witness. However, the version of the independent witness is corroborated by DW-1 Sh. Amar Singh being ATI of Sarojini Nagar Depot who exhibited the summon record of the inquiry conducted at S.N. Depot in respect of the present accident case dated 29.10.2002 in the present case FIR. The decision of the accident committee was exhibited as Ex. DW-1/A. Ex. DW-1/A has been perused and as per the same it has been concluded that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the lady passengers who jumped from the running bus without informing the driver. This inquiry has further been corroborated by the testimony of the independent witness being PW-8.
41. In contrast there is no corroboration of the testimony given by PW-4 who is also an interested witness. At the same time, no tickets were recovered from the person of the deceased which further lends credence to the fact that the deceased was travelling ticket less and on seeing the ticket checking staff she may have tried to deboard in panic and thus, fell down State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 13/14 and came under the rear wheel of the bus without any fault of the driver. This fact is further corroborated by the testimony of PW-12 SI Vijay Sanwal who deposed that no ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased or PW-4 Sonu.
42. Thus, on account of above mentioned reasons the accused is required to be given a benefit of doubt and hence, accused is hereby acquitted of the offences u/s 279/304-A IPC.
Be listed for furnishing of bail bond u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. on 25.06.2013 at 2.00pm.
Announced in the Court (CHETNA SINGH) on 24.06.2013 MM-02(SD)/24.06.2013
Certified that this judgment contains 6 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM-02(SD)/24.06.2013 State Vs Umed Singh FIR No. 937/02 14/14