Delhi District Court
State vs Hulasi Ram on 17 March, 2026
THE COURT OF SH. UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE v. HULASI RAM
FIR No. -: 41/2010
Police Station -: Madhu Vihar
Section(s) -: 279/304A IPC
Cr. Case No. -: 74556/2016
1. CIS number : DLSH020000452011
2. Name of the complainant : HC Rambeer
Belt No. 32/E
3. Name of the accused, : Hulasi Ram
parentage & residential S/o Sh. Sumeri Lal
address R/o Village-Shiv Puri, PS Siroli, Post
Khas, Tehsil Anwla, Bareilly U.P.
4. Offence complained of or : 279/304A IPC
proved
5. Date of commission of : 11.02.2010
offence
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
7. Final Judgment : Acquittal
8. Date of judgment/order : 17.03.2026
Date of Institution: 02.09.2011
Date of Reserving Judgment: 17.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: 17.03.2026
Duration: 14 years 6 months
15 days
Argued by: Sh. Kapil Sharma, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Udbhav Digitally
by Udbhav
Kumar Jain
signed
Kumar Date:
FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Jain 2026.03.17 Page no. 1 of 14
17:19:06 +0530
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 11.02.2010 a DD No. 4A was received by HC Rambeer regarding accident of a person found in unconscious state in front of Stand No. 116 in ISBT Anand Vihar, Delhi. Accordingly, FIR No. 41/2010 was registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi under sections 279/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC").
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of FIR, the investigating officer (hereinafter 'IO') conducted investigation, and 2 eyewitnesses namely Sh. Vijay and Sh. Pratap Singh were traced and their statements under section 161 CrPC were recorded. They apprised that the accident was caused by a driver of UP Roadways bus bearing registration number UP-25AT-1209 who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The person riding the said offending vehicle was traced and his name was revealed as Hulasi Ram. On culmination of the investigation, chargesheet against the present accused namely Hulasi Ram for the alleged commission of offences u/s 279/304A IPC was filed. Ld. Predecessor of this Court took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 25.08.2012. After taking cognizance of the offence, accused appeared before the Court and he was supplied the copy of documents relied upon in the charge sheet in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC").
3. Since prima facie offences against the accused were made out, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2014 framed notice against accused Hulasi Ram for the offence punishable u/s 279/304A IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed
FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Udbhav by Udbhav
Kumar Jain Page no. 2 of 14
Kumar Date:
2026.03.17
Jain 17:19:14
+0530
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:
ORAL EVIDENCE Prosecuti Name of witness Description on Witness No. PW1 Sh. Gyan Chand Eyewitness PW2 Sh. Vijay Kumar Eyewitness PW3 Sh. Ram Murti Eyewitness PW4 ASI Manoj Kumar Police witness PW5 Sh. Babu Khan Body identification witness PW6 Insp. Rajender Police witness Kumar PW7 ASI Mukesh Police witness Kumar PW8 HC Ashok Kumar Police witness OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Exhibit Description of Document The Witness Number who proved or attested the document Mark X Statement of PW-1. PW-1 Mark A Statement u/s 161 CrPC of PW-3 PW-3 Ex.PW5/A Identification statement of PW-5 dead body.
Ex.PW5/B Body handing over memo. PW-5
Ex.PW6/A Receipt/ parchi PW-6
Digitally signed
Udbhav by Udbhav
Kumar Jain
FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Kumar Date:
2026.03.17 Page no. 3 of 14
Jain 17:19:21
+0530
Ex.PW6/B Seizure memo of blood PW-6
sample
Ex.PW6/C Body identification memo PW-6
identified by Shamsher
Ex.PW6/D Body identification memo PW-6
identified by Moinuddin
Ex.PW6/E Seizure memo of blood PW-6
sample of accused
Ex.PW6/F Site plan. PW-6
Ex.PW6/G Notice u/s 133 M.V Act to PW-6
Depot. Manager Ruhail
Khan Depot
Ex.PW6/H Copy of entry register of PW-6
ISBT
Ex.PW8/A Acknowledgment of PW-8
acceptance of deposition of
one sealed parcel and one
sealed wooden box to FSL.
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
Ex.P1 FIR No. 41/2010
Ex.P2 DD No. 3 dated 11.02.2010
Ex.P3 PM report no. 53/10 dated
11.02.2010
Ex.P4 TIP Proceedings
5. Sh. Gyan Chand (PW-1) in his examination-in-chief deposed that he did not know anything about the present case and that nothing happened in his presence.
5.1. Since witness was resiling from his previous statement, Ld. APP for the State was allowed to cross-examine the witness. On his cross- examination, he deposed that he was enquired by the police about the present case, and his statement was recorded. It was confirmed by the Digitally signed by FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Udbhav Udbhav Jain Kumar Page no. 4 of 14 Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.03.17 17:19:27 +0530 witness that he was running a hotel at platform no. C, ISBT, Anand Vihar and that on 11.02.2010, at about 01:10 am, he was present at his hotel. Witness denied the suggestions that a young boy was standing at counter no. 116, ISBT Anand Vihar, or that the driver of the bus from Rohel Khand Depot, U.P., came there while driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner at a fast speed; that the driver hit the young boy with the bus, causing the boy to fall and be run over by the bus, resulting in multiple injuries to his head and face, from which blood started oozing; that the accused driver fled from the spot with the bus or that they had noted the incomplete registration number of the bus, which was UP-1209, or that he had seen the face of the driver. The attention of the witness was drawn to a statement marked 'X' and the witness was confronted with a portion from A to A, where it was recorded. The witness further denied the suggestions that on 28.09.2010, he was present at the hotel at about 05:45 pm and had seen the accused driver of the offending bus wandering at the platform; that he informed the IO about this fact or that the IO had reached there and that the witness had produced the accused to him; that the IO had told the witness that he had arrested the accused in the present case. The attention of the witness was drawn towards the statement marked 'XA,' and he was confronted with a portion from A to A where it was so recorded. The witness denied the suggestions that he was deposing falsely because he had compromised with the accused or had been won over by him. Attention of the witness was also drawn towards the accused, Hulasi Ram, who was present in court. The witness denied identifying him. The witness denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused because he had compromised with him to save him or had been won over by him. Witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Kumar Date:
Page no. 5 of 14 Jain 2026.03.17 17:19:33 +0530
6. Sh. Vijay Kumar (PW-2) in his examination-in-chief deposed that he had not provided any statement in the present matter. He mentioned that he was sitting in his shop when police officials arrived, asking for his name and mobile number. He was informed that he would be called when required. He clarified that he is not an eyewitness to the incident. Due to the proximity of his shop to the scene of the accident, he has been made a witness in this matter. He explained that the accident occurred behind his shop, and he only went to the spot after noticing a crowd gathering there.
6.1. Witness was questioned by this Court by virtue of section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872. When questioned he answered that he did not give any statement to the police official. The witness was also shown his previous statement marked as Y and after reading the same he stated that he did not give any such statement to the police official. He also answered that the statement marked as Y was not written in front of the witness.
7. Sh. Ram Murti (PW-3) in his examination-in-chief deposed that he has not given any statement in this case to the police at any point in time. The witness did not wish to say anything about this case.
7.1. Since witness was resiling from his previous statement, Ld. APP for the State was allowed to cross-examine the witness. On his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the police. He was confronted with his statement under Section 161 CrPC, marked as Mark-A. The witness confirmed that he was on duty on bus no. UP25AT1209 on 10/11.02.2010 however, the witness denied the suggestion that JSI Dhanish Prasad produced the witness and the driver, Hulasi Ram, along with the bus and the details of tickets for 10/11.02.2010 (confronted with statements from Point A to Al of Mark-A). Witness Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Kumar Date: Page no. 6 of 14 2026.03.17 Jain 17:19:40 +0530 further denied that the driver, Hulasi Ram, left the spot with the bus after the accident, and that he learned about the incident later (confronted with statements from Point B to B1 of Mark-A). Attention of the witness was directed towards the accused, Hulasi Ram, and the witness stated that no such incident was caused by him. The witness denied the suggestions that he was deliberately not identifying the accused, that he was deposing falsely due to being compromised or won over by the accused.
7.2. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, witness confirmed that he did not witness the incident or accident and that no one informed them about the accident. Additionally, the witness stated that he had not given any statement to the police.
8. ASI Manoj Kumar (PW-4) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 11.02.2010, he was posted as a constable at the Police Post, ISBT Anand Vihar, Delhi. On that day, he was present at the Police Post when IO/HC Ramvir called him to the spot, which was near counter no. 116, Platform, ISBT Anand Vihar, Delhi. He went to the spot, and IO/HC Ramvir handed him an application regarding the preservation of the deceased's body at LBS Hospital for 24 hours. He, along with the dead body, went to LBS Hospital and deposited the body there for preservation. Following this, IO recorded his statement. Witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
9. Babu Khan (PW-5) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 11.02.2010, the witness received information from a relative that their son, Yunus, had passed away in an accident. Upon receiving this information, the witness went to the mortuary of LBS Hospital, where he identified the body of his son. The identification statement was recorded by the police, Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Jain Kumar Date: Page no. 7 of 14 Jain 2026.03.17 17:19:47 +0530 exhibited as Ex.PW5/A, bearing the witness's signature at point A. After the post-mortem of the body, the police handed over the body of the witness's son via a body handling memo, exhibited as Ex.PW5/B, bearing the witness's signature at point A. Witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
10. Insp. Rajender Kumar (PW-6) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 11.02.2010, he was posted as Sub-Inspector (SI) at the CMVAI Cell, East District. On that day, he received DD No. 3 regarding a fatal accident near ISBT Anand Vihar. Upon receiving the said DD, he, along with Constable Chagan Lal, went to the spot where Head Constable (HC) Rambir from the police post Anand Vihar was already present. HC Rambir informed him about the accident at counter no. 116, ISBT Anand Vihar, and he saw the body of a boy lying near counter no. 116. The crime team was also present and took photographs of the spot. The deceased's body was later sent to LBS Hospital. An FIR in this case was registered, and further investigation was assigned to him. Later, HC Rambir informed the family members of the deceased with the help of the receipt/parchi, exhibited as Ex.PW6/A, recovered from the possession of the deceased. He then inquired about the accident from the shopkeepers present near the spot. Two eyewitnesses, Gyanchand and Pratap, provided him with the bus registration number, which was UP25AT1209. He collected a blood sample from the spot and seized it through a seizure memo exhibited as Ex.PW6/B. Subsequently, the deceased's relatives, Babu Khan and Shamsher, identified the body of the deceased through a body identification memo, marked as Ex.PW5/A, with his signature at point B. The identifications by Shamsher and Moinuddin were exhibited as Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D, both bearing his signature at point A. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted, and he seized the viscera and Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav Kumar Jain signed FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Kumar Date: Page no. 8 of 14 Jain 2026.03.17 17:19:59 +0530 blood samples of the deceased through a seizure memo exhibited as Ex.PW6/E, with his signature at point A. He then handed over the deceased's body as per the handling over memo, marked as Ex.PW5/B, with his signature at point. He recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Rambir, exhibited as Ex.PW6/F, with his signature at point A. He also issued a notice under section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act to Depot Manager Ruhail Khan regarding the bus no. UP25AT1209, exhibited as Ex.PW6/G, with his signature at point A. Afterward, he was transferred from the CMVAI Cell, East District, and handed over the case file to the MHC(R) of the CMVAI Cell.
10.1.On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, witness deposed that he received a copy of the entry register of ISBT, exhibited as Ex.PW6/H (spanning two pages). No CCTV cameras were installed at the spot. He reached the spot around 3:00 a.m. and met the eyewitnesses. Public people were moving near the spot, as it was a public place and bus stand. He did not receive any video clips regarding the accident from anyone. He denied the suggestion that he falsely mentioned the bus number, UP25AT1209, to falsely implicate the driver. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case and as a police witness.
11. ASI Mukesh Kumar (PW-7) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 24.02.2010, he was posted as a constable at the CMVAI Cell, East District. On that day, he joined the investigation of the case, and the Investigating Officer (IO) directed him to go to LBS Hospital to receive the post- mortem report of the deceased, Yunus. Thereafter, he went to LBS Hospital, collected the post-mortem report, and returned to the Accident Digitally signed FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain Page no. 9 of 14 Kumar Date:
2026.03.17 Jain 17:20:07 +0530 Cell at the CMVAI Cell, where he handed over the report to IO/SI Rejender Kumar. Subsequently, the IO recorded his statement. Witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
12. HC Ashok Kumar (PW-8) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 29.04.2010, he was posted as Constable in the CMVI Cell, East District.
On that day, he joined the investigation of the case. The Investigating Officer, ASI Anand Prakash, handed him one letter along with a sealed parcel and a sealed wooden box for deposition to the FSL, Rohini. He then, along with the sealed parcel and sealed wooden box, went to the FSL, Rohini, and deposited the items there. The acknowledgment of acceptance was exhibited as Ex.PW8/A (colly) (running on two pages), both bearing his signature at point A respectively. Witness was not cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
13. The whole case of prosecution was dependent on Gyan Chand PW-1, Vijay Kumar PW-2 and Ram Murti PW-3 as they were the material witness/ eyewitness in the present case who had seen the accident taking place. However, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 turned hostile to the case of prosecution on every aspect. The identity of accused and his presence on the spot in a criminal trial is of paramount importance and no person can be indicted for criminal liability unless his identity is established beyond any shadow of doubt. In the present case, since Gyan Chand PW-1, Vijay Kumar PW-2 and Ram Murti PW-3 have not supported the version of the prosecution, PW-4 to PW-8 were already examined and formal documents were admitted by virtue of section 294 CrPC, no fruitful purpose would have served to examine other witnesses as neither of them saw the alleged commission of offence and even if their testimonies were to be taken together, they will not establish the guilt of the accused.
Digitally signedUdbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Kumar Date: Page no. 10 of 14 2026.03.17 Jain 17:20:13 +0530
14. Prosecution evidence was closed on 03.12.2025 as recording of any further prosecution evidence in the present case would result into wastage of judicial time, money, resources and will also cause unnecessary burden upon the accused person. In this regard, reliance is placed upon a Division Bench Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Govind & Ors. vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104 (2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that: -
"...In cases where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak for there is no prospect of the case and again conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion of a future date."
15. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused. The present case pertains to an FIR of the year 2010 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused, would be tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P.Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its power available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right of speedy trial to the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
STATEMENT AND DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
16. Whatever incriminating evidence was brought forth by the prosecution were put to the accused and his statement u/s 313 CrPC was recorded on Digitally signed FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain Page no. 11 of 14 Kumar Date:
2026.03.17 Jain 17:20:19 +0530 28.01.2026. Although accused initially chose to lead evidence in his defence but thereafter gave statement to close DE. Accordingly, DE was closed on 12.02.2026.
ARGUMENTS
17. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material available on record.
POINT OF DETERMINATION
18. After going through the record and considering the material available on record, the only point of determination that is left is whether the prosecution can substantiate its case and prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt when the eyewitnesses/material witnesses have turned hostile.
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
19. The general burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a 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.
20. The material witnesses of the prosecution i.e., Gyan Chand PW-1, Vijay Kumar PW-2 and Ram Murti PW-3 turned hostile in the present case on every aspect including on the point of identity of accused. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses is not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in ombnibus"
is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
2026.03.17 FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Jain 17:20:26 +0530 Page no. 12 of 14 witness, it was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under: -
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof. "
21. Now, if the whole evidence available on record is sift through then it is evident that the whole case of prosecution was dependent on the testimony of eyewitnesses/ material witnesses Gyan Chand PW-1, Vijay Kumar PW- 2 and Ram Murti PW-3 who saw the accused committing the alleged offence. Neither presence of accused can be confirmed on the spot nor there is anything on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. There is not even a CCTV footage placed on record to prove the presence of accused on the spot. As such, even if all the other prosecution witness cited in the list of witnesses were to be examined, the case of the prosecution could not be proved.
22. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L. Goswami (Dr) v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 22 that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. The same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in Nanjundappa & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine SC 628. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offence as the eyewitness/material witness turned hostile. Thus, accused Hulasi Ram is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Digitally signedFIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain Page no. 13 of 14 Kumar Date:
2026.03.17 Jain 17:20:31 +0530 CONCLUSION
23. In view of the above discussion, the accused Hulasi Ram is hereby found not guilty. Accordingly, accused Hulasi Ram is hereby acquitted of the offences under section 279/304A IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court today i.e., 17.03.2026.
Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav Kumar Jain signed Kumar Date:
2026.03.17 Jain 17:20:39 +0530 (UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN) JMFC-04:SHD:KKD This judgment contains 13 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Page no. 14 of 14