Delhi District Court
State vs . Vaibhav Mittal on 8 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONIKA SAROHA :
M.M.05(SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET NEW DELHI
STATE VS. VAIBHAV MITTAL
FIR NO. : 151/03
P.S. : Hauz Khas
U.S. : 279/338 IPC
J U D G M E N T
__________________________________________________________________________ a. Sl. No. of the case and : 194/2 dated 08.07.2003 date of its institution b. Name of the complainant : Smt. Rajjo W/o SH. Mahipal Singh R/o G82, Dakshinpur, New Delhi c. Date of commission of offence : 25.03.2003 d. Name of the accused : Vaibhav Mittal S/o Sh. Brij Pal Mittal R/o H.NO. DB79C, LIG Flats,Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 279/338 IPC f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty g. Case reserved for orders : 01.08.2011 h. Final order : Convicted i Date of such order : 08.08.2011
__________________________________________________________________________ BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.03.2003 (hereinafter referred to as date of incident) at about 05.35 PM at Bus Stand, Krishi vihar, Joseph Tito Marg (hereinafter referred to as spot) the accused was driving the motorcycle no. DL4SAK0361 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) in manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner accused hit Smt. Rajjo and FIR NO- 151/03 1 caused grevious injuries to her.
2. After completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the Court.
Copies were supplied to accused and after completion of necessary formalities, notice u/s 251 Cr.PC for commission of the offence punishable U/s 279/338 IPC was served upon the accused on 22.09.2003 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has thus examined 6 (six) Witnesses. Statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was also recorded whereby the accused denied the story of prosecution. The accused did not lead any Defence evidence.
The relevant and material extract of evidence produced by the prosecution are as under:
4. PW1 Dr. V. Balasundaram is the resident doctor at AIIMS who prepared the MLC of the injured i.e. Ex.PW1/A.
5. PW2 Smt. Rajjo is the victim. She states that when she was present at the spot, one motorcycle came at a fast speed and hit her. She does not remember the number of the offending vehicle of the offending vehicle but has correctly identified accused as a driver of the same. In her cross examination she reattriates that the incident occurred near the bus stop. She has stated that many ladies were present at the bus stand.
6. PW3 HC Ram Singh is the duty officer who registered the present FIR which is Ex.PW3/A.
7. PW4 Shankar Prasad has exhibited the XRay report of the injured as Ex.PW4/A. FIR NO- 151/03 2
8. PW5 Ct. Netrapal has stated that on receiving the call he alongwith HC Manoj Singh went to the spot where he found the offending vehicle and one cow in injured condition. He states that IO left the spot and went to the hospital from where he came back with the rukka, prepared on the testimony of the victim, which was given to this witness for registration of FIR which he got registered and came back to the spot. He states that the offending vehicle was seized in his presence and he identified his signatures on the seizure memo of the offending vehicle which is Ex.PW5/A. He also identified his signatures on the arrest and personal search memo of the accused which is Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C. The DL and RC of the offending were also seized in his presence vide memo Ex.PW5/D and Ex.PW5/E. The accused was correctly identified by this witness.
9. PW6 Retd. ASI Devender Singh has exhibited his mechanical inspection report as Ex.PW6/A.
10. The IO of this case stood terminated from services at the time of PE and was not traceable despite repeated attempts. Thereafter as sufficient opportunity were given, PE stood closed.
11. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, the accused admitted that he was riding the offending vehicle but has stated that collision occurred as suddenly cows appeared infront of his motorcycle. Arguments as advanced by Ld. APP and the Defence counsel were heard at length.
12. Coming now to the appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution for it is on the evidence of the prosecution and its strength that the fate of this case depends.
13. The most material witness is PW2. She is the only eye witness examined by the prosecution. She states that at around 5.30 PM, the accused came riding in a FIR NO- 151/03 3 motorcycle at a fast speed and hit her when she was present at the bus stop. Even in her crossexamination no contradiction could emerge out regarding this aspect of her testimony. From her unshaken deposition regarding the manner of commission of the collision, it is clearly established that the accused came on his motorcycle and hit this lady who was present at the bus stop and was stationery. The spot is also not disputed by the accused in crossexamination of the witness or in his statement u/s 311 Cr.PC. The victim has correctly identified the accused.
14. Now from the suggestion put to the victim during cross and also his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC it appears that the only defence sought to be taken by the accused is that a cow suddenly appeared infront of his motorcycle and therefore he struck against the victim. Infact in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC he has categorically stated that because of the sudden appearance of the cow his motorcycle struck against the victim who was present at the bus stand. Now to hit a woman sitting/standing at a bus stop clearly hints at the rash and negligent driving of the accused. To hit any stationary person on the road near a bus stand, is in itself an illustration of one's negligent driving. It is common knowledge that at a spot quite near to the bus stand lot of pedestrian are present waiting to board a bus in Delhi. The collision occurred at around 5.30 PM. During office hours on working days such bus stand are usually crowed in Delhi. In such circumstances it is expected from any prudent and reasonable driver that he must drive his vehicle at a manageable speed near such bus stand and must be careful not to hit against anyone sitting or standing there. Therefore, to hit the victim in view of the facts and manner discussed above establishes the rash or negligent driving of the accused.
FIR NO- 151/03 4
15. It is not the case of the accused that just before he hit the injured she had suddenly started moving on the road or herself appeared/jumped before the vehicle of the accused. She was merely present stationary at particular spot. Thus the act of hitting this victim itself establishes rash or negligent driving of the accused.
16. There is no merit in the defence that suddenly cows appeared infront of the offending vehicle. Now it is established from the testimony of PW2 as well as Ct. Netrapal that one cow was also injured in the incident however merely because the accused also hit against the cow it is not established that the incident did not occur due to his negligence. Even if the version of the accused is taken as correct for the sake of arguments, the accused must be driving his vehicle so rashly that he was unable to stop the same as and when anything suddenly appeared before it without colliding against anyone/anything. Now to say that as cow suddenly appeared he lost control of his vehicle and ended up hitting the cow as well as the injured does not absolve the accused of his liability. If anything , it establishes that the accused was driving his vehicle in such a manner that he was unable to control it when occasion arose for the same. To drive a vehicle in such a manner that it against cow as well as lady is nothing but an evidence of the rash manner in which vehicle was being driven. The one who undertakes to drive vehicles on Delhi roads can not be oblivious to the realities of the road of Delhi. Presence of cows on the road and presence of people near a bus stand are both common instances about which every motor vehicle driver is expected to be aware. One can not take shield beyond the fact that there is a cow on the road therefore he can not control his vehicle and caused injuries to someone who was merely standing/sitting at bus stop nearby. FIR NO- 151/03 5
17. Further it has not been established by the accused that indeed the incident occurred due to the sudden appearance of the cow. The victim who is only eye witness who has no reason to falsely implicate the accused has categorically denied in her crossexamination that the accident occurred due to the appearance of the cows on the road. She categorically states that the accused came and hit her. I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the injured duly given on oath. Thus it stands established That the accused was driving the offending vehicle (as per his own admission u/s 313 Cr.PC and suggestion put during crossexamination) That he was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner (as established from the discussion above) That while driving he hit against the injured That his hitting resulted in causing of grevious injuries to the injured (as established from the MLC duly proved)
18. Accordingly this court is of the opinion that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC.
19. Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced and dictated in (MONIKA SAROHA)
the open Court on 08.08.2011 M .M.05(South District) 08.08.2011
FIR NO- 151/03 6