Delhi District Court
State vs Rishi Singla on 19 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT; DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY: MS. DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
Cr. Case No. 12672/2019
In the matter of :
State Vs. Rishi Singla
FIR No. 271/2018
PS : Dwarka Sector-23
U/s: 279/304-A IPC
1. CNR No. of the case : DLSW02-030632-2019
2. Date of commission of : 23.10.2018
offence
3. Date of institution of the : 22.06.2019
case
4. Name of the Complainant : Ishwar Singh, S/o Sh. Mange
Ram, R/o Kangenheri Near
Chhawala, Dwarka, New Delhi.
5. Name, parentage and : Rishi Singla, S/o Sh. S. K.
address of accused persons Singla, R/o Flat No. 242, Pocket
No. 2, DDA Flats, Sector-9,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
6. Offence charged : U/s 279/304-A IPC
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Date of final arguments 21.02.2026
9. Date of judgment 19.03.2026.
State Vs. Rishi Singla
FIR No. 271/2018
PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.1 of 13
Digitally signed
by DEEPALI
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.03.20
16:48:48 +0530
10. Final Order : Accused Rishi Singla, S/o Sh. S.
K. Singla is acquitted for the
offence U/s 279/304-A IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. Present case emanates from complaint filed by one Sh. Ishwar Singh, on the basis of which aforesaid FIR was registered u/s. 279/304-A. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed u/s. 279/304-A IPC. Upon filing of chargesheet, cognizance of the offence was taken and accused namely Rishi Singla was summoned. Thereafter, copy of chargesheet was supplied to him as compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC and notice was framed u/s. 279 and 304-A IPC against accused. Accused pleaded not guilty to the notice and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:-
2.1. PW-1 Sh. Ishwar Singh- He is the complainant/eye witness in this case and deposed regarding the accident as on the date of incident and investigation done in his presence.
2.2. PW-2 Sh. Chander Prakash- He is the Mechanical Inspector, who had conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle and the cycle involved in the present case. 2.3. PW-3 SI Raj Kumar- He is second IO of the case, who released the offending vehicle on superdari, prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in the court.
State Vs. Rishi Singla FIR No. 271/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.2 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.03.20 16:48:59 +0530 2.4. PW-4 HC Ajay- He has joined the investigation of the present case with the IO.
2.5. PW-5 HC Rakesh- He is photographer who clicked the photographs of the spot, offending vehicle and cycle. 2.6. PW-6 SI Durgesh- He is the first IO of the case who conducted the investigation, arrested the accused and got conducted the postmortem of the deceased.
2.7. PW-7 HC Pramod- He is MHC(M) who proved the entry no.
2225, dated 23.10.2018, in register No. 19, whereby the case property was deposited in the malkhana by the IO.
3. All the witnesses were duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. During the course of evidence, Prosecution relied upon the following documents including those admitted by accused person u/s. 294 Cr.PC:-
S. Exhibits Documents
No.
1 Ex.PW-1/A Statement of complainant Sh. Ishwar Singh
2 Ex.P-1 to Four Photographs of bicycle Avon company
Ex.P-4
3 Ex.P-5 Black colour seat of bicycle
4 Ex.P-6 Torn blue colour with grey stripe shirt
5 Ex.P-7 One pair of red and brown colour ladies
slipper
6 Ex.P-8 (colly) 7 photographs of offending vehicle i.e.
Creta Car
7 Ex.PW-2/A Mechanical inspection report of offending
vehicle bearing no. HR-26 DH-8844
State Vs. Rishi Singla
FIR No. 271/2018
PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.3 of 13
Digitally
signed by
DEEPALI
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.03.20
16:50:09
+0530
8 Ex.PW-2/B Mechanical report of cycle
9 Ex.PW-3/A Panchnama of offending vehicle
10 Ex.PW-3/B Copy of chargesheet
11 Ex.PW-4/A Arrest memo of accused
12 Ex.PW-4/B Personal search memo of accused
13 Mark PW-5/A Copy of photographs
14 Ex.PW-5/A-1 Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act
15 Ex.PW-6/A Rukka
16 Ex.PW-6/B Site plan
17 Ex.PW-6/C Seizure memo of offending vehicle
18 Ex.PW-6/D Seizure memo of cycle
19 Ex.PW-6/E Seizure memo of seat cover of cycle
20 Ex.PW-6/F Seizure memo of cloths and shoes
21 Ex.PW-6/G Seizure memo of slippers (chappal)
22. Ex.PW-6/H Notice U/s 133 M. V. Act
23. Ex.PW-6/I Seizure memo of RC and insurance of the
offending vehicle
24. Ex.PW-6/J Blood sample
25. Ex.PW-7/A Copy of entry no. 2255 in register no. 19
26. Ex.A-1 GD No. 33-A
27. Ex.A-2 GD No. 34-A
28. Ex.A-3 GD No. 36-A
29. Ex.A-4 Copy of FIR No. 271/2018
30. Ex.A-5 MLC No. 1198/18
31. Ex.A-6 & Dead body identification memo
Ex.A-7
32. Ex.A-8 Dead body handing over memo
33. Ex.A-9 Postmortem report
34. Ex.A-10 Driving license verification report
State Vs. Rishi Singla
FIR No. 271/2018
PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.4 of 13
Digitally signed
by DEEPALI
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.03.20
16:50:20 +0530
35. Ex.A-11 Insurance verification report
4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC on 27.01.2026, wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to him, wherein accused opted not to lead defence evidence and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that one white colour car got disbalanced there due to which the offending vehicle got struck against a tree. The accident was caused by a white colour car and not by the offending vehicle i.e. Creta Car.
5. Final arguments heard. Record perused. I have heard Ld. Counsel for accused and Ld. APP for the State as well as perused the material and evidence on record. Ld. counsel For the accused has argued that the accident had not taken place with the vehicle of the accused rather the accident was done by a white vehicle/car which has not been traced by the IO. It is further argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
5.1. Accused during his statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.PC has also denied the allegations by stating that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It It is stated that there was a white car at the red light which lost its balance and due to which his car also got stuck with the nearby tree. It is stated by him that it was the white vehicle which lost the balance and actually hit the bicycle of the victim but as his vehicle was got stuck near the tree, he was apprehended and made accused in the State Vs. Rishi Singla FIR No. 271/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.5 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.03.20 16:50:41 +0530 present case.
5.2. Per contra Ld. APP for the state has stated that accused was apprehended at the spot by the complainant and the other public persons, who were present at the place of incident and his vehicle has suffered damage on account of the collusion with the bicycle of the victim as well as the nearby tree, which it hit while fleeing from the spot of incident.
Hence, the accused has committed the present offence and is liable to be punished for the same.
6. As per the prosecution's case, on 23.10.2018 at about 05:20 PM, at Radha Saomi road, near Sector-23, Dwarka, accused was driving the offending vehicle Hyundai Creta car bearing registration No. HR 26DH 8894 rashly and negligently and he hit against the bicycle of victim Chaman Kumari, causing her death. Eyewitness/complainant Sh. Ishwar Singh witnesses the said accident, who called the police station for reporting the said incident, whereupon police officials reach the place of incident. Hence, complaint/statement was given by Sh. Ishwar Singh which is Ex.PW-1/A.
7. The complainant in his complaint Ex.PW1/A states, that on the day of incident, he was going from buster pump towards Radha Swamy road at around 5:20 PM towards his home. At the time, when he reached near about the red light of Pochanpur, he saw that one vehicle of make Hyundai Creta bearing registration number HR26DH 88 94 was coming being driven negligently in a high speed and it hit one cycle on State Vs. Rishi Singla FIR No. 271/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.6 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.03.20 16:50:49 +0530 which there were two girls, near the road side. As the result of the collision, both the girls who were sitting on the bicycle fall on the ground. At this, he stopped his scooter and ran towards both the girls. When he came near them he saw that one girl was badly injured and blood was oozing out from his head and the second girl was crying as she has also suffered some injuries. It is stated by him that the driver of the said vehicle came towards the injured girls for a moment and then tried to escape in his Creta car. As he was trying to run from the place of incident, he ran towards him and caught him by his collar and raised alarm, upon which public persons gathered at the place of incident. The driver/accused tried to release himself from the complainant however with the help of the public persons, the complainant/PW-1 caught hold of him. In the said scuffle, the shirt of the driver got torn. Later, the name of the driver came into the knowledge of the complainant as Rishi Singhla. It is stated by him that the enraged public damaged the window panes of the vehicle and even gave beating to the driver. Thereafter, he called at 100 number upon which the PCR came at the spot and the injured girl was taken to the hospital by the PCR. It is stated by him that he informed that the accused while driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed which caused the said accident.
8. During his deposition before the court, the complainant reiterated the incident, however contrary to his statement Ex.PW1/A where he states that at the time of the incident, he left his scooty and ran towards the victim/deceased, he deposed that while he passed from red light at DD Booster pump, he felt urge to urinate and in order to find a State Vs. Rishi Singla FIR No. 271/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.7 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.03.20 16:50:57 +0530 suitable place, he went to the other side of the road. During his deposition, PW-1 stated that he was searching place to urinate and was in middle of act of urination, when he saw the girls on the bicycle at the place of incident. During his examination-in-chief, PW-1 states "I was starting to relieve myself near tree, while relieving I tried to hide myself as the girls had come close and that moment I saw one Creta Car of white colour bearing registration number no. HR 26DH 8894". However, during his cross examination, he admits that at the time of incident, he was just searching for the place to urinate, which is inconsistent with his earlier statement.
8.1. It be also noted that PW-1, stated to be the eye witness to the said incident has clearly admitted during his cross examination that "he looked at the crime scene after hearing the loud sound", which reflects that he has not seen the offending vehicle actually hitting the bicycle, rather he turned his gaze towards the victim/accident site only after hearing the loud sound, which makes his deposition during chief-
examination that 'the Creta car hit the girls on A-1 cycle in high speed from the back', highly unreliable. PW-1 during his deposition before court states that he and accused went towards the girls after the accident, where he asked the accused to take the girls to the nearly hospital but as accused wanted to escape, he gave a fist blow to PW-1 and when PW-1 tried to call at 100 no, he even hit his mobile phone. The initial complaint of PW-1/complainant is totally silent on this aspect and PW-1 also could not give any justifiable explanation, when contradicted during his cross examination on this aspect.
State Vs. Rishi Singla FIR No. 271/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.8 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.03.20 16:51:06 +0530
8.2. PW-1 states during his deposition before court, that he along with the assistance of public persons who gathered at the spot, caught hold of accused, however apart from PW-1, prosecution has not examined any public witness to prove such. The most glaring contradiction, is the identity of the offending vehicle. PW-1 in his deposition before court as PW-1 has stated that he had seen one white color Creta car, but the vehicle which he identified before court, is of Grey Silver color. At the same time, though PW-1 as well as other prosecution witness state that a 100 no. call was made/received vide DD no.32A, no supporting document or DD entry for the same has been placed on record.
8.3. The prosecution has not examined any public/independent witness who could testify to the fact, that the alleged vehicle caused the accident in his/her presence. None of the formal witnesses have deposed regarding the incident to have been seen/witnessed by them. At the same time, no CCTV footage or any video has been placed on record in order to prove the alleged accident by the offending vehicle at the date, time and place of incident or its involvement, leave alone the manner in which the same was being driven by the accused in order to prove the rash and negligent act. As per incident alleged, there were two girls on the bicycle out of which, one succumbed to the injuries. The prosecution's version could have been best proved through the testimony of the other surviving girl, but she has not been examined as witness by the prosecution. As per record, the IO has even recorded/examined the surviving girl in order to make it part of the chargesheet but, she has not been examined before the court. The non-examination of the girl who was present along with the State Vs. Rishi Singla FIR No. 271/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.9 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.03.20 16:51:14 +0530 deceased, has proved fatal to the case of the prosecution.
9. The mechanical inspection also, of both the victim and offending vehicle, has not been able to bring on record any substantive finding, which could show the complicity of the offending vehicle. Nothing has been highlighted which could show that there was any negligent act on the part of the accused with respect to the offending vehicle, which contributed to the accident. At the same time, the damage suffered by the alleged offending vehicle, could not be directly linked to the accident on account of admitted acts of the public as PW-1 and other prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that the public gathered at the spot caused damage to the alleged offending vehicle.
10. PW-4, HC Ajay who has joined the investigation along with IO has also admitted that the road at the spot is curved from the traffic signal, contrary to what is depicted in the site plan Ex.PW6/B and any person standing on booster pump traffic signal cannot see the traffic signal of Pochanpur. He also states that the road is three-lane contrary to what is stated by complainant PW-1 and shown in site plan as two-lane road. Even, the IO of the present case PW-6 SI Durgesh, has admitted in his cross examination that a person cannot see the red light of Pochanpur at point X on site plan PW6/B, while standing at the red light of Booster Pump at point Y in the site plan. Thus, shaking the credibility of PW-1/complainant.
10.1. Even, if it is taken to be true that the offending vehicle hit the State Vs. Rishi Singla FIR No. 271/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.10 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.03.20 16:51:23 +0530 victim's bicycle, prosecution witnesses as well as PW-1 except saying that the vehicle was in high speed have not specifically shown as to how the accused was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. He has not deposed as to the speed of the vehicle or whether the vehicle was being driven by accused on wrong side or whether accused had jumped Red Light etc. Mere use of word rash or negligent does not by itself imply rashness or negligence. PW-1 has deposed that the car was being driven by accused in high speed but neither the speed is specified nor the nature of carelessness/negligent act is explained.
11. In order to prove rash and negligent act in an accidental case, evidence must be led in order to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle owe a duty to take care and follow the rules, which he has not taken care of or have violated/breached the same by his reckless or negligent behaviour. Further, his rash and negligent act must have direct nexus with the incident.
11.1. In the case of "Mahadev Prasad Kaushik VS. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr" (2008), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case of criminal negligence and act of commission or omission where a reasonable and prudent person, who follows the ordinary conduct or behaviour that was formulated by the State to guide us in a civilized society, would not commit such an act or perform it respectively. That means the commission of an act is said to be negligence when a prudent person will not never do it in such similar circumstances. Also, if a person omits to do something, which a reasonable man will do no matter what, State Vs. Rishi Singla FIR No. 271/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.11 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.03.20 16:51:32 +0530 such omission by him/her will constitute negligence. Besides this, negligence as an essential ingredient of criminal negligence has to be established by the prosecution and such negligence must be grossed. Only then, it could amount to criminal negligence.
12. In the facts of the present case, though it cannot be denied that the victim succumbed to the injuries suffered by her, on account of being hit by a vehicle, the prosecution has not led any evidence in order to prove the manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused to make it a case of rash and negligent driving. At the same time, no other eye witness has been examined who could depose with respect to the rash and negligent act of the accused. Further, the contradictory statements of the PW-1 regarding the time when he saw towards the spot of incident coupled with the color of the car (white) disclosed and the one identified (silver grey color) raise doubt about the involvement of the offending vehicle.
13. From reading of the site plan Ex.PW-6/B, it could also be seen that IO has not mentioned or shown the curved path as admitted, nor the position of the complainant at the time of the incident and the exact spot of accident in order to prove that complainant/PW-1 could have witnessed the incident. The point where the accident took place have also not been mentioned, neither the direction from which the victim was coming. Due to lack of marking these crucial points in the site plan, the prosecution failed to explain the manner/circumstances in which the accident took place and how the complainant witnessed them.
State Vs. Rishi Singla FIR No. 271/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.12 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.03.20 16:51:41 +0530
14. It be noted that culpable rashness or negligence on the part of the accused cannot be presumed. The burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove that it was the accused who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. However, it has not been conclusively proved by the prosecution that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the alleged incident in a rash and negligent manner. As already stated above, there has not been cogent evidence led by the prosecution in order to prove that it was the accused and his vehicle who caused the said incident, as there is no eye witness who had witnessed the incident or any CCTV footage which could capture the said incident. Though PW-1/complainant has been examined as eye witness, due to his contradictory statement, his evidence could not be relied. Hence the involvement of the accused and his vehicle is also disputable. Though, accused along his vehicle was found near the place of incident, stuck with a tree, in the absence of any clinching piece of evidence, the defence raised by the accused that there was a another vehicle which lost its balance and hit the bicycle and because of that untraced vehicle, he also hit the tree, seems probable. Hence, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, accused is entitled to be acquitted in the present case of the charge u/s 279/338 IPC.
15. In view of the above discussion, accused Rishi Singla, S/o Sh. S K Singla stands acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 279/304-A IPC.
Pronounced in the open Court (Deepali Srivastava) on 19th March, 2026. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dwarka Courts: New Delhi.
State Vs. Rishi Singla FIR No. 271/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.13 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.03.20 16:52:07 +0530