Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohan Vashisht on 7 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV KATARIYA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 522/2014
U/s 279/304A IPC & 134/187, 3/181 MV Act
PS: Swaroop Nagar
State vs. Mohan Vashisht
Date of Institution of case: 15.05.2015
Date of Judgment reserved:07.09.2022
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 07.09.2022
JUDGMENT
CIS Number : 5291377/2016
Date of Commission : 20.10.2014
of offence
Name of the : HC Kamaljeet Singh
complainant
Name of the accused : Mohan Vashisht S/o Kailash Chand
Vashisht
Offence complained : 279/304A IPC & 134/187, 3/181 MV Act
of
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Date of order : 07.09.2022
Final Order : Acquitted
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 1 of 21
State Vs. Mohan Vashisht
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Accused is facing trial for the offences u/s 279/304A IPC. The genesis of prosecution story is that on 20.10.2014, at about 08:30 am, at Amrit Vihar Bus Hand, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Swaroop Nagar, accused was found driving vehicle bearing No. DL8SBK9909, in a manner so rash and negligent, so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the above said vehicle in above said manner, accused hit against Suraj Pal and thereby, accused caused death of Suraj Pal (not amounting to culpable homicide). According to prosecution, accused committed offences punishable under Section 279/304A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. On the same date and time, accused ran away from the spot and accused did not take reasonable steps to secure medical attention to the injured and the accused was driving the above mentioned vehicle without driving license. According to Prosecution, accused committed offences u/s 134/187 MV Act and 3/181 MV Act. Thereafter, upon investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the accused. Investigation
3. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred as Cr.PC. for brevity]. The accused was arrested. Relevant record was collected. The final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., was prepared against the above named accused and challan was presented in the Court.
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 2 of 214. The cognizance of the alleged offences was accordingly taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court and after procuring the presence of accused through instrumentality of Court, he was admitted on bail, the offences being bailable in nature and after supplying the copy of chargesheet and documents to accused, provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. were also complied with.
5. On finding the sufficient grounds to proceed against accused for offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC & 134/187, 3/181 MV Act, the notice of accusation was served upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined ( 15 ) fifteen witnesses in all.
6. PW1 is Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Rajpal Sharma R/o C32, Gali No. 2, Kadipur, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. He deposed that in October 2014, Police Officials informed him that his scooty was involved in accident. Police Officials came at his house and served him a notice u/s 133 MV Act. He gave reply to the notice and his reply is Ex. PW 1/A bearing his signatures at Point A. On the day of accident, his scooty bearing registration No. DL8SBK9909 was driven by accused Mohan Vashisht.
Further, he got released his scooty bearing registration No. DL 8SBK9909 on Superdari vide Superdarinama Ex. PW 1/A bearing his signatures at Point A. This witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State. This witness was also crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 3 of 217. PW2 is Rajdeen S/o Sh. Ram Ashare R/o H. No. 18, Gali No. 18, Kaushik Enclave, Delhi. He deposed that in the year of 2014, when he was coming towards his house after purchasing milk, one boy namely Gambir met him and told him that one accident occurred in his gali. Thereafter, he alongwith Gambir went to the house of the person who met with an accident. Thereafter, he went to his house.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State. This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
8. PW3 is Rahul Kumar S/o Sh. Aman Kumar R/o H. No. 180, Gali No. 05, Uttrakhand Enclave Nathu Pura, Burari, Delhi. He deposed that on 20.10.2014, he was going towards Azadpur Mandi as he was a juice vendor in that area. He was waiting for the bus at the accidental spot from 08:30 am to 09:00 am in the morning. On that morning, a scooty of white colour of which he did not remember the registration number exactly but did remember that the scooty was of Delhi. The scooty was proceeding towards Amrit Vihar from Nathupura. The above mentioned scooty was being driven at a very high speed upon which it hit an elderly man and because of th accident, crowd gathered there. At this point, somebody from the public made a PCR call and therefore, PCR came at the spot and shifted the injured to the hospital.
Further, police was not able to record his statement that day as he was in hurry. His statement was recorded on 29.10.2014. The witness failed to identify the accused as it has been a long time.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 4 of 219. PW4 is Sh. Amar Singh Arya S/o Sh. Baljor Singh Arya, R/o H. No. 8, Gali No. 18, Kaushik Enclave Burari, Delhi. He deposed that on 11.11.2015, he went to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital with the son of the deceased and identified the dead body of Suraj Pal vide identification memo Ex. PW 4/A bearing my signatures at Point A. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
10. PW5 is Raju S/o Lt. Sh. Surajpal R/o H. No. 64, Gali No. 17, Kaushik Enclave, Burari, Delhi. He deposed that on 11.11.2015, he went to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital with Amar Singh Arya and identified the dead body of his father Suraj Pal vide identification memo Ex. PW 5/A bearing his signature at Point A. After postmortem, the dead body of his father was handed over to him vide handing over memo which is exhibited as Ex. PW 5/B bearing his signatures at Point A. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
11. PW 6 is Ex. ASI/Tech Devender Kumar S/o Sh. Umrao singh R/o 1623, Jain Nagar, Kanjhawla Road, Delhi. He deposed that on 03.11.2014, on the request of HC Kamaljeet Singh, he conducted mechanical inspection of one vehicle i.e. Honda Aviator Scooty No. DL8SBK9909. The mechanical inspection in this regard is Ex. PW 6/A bearing his signatures at Point A. In his report, the said vehicle was fit for road test.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 5 of 2112. PW7 is Ct. Deepak, No. 1600/NW, PS Jahangir Puri, Delhi. He deposed, that on 29.10.2014, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as Constable. On that day, he alongwith IO HC Kanwaljeet Singh reached at Gali No. 2, Swaroop Nagar, whereupon he met the owner Sh. Anil Kumar of the scooty vehicle bearing registration No. DL8SBK9909. He served one notice u/s 133 MV Act to owner of said vehicle.
Further, owner of the scooty had informed them that he owned the scooty but on the date of accident, it was being driven by his nephew Mohan Vashisht. Anil Kumar also presented them the documents of the said scooty. Thereafter, IO had seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW 7/A bearing his signature at Point A. IO also seized the RC and insurance of the offending vehicle vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW 7/B bearing his signature at Point A. Further, they went to the house of the accused and thereafter, they took him to the accidental spot i.e. Opposite Amrit Vihar near Bus Stand where accused explained them how the accident happened. Thereafter, they met one Rahul Kumar who identified the accused and informed them that he had caused the accident on that day. Thereafter, accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos is Ex. PW 7/C and Ex. PW 7/D bearing his signatures at Point A. IO recorded his statement in this regard.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
13. PW8 is Ct. Bikash Pradhan, No. 1332/NW, PS Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. He deposed, that on 20.10.2014, he was posted at PS Adarsh Nagar as FIR No. 522/2014 Page 6 of 21 State Vs. Mohan Vashisht Constable. On that day, upon receiving DD No. 8A at about 08:29 am regarding an accident, he alongwith IO headed towards the spot i.e. Amrit Vihar bus Stand. Upon reaching the spot, they found that the injured had already been shifted to BJRM Hospital by the PCR Officials and upon not finding any eyewitness at the spot, IO left him behind to guard the spot and went towards BJRM Hospital. Thereafter, IO came back at the spot and prepared one tehrir and the same was handed over to him at about 11:10 pm for registration of FIR. He went to PS and got registered the FIR. After registration of FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO. IO recorded his statement in this regard.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
14. PW9 is Retd. SI Satpal Singh S/o Lt. Sh. Jai Singh R/o Village Post Bindhal, Tehsil Gohana, Sonipat, Haryana. He deposed, that on 11.11.2014, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as SubInspector. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 22B, he alongwith Ct. Kamaljeet and Ct. Sunil had taken the body of deceased Suraj Pal to BJRM mortuary and completed the necessary formalities for postmortem and thereafter, the postmortem of the deceased was conducted. He had also prepared body identification memo on the same day which were already exhibited as Ex. PW 4/A and Ex. PW 5/A both bearing his signatures at Point B. After postmortem, he handed over the body of deceased to his relative vide body handing over memo which was already Ex. PW 5/B bearing his signatures at Point B. Thereafter, he handed over all the necessary documents to MHC(R). IO recorded his statement in this regard.
This witness was examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 7 of 2115. PW10 is W/Ct. Priyanka, No. 1694/NW, ACP Office, Model Town, Delhi. She deposed that on 11.11.2014, she was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as DD Writer. On that day, she received a telephonic information regarding the treatment, discharge and death of the injured. The said information was recorded by her vide DD No. 22B in the Rojnamcha. The copy of the said DD is Ex. PW 10/A (OSR) bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, she handed over the same to HC Kamaljeet for further handing over it to the IO.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Defense Counsel.
16. PW11 is ASI Ramesh Kumar Yadav, 11821/PCR, PCR North West, Delhi. He deposed that on 20.10.2014, he was posted at PCR, North West Zone. On that day, he was working as Incharge of PCR Van Commander C 61 from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM alongwith Ct. Dinesh and Ct. Raj Singh. On that day, he received a call through the control room regarding the accident at Amrit Vihar, Bus Stand, Burari, Delhi. They reached at the said place where he saw that the injured Suraj Pal S/o Sh. Ram Chander was in unconscious condition. He took the injured to the Hospital in his PCR Van and got him admitted at BJRM Hospital by the help of Duty Constable. Thereafter, he left the hospital for his regular duty.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
17. PW 12 is HC Umesh, No. 115/NW, District Line, North West District. He deposed that on 20.10.2014, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as Head Constable. On that day, he was working as Duty Officer from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. At about 11:35 PM, Ct. Vikas handed over original rukka to him, which was sent by HC Kamaljeet. On the basis of the said rukka, he FIR No. 522/2014 Page 8 of 21 State Vs. Mohan Vashisht registered the FIR in the present case. Copy of the said FIR is Ex. PW 12/A (OSR) bearing his signatures at Point A. He also made endorsement on rukka is Ex. PW 12/B bearing his signatures at Point A. After registration of the case, he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Vikas for handing over the same to IO/HC Kamaljeet.
Further, he had also brought the Roznamcha register of the PS Swaroop Nagar on the day of examination. Witness submitted that DD No. 8 A dated 20.10.2014 was recorded by the Duty Officer. The relevant Entry regarding the same is there on page No. 059 Book No. 11417. The said DD Entry is Ex. PW 12/C (OSR). As per the record, the same was written by HC Om Prakash.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
18. PW13 is HC Anil, No. 111136/PCR, PS Swaroop Nagar. He deposed that on 11.11.2014, he was posted as Constable at PS Swaroop Nagar. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present case and he alongwith IO/ASI Satpal went to the house of deceased namely Suraj Pal and from there, the dead body of deceased was shifted to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital where post mortem of the deceased was conducted. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to the relatives of deceased.
This witness was examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
19. PW - 14 is ASI Kamaljeet, No. 326, Vigilance. He deposed that on 20.10.2014, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as Head Constable. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 8A already exhibited as Ex. PW 12/C regarding accident, he alongwith Ct. Bikash went to the spot i.e. Amrit Vihar Bus Stand, FIR No. 522/2014 Page 9 of 21 State Vs. Mohan Vashisht Delhi, where they came to know that the injured was shifted to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. After that, he left Ct. Bikas at the spot and he went to BJRM Hospital. In BJRM Hospital, concerned Doctors told him that injured had left the hospital on its own and without giving any information to the concerned Doctors. He collected the MLC of injured Suraj Pal from the concerned Doctors of BJRM Hospital. Address of the injured Suraj Pal was mentioned on his MLC vide MLC No. 87163.
Further, he went to the house of injured Suraj Pal, as per the address mentioned on the MLC. Neighbours of injured informed him that the family members of injured Suraj Pal had taken him to BLK Memorial Hospital, Pusa Road, New Delhi. After that, he went to the BLK Hospital, where injured Suraj Pal was found admitted and was under treatment. The concerned Doctor of BLK Memorial Hospital declared the injured Suraj Pal unfit for giving statement. He tried to search the eyewitness of the incident in the BJRM Hospital as well as in BLK Memorial Hospital but eyewitness of the incident was not found. Eyewitness of the incident was also not found at the spot.
Further, he prepared rukka on the basis of DD No. 8 A. Rukka is exhibited as Ex. PW 14/A bearing his signatures at Point A and handed over the same to Ct. Bikas for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Bikas came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him.
He further deposed that on 25.10.2014, eyewitness of the incident namely Rajdeen met with him and eyewitness Rajdeen told him that he had seen the accident. Eyewitness further told him that, on the said day of incident, he had noted the registration Number of the offending vehicle i.e. FIR No. 522/2014 Page 10 of 21 State Vs. Mohan Vashisht Scooty bearing registration No. DL8SBK9909. Eyewitness Rajdeen told him that the registration number which was noted by him on the said day of incident was handed over to the son of deceased.
He further deposed that on 25.10.2014, he recorded statement of eye witness Rajdeen u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He obtained details of registered owner of above mentioned scooty from the RTO Department, Wajirpur, Delhi by submitting the registration No. of Scooty. As per the transport record, Anil S/o Sh. Raj Pal Sharma was found registered owner of the above mentioned scooty i.e. Offending Vehicle. On 29.10.2014, he served notice u/s 133 MV Act to the registered owner i.e. Sh. Anil Kumar of the offending vehicle and the notice is exhibited as Ex. PW 14/B bearing his signature at Point A. Further, Anil Kumar gave reply of the notice u/s 133 MV Act. His reply was already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A. In the reply of the notice, Anil Kumar informed him that at the time of accident, accused Mohan Vashisht was driving his scooty. On the same day i.e. 29.10.2014, Anil Kumar produced the accused Mohan Vashisht and stated that he was driving offending vehicle at the time of accident. After that, he alongwith Ct. Deepak and accused Mohan Vashisht came to Amrit Vihar Bus Stop. At the spot, accused Mohan Vashisht was arrested on the identification of another eyewitness namely Rahul Kumar. Accused Mohit Vashisht was arrested and personally searched vide memos already exhibited as Ex. PW 7/C and Ex. PW 7/D both bearing his signatures at Point D. He recorded the statement of Rahul Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He seized the above mentioned scooty bearing No. DL8SBK9909 vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex. PW 7/A bearing his signatures at Point B. He FIR No. 522/2014 Page 11 of 21 State Vs. Mohan Vashisht seized RC and Insurance of the scooty which was already exhibited as Ex. PW 14/C bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that on 03.11.2014, he received mechanical inspection report of the above mentioned scooty from Mechanical Inspector. Mechanical Inspector Report is already exhibited as Ex. PW 6/A bearing his signatures at Point B. Accused was released on Police Bail. He recorded statement of witnesses. On 11.11.2014, injured Suraj Pal died. He shifted the dead body of the deceased in Mortuary of BJRM Hospital for Postmortem. Post Mortem of the body of the deceased conducted in the BJRM Hospital on the request of IO SI Satpal. After postmortem, dead body of the deceased was handed over to Raju vide handing over memo exhibited as Ex. PW 5/B. He submitted the case file to MHC(R) according to the direction of concerned SHO.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
20. PW - 15 is SI Vishnu Singh, No. 1912, 1 st Batallion, DAP, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. He deposed that on 17.11.2014, he was posted at MACT Cell, North West, as ASI. On that day, he received this case file for further investigation. He collected PM Report of deceased Suraj Pal from the concerned Doctor of BJRM Hospital. He served notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to the accused Mohan Vashisht to produce his driving license but he could not produce the same. Notice was exhibited as Ex. PW 15/A bearing his signatures at Point A. He added section 3/181 Act in the chargesheet as accused could not produce valid Driving License.
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 12 of 21State Vs. Mohan Vashisht He further deposed that he also served notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to the registered owner of offending vehicle Anil Kumar Sharma to explain why he handed over the above mentioned scooty to the accused, as accused was not having a valid licence. He prepared a kalandara u/s 5/180 MV Act against the registered owner Anil Kumar. He released the offending Vehicle on Superdari and he prepared punchnama of the offending vehicle already exhibited as Ex. PW 15/B bearing his signatures at Point B. He recorded statement of Anil Kumar and IC Van InCharge Ramesh Kumar and Rahul, Rajdeen u/s 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, he prepared chargesheet and filed the same in the court of trial.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
21. The accused admitted certain the documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C and the examination of formal witnesses qua such documents was dispensed with. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed 08.04.2022. Pursuant thereto, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances, were put to the accused. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence.
22. I have heard the rival contentions of Ld. APP for the State and also of the Ld. Defence Counsel.
23. Ld. APP for State has contended that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place, the accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or public safety of others and due to his act of rash or negligent FIR No. 522/2014 Page 13 of 21 State Vs. Mohan Vashisht driving, he caused the alleged accident which has resulted into death of Suraj Pal and hence, the accused deserves to be convicted for the offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC & 134/187, 3/181 MV Act.
24. Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no iota of evidence to establish the fact that the accused was driving the vehicle in question on the given date, time and place. It is further contended that none of the alleged eye witnesses have identified the accused as the driver of the alleged vehicle and there is no other evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime or to establish rash or negligent act on his part, therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
25. The allegations against the accused are that on 20.10.2014 at around 08:30 am at Amrit Vihar Bus Stand, Delhi, the accused was driving a scooty bearing no. DL 8SBK 9909 without a driving license and dashed his vehicle into an unknown person (later identified as deceased Suraj Pal) and also did not take reasonable steps to secure medical attention to the injured. It is also in allegations that the accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner leading to the accident in question, in which victim Suraj Pal lost his life.
26. As stated earlier, that in order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses in all.
27. Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to discuss the essential ingredients of offences u/s 279/304A IPC and the position of law on the subject.
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 14 of 2128. It is a settled law that Section 279 IPC punishes the act of a person driving or riding a vehicle on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to the likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Section 304 A IPC punishes the act of causing death (not amounting to culpable homicide) of a person by doing a rash or negligent act. In order to establish the liability of a person for these offences, it is necessary to establish the following facts:
(i) That the person accused of the offence was driving the vehicle on a public way at a relevant time when the accident ensued.
(ii) That the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused person.
(iii) That the rash or negligent driving of the vehicle was done in a way so as to endanger human life or public safety or other.
(iv) That due to rash or negligent driving of the vehicle, death of another person is caused subject of course to the condition that such act of causing death was not amounting to culpable homicide.
29. If the conditions mentioned in point no. (i) to (iii) are satisfied, then the accused can be held liable for offence u/s 279 IPC. Whereas, the conditions mentioned in point no. (i) to (iii) and (iv) are satisfied, then the accused can also be held liable for offence u/s 304A IPC along with Section 279 IPC.
30. In the case of "Abdul Subhan Vs. State" (NCT of Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while discussing the ingredients of Section 279/304A IPC observed that;
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 15 of 21State Vs. Mohan Vashisht "As observed is Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely cause hurt or injury to any person. As regards the offence punishable u/s 304A IPC, it was observed that the act of the accused was responsible for death and that such act of the accused must have been rash and negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra) to establish an offence either u/s 279 IPC or Section 304A IPC, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved.
31. The above mentioned judgment sufficiently enlightens us that for establishing accusation u/s 279/304A IPC prosecution is not only required to establish that the accused was rash or negligent while driving the vehicle, but it is additionally incumbent on the prosecution to establish that the causa causans death of deceased was the act of accused. Further, what would constitute a rash and negligent act has been described by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of Andra Pradesh" decided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 16 of 21State Vs. Mohan Vashisht A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act till rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution.
32. Having discussed the position of law on the subject, now let us advert ourselves to the merits of the present case.
33. PW 1 has deposed that he does not know who was riding his scooty on the day of accident. He has further clearly deposed in his cross examination by Ld. APP for the state that he was threatened by the Police Official to sign the notice u/s 133 MV Act. Even, after contradicting from the examination in chief, the witness deposed the same that the accused Mohan Vashisht was not riding the scooty. This clearly shows that prosecution could not shake statements deposed by witness and neither could prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 17 of 2134. Now, if we look at the statement of PW 2 Rajdeen which is supposedly eye witness of the accident as per the story of prosecution, he has clearly stated that he cannot say whether any accident took place on 20.10.2014. He has further deposed that replying to the suggestion given by Ld. APP for the State that, it is wrong to suggest that driver of the scooty i.e. accused Mohan Vashist was driving scooty. He has further deposed he cannot identify the offending vehicle. Now, again here, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.
35. Also, it is interesting to see that the PW 3 Rahul Kumar who was the star witness of the case and had seen the accident. He has deposed in his statement that he does not remember the registration number. He has further deposed that police was not able to record his statement, albeit, only after 9 days of incident, police recorded the statement of PW 3. Now, this creates a doubt on investigating agency and the delay of 9 days has remained inexplicable, reason best known to the prosecution. Further, he clearly could not identify the accused, which is severe dent on prosecution narrative.
36. On perusal of record, the strange fact has been observed that in the statement of PW 4 and PW 5, both the witnesses has deposed that they went to identify the body of the deceased Suraj Pal in the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital on 11.11.2015, however the date of the accident is 20.10.2014 and the date of Post Mortem Report is 11.11.2014. This is a big anomaly which has not been questioned or addressed by the prosecution and it is a major dent on prosecution story as the body of the deceased person cannot be kept in mortuary for more than 01 year.
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 18 of 2137. Even, if we go by the version of prosecution story, PW 7 Ct. Deepak has clearly deposed that Police went to accidental spot with accused whereupon they met one Rahul Kumar i.e. PW 3 and PW 3 identified the accused. However, PW 3 has clearly failed to identify the accused. So, the story of prosecution becomes crippled here and doesn't stand on its own leg.
38. Also, if we are to believe the story of prosecution where in PW 14, he has deposed that they could not find any eye witness of incident on the spot on the fateful day. However, PW 14 has further deposed that on 25.10.2014, eye witness Rajdeen met with them and told him that Rajdeen had seen accident. He has further stated that eye witness Rajdeen had told him that he had noted the registration Number of offending vehicle on a white paper and slip of registration Number was handed over to son of deceased. Here again, prosecution has fallen badly to crystalise that how eye witness had met the investigating agency. But, on perusal of statement of son of the victim i.e. PW 5 Raju, no where prosecution has asked about the slip which he supposedly received from eye witness Rajdeen. It is absured and stupified that prosecution has not given even a suggestion about it.
39. In the light of discussion made above, it clearly emerges that the prosecution was duty bound to establish the fact that the accused Mohan Vashisht was driving the alleged offending vehicle on the given date, time and place as a very first ingredient to constitute the alleged offences and it is only after the successful proof of the identity of accused as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle, the occasion to delve into the existence of rash or negligent act on his part, would arrive. The testimony of PW 3 i.e. Rahul Kumar who is the star prosecution witness does not establish the identity of accused Mohan Vashisht as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle.
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 19 of 2140. No doubt wrong acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of the innocent man. The consequences of conviction of innocent men are far more serious and its reverberation would be felt by an innocent all his life in a civilized society, therefore, it is the duty of the court to avoid any wrongful conviction and to grant benefit of doubt where ever the need arises. If two views are possible, one favouring the accused and the other against him, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and in the instant case, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt.
41. At this stage, court further deems it fit to state, that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, that culpability cannot be established on surmises and conjectures but it should rest on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence, dispelling every doubt and bulwarking the fact that in all possibility, the offence must have been committed by the accused. In the present case it is pellucid, that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes as there are numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses is found.
42. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion it is pellucid, that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes and there are numerous inconsistencies in the testimonies. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Mohan Vashisht stands acquitted from the charges U/s. 279/304A IPC & 134/187, 3/181 MV Act.
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 20 of 2143. Previous Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged. Endorsement if any, be cancelled and documents if any, be returned, against acknowledgment after due verification.
44. File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance. Bail bond u/s 437A Cr.P.C. furnished and accepted.
45. This Judgment consists of 21 pages and all pages bear my signature.
Announced and dictated directly into the computer in open court on 07th Day of September, 2022.
(Gaurav Katariya) MM07/North District Rohini Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 522/2014 Page 21 of 21