Delhi District Court
Fir No. 335/2007, Ps : Kotwali State vs . Jaspal Singh on 22 December, 2018
FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh
IN THE COURT OF MM08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Jaspal Singh
FIR No. 335/2007
PS : Kotwali
U/S 279/304A IPC, Section 3/181 MV Act
Date of Institution : 20.02.2008
Date of reserving of order : 22.12.2018
Date of Judgment : Oral
CNR No. DLCT020003792008
J U D G M E N T
1. Serial No. of the case : 293332/16
2. Name of the Complainant : SI Arun Kumar
3. Date of incident : 23.07.2007
4. Name of accused person :
Jaspal Singh S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o WZ140A, Street No.7A, Old
Shahebpura, MBS Nagar, Tilak
Nagar, Delhi18
5. Offence for which chargesheet
was filed : 279/304A IPC
& Section 3/181/
196 M.V. Act.
6. Offence for which charge
has been framed : 279/304A IPC
Page 1 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18
FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh
7. Plea of accused : Not guilty
8. Final Order : Acquitted
9. Date of Judgment : 22.12.2018
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1.Mr. Jaspal Singh, the accused herein, has been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 279/304A, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and Section 3/181 MV Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.07.2007 at 10 :00 a.m. at Ring Road, Opposite CNC Crematorium, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kotwali, Delhi, accused was driving a TATA Indica Car bearing registration no. DL1Y8866 on a public way in rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. While driving the said vehicle in the aforesaid manner, the accused had hit against one person namely Shailender Prasad and caused his death. On the basis of information, present FIR was registered. The accused was having only non commercial driving license. After completion of investigation 'final report' was Page 2 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused was chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 279/304A, Indian Penal Code and Section 3/181 MV Act. A separate kalandara for the offence under Section 146/196 MV Act was filed against the owner of the offending vehicle as the vehicle was without insurance.
3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor and summons were issued to the accused. Accused appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, notice for the offence punishable under Section 279/304A, IPC was served upon the accused. It was read over to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The owner of the vehicle had pleaded guilty for the offence punishable under Section 146/196 MV Act and she was accordingly convicted. Accused Jaspal Singh has also already pleaded guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3/181 MV Act and he has already been convicted with fine for the said offence.
Page 3 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh
4. The prosecution has examined as many as witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW1 Abhishek Sachdeva is the eye witness. He has deposed that on 23.07.2007 at about 9:30 p.m, he was going to his Office on his bike bearing no. DL6SAA2626. When he reached near CNG Cremation ground, one old aged person (around 45 years) was trying to cross the road. He in order to save that man applied brakes of his bike due to which he himself fell down. In the meantime, he saw that one Indica Car bearing no.DL1LY8866 driven by accused came in fast speed and hit that man due to which that man came under the wheels of the said Indica car. He has further deposed that he alongwith other passersby taken out the injured from the wheels of Indica and put him on the footpath. PCR van came at the spot. Injured was taken to the Trauma Centre by the PCR van. He and accused parked their vehicles on the side. His one friend named Omvir reached at the spot who took him to Trauma Centre as blood was oozing out from his nose.
6. PW2 Ruchi Solanki is the owner of the vehicle. She has deposed that she was the registered owner of Page 4 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh vehicle bearing no. DL1Y8866. She sold the said vehicle to accused on 02.04.06 and handed over all documents to accused.
7. PW3 Sh. Prakash Chand is the official witness from Transport Department. He has produced the computerized attested copy of ownership and permit of vehicle bearing registration no. DLIY8866. He has produced authority letter issued by MLO in his favour for deposing in the Court, which is Ex.PW3/X. Documents are Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B.
8. PW4 HC Ved Prakash is the police official, who had joined the investigation of this case with IO/SI Arun Kumar. On 23.07.2007, he alongwith IO reached at ring road opposite CNG Crematorium, where one Tata Indica car No. DL1LY8866 and One motorcycle No. DL6SAA2626 were found in accidental condition. Accused also found at the spot as a driver of the Indica car. IO recorded his statement.
9. PW5 Retd. ASI Chandrika Ram is the PCR Official. He has deposed that on 23.07.2007, after receiving the call of an accident at ring road, opposite CNG Crematorium, he alongwith his staff immediately reached Page 5 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh at the aforesaid spot with PCR van. One Indica car and one motorcycle were found in accidental condition. He immediately shifted the Injured to Trauma Centre.
10. PW6 ASI Hari Singh is the second IO. On 01.08.2007, he alongwith Constable reached at Subzi Mandim Mortuary, where he had given application, which is Ex. PW6/A for postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased Shailender Prasad and after postmortem dead body was handed over to his relative.
11. PW7 ASI Naresh is the police official, who recorded the DD entry. He has deposed that on 23.07.2007, he recorded DD No. 12 & 13 PP, Yamuna Pusta. He has produced the DD register of the relevant period (OSR). The true copies of the DD entries are Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B.
12. PW8 ASI Pradeep Kumar is the DO. He has deposed that on 25.07.2014, at about 8:20 p.m., he received rukka from SI Arun Kumar for registration of FIR. On the basis of rukkka, he got recorded FIR No. 335/07, which is Ex. PW8/A. He produced the original FIR register (OSR). He made endorsement on rukka which is Page 6 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh Ex.PW8/B. He handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to SI Arun Kr for further investigation.
13. PW09 Sh. Uttam Singh is the Official from DHG. He has deposed that on the date of incident, he was going for his duty from PS : Kotwali to PP Yamuna Pusta. When he reached near CNG Pumb, he heard a noise of accident. He saw that one person was lying under one TATA Indica Car. Two persons who were riding on the motorcycle had also injured. Accused was also present at the spot as the driver of the TATA Indica Car. At his request, accused had moved his car in back direction and thereafter he had removed the said person from under the car with the help of public persons and put him on the pavement of the road. He has deposed that on 31.07.2007, IO had seized the offending car alongwith keys vide memo Ex. PW9/A and DL vide memo Ex. PW9/B. IO had seized the documents qua offending car vide memo Ex. PW9/C. IO arrested accused in his presence vide memo Ex. PW9/D. Accused were personally searched vide memo Ex. PW9/E.
14. PW10 Dr. Satyender Kumar, CMO, Lok Nayak Hospital has deposed that on 23.07.2007, he had Page 7 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh examined two patient one unknown and another Abhishek. He had prepared details MLCs which are Ex. PW 10/C and Ex. PW10/B.
15. PW11 Retd. ASI /Tech Devender Kumar is the Mechanical Inspector. He has deposed that on 02.08.2007 at request of SI Arun Kumar, PS : Kotwali, he had conducted the mechanical inspection of vehicle car TATA Indica bearing registration no. DL1Y8866 and given his detailed report which is Ex.PW11/A.
16. PW12 Dr. Sh. Virender Kumar has deposed that he had prepared the death certificate, which is Ex.PW12/A of unknown person who had expired on 25.07.2007 at 9:00p.m.
17. PW13 Inspector Arun Kumar is the first IO. He has deposed that on 23.07.2007, after receiving DD No. 12PP Yamuna Pusta, he alongwith Ct. Ved Prakash had reached at the spot i.e., main ring road, Opposite CNG Crematorium, where he found Tata Indica Car. No. 8866 and One Hero Honda CBZ bearing registration No.2626. Accused was present at the spot as driver of the offending car. He left Ct. Ved Prakash at the spot and he reached at the Shushurta Trauma Centre and found two persons Page 8 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh were found admitted there. He collected the MLCs of both the injured. They were unfit for giving the statements. The aforesaid DD was kept pending for obtaining the statements of injured persons. On 25.07.2007, he had prepared the rukka upon the aforesaid DD which is Ex.PW13/A and handed over to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. Meantime, he came to know that unknown person had died during the course of medical aid and DD No.27 was recorded in this regard. He had recorded the statement of DHG Ct. Uttam Singh. On 26.07.20007, one Rinku Bahadur was found nearby the spot who claimed himself as eye witness to the incident. He had recorded the statement of Rinku Bahadur. Site plan was prepared at his instance, which is Ex.PW13/B. On 27.07.2007, he had called one Abhishek Sachdeva, who claimed himself as another eye witness to the incident in question. Abhishek Sachdeva had also informed that he had also sustained some minor injuries at the time of incident in question. On 31.07.2007, accused was called by him at PP Yamuna Pushta. He had arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW9/D and Ex.PW9/E. DHG Ct. Uttam Singh was also present during Page 9 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh the investigation. He had seized the offending car bearing registration no. DL1Y8866 vide memo Ex. PW9/A. He had seized the of the accused DL vide memo Ex.PW9/B. He had seized the photocopies of the documents qua the aforesaid offending vehicle vide memo Ex.PW9/C. Later on deceased was identified by one Ajay and Moti Kumar. He had recorded his statement which is Ex.PW13/C and Ex. PW13/D. He has further deposed that on 01.08.2007, inquest papers qua the aforesaid deceased were prepared. He had recorded dead body identification statements of one Shri Madan Prashad and Abhimanyu Kumar vide memo Ex. PW 13/E and Ex. PW13/F. Thereafter, postmortem upon the dead body was conducted and it was handed over to its relative. Mechanical inspection of the vehicle was got conduced vide memo Ex. PW11/A. On 16.08.2007, notice under Section 133 of MV Act was given to registered owner vide memo Ex. PW13/G. He had recorded the statement of Ruchi Solanki. The offending car was not insured at the time of accident and kalandara under Section 146/196 MV Act was prepared against the registered owner. Challan was prepared and filed in the court.
Page 10 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh
18. PW14 Dr. B.K. Sharma had conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Shailender Prasad. He had given the opinion that all the injuries were antemortem in nature caused by blunt force impact possible in RTA. The death was due to Cranio Cerebral injuries. His detailed report is Ex. PW14/A and his opinion is point B to B1.
19. The witnesses were crossexamined. The prosecution evidence was closed. Accused was examined U/s 313 Cr PC r/w Section 281 Cr. PC. The accused denied the incriminating evidence. He would state that he was falsely implicated and that he was not driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner. The accident had been committed by PW1 himself and he was falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case. Police officials had called him the Police Station and took his signatures on some blank papers.
20. The accused did not lead defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
21. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The identity of the accused has been established beyond Page 11 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh reasonable doubts. All the ingredients of the offences have been proved by the prosecution. The eye witnesses have proved that due to rash or negligent act of the accused the accident had taken place which resulted in death of Shailender Prasad. Hence the guilt of the accused has been proved. Therefore, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
22. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. The accused has been falsely implicated. It was PW1 Abhishek Sachdeva who had caused the accident by his bike. He became a false witness to save himself. There is not even a single evidence on the Court file to prove the guilt of the accused. Reasonable doubts have been raised on the story of the prosecution and benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
23. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
Page 12 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh
24. In a criminal case the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts before the accused is asked to put his defence.
25. In the present case, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and Section 304 A IPC. Section 279, IPC prescribes punishment for rash or negligent driving or riding on a public way. To constitute an offence under Section 279, IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way and that he was driving it in rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or to be likely to be caused injury or hurt to any other person. It is no more res integra that the mere fact that an accident had taken place and some person had been injured can not lead to a conclusion of rash or negligent driving. The fact that it was the accused who was driving the vehicle in such a manner on a public way has also to be proved beyond reasonable doubts.
26. The offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC includes within its ambit the offence punishable under Section 279, IPC. Section 304A, IPC reads as under:
Page 13 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh "whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to the culpable homicide, shall be punished with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both".
27. In order to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case for an offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC, the prosecution is required to prove, beyond reasonable doubts, the following facts :
1. the identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle,
2. the accused was driving the offending vehicle at a public place;
3. the accused was driving the vehicle in such a manner so as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to some other person who might happen to be using the road or of doing substantial damages to the property;
4. in driving the vehicle in that manner the accused did so without having given any thought to the possibility of there being such risk or, having recognized that there was some Page 14 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh risk involved, had nonetheless gone on to take it,
5. the rash and negligent driving resulted into the death of the deceased which is not amounting to the culpable homicide, and
6. the rash or negligent act must be the proximate cause of injury of the injured.
28. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to discuss the meaning of the expressions "rash" and "negligent". These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment entitled "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1972 SC 685 as under :
"Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstance Page 15 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted... Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case."
29. In the matter entitled Niranjan Singh Vs State (Delhi Administration), 1997 Cri LJ 336, it has been observed that the main criteria for deciding whether the driving which lead to the accident was rash and negligent is not only speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard to the obligations of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a risk indifferent to harmful consequences resulting from it. In Mahammed Aynudin V. state of A. P., AIR 2000 SC 2511, it has been held:
"Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution for guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of the vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution".
30. Negligence is a tort as well as a crime and can be used for the purpose of fastening the defendant with the liability under a civil law and at times under the criminal law. To fasten the liability in a criminal law, the Page 16 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh degree of the negligence has to be higher than that of negligence to fasten the liability for damages in civil law.
31. In the present case, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A, IPC. The accused has taken the defence that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the relevant date, time and place. He was falsely implicated in the present case. Hence, the burden is on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubts that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the relevant date, time and place and that he was driving the same in rash or negligent manner. It is also required to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts that due to such rash or negligent driving the offending vehicle had hit the victim and that death of the victim was the result of the accident.
32. Now, the Court shall examine whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused was driving the offending vehicle and whether he was driving it in rash or negligent manner.
33. First, I shall take the issue whether the accused had been driving the offending vehicle on the relevant date, time and place.
Page 17 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh
34. In the present case, it is shown by the prosecution that the accused was in possession of the offending vehicle at the relevant time. PW2 Ruchi Solanki has deposed that she had sold the said car to accused Jaspal Singh. Further, PW4 HC Ved Prakash, PW9 Uttam Kumar and PW1 Abhishek have also deposed that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle on the relevant, date, time and place. Further, IO PW13 Inspector Arun Kumar has also deposed that when he reached at the spot the accused was present at the spot alongwith the offending vehicle. There is nothing on Court record to disbelieve the testimonies of these witnesses in relation to the fact that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, the identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle has been established beyond reasonable doubts. The testimonies of the above mentioned witnesses have also proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle at a public place.
35. In the present case, the prosecution has examined various witnesses. However, only PW1 Abhishek Sachdeva is the only witness who has deposed Page 18 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh that he had seen the accident. PW09 Uttam Kumar had not seen the accident. He has only deposed that he had heard noise of accident and thereafter he had reached at the spot. Other witness are either police officials who had participated in the investigation or the doctor who had examined the injured and conducted the postmortem of the deceased.
36. Perusal of the testimony of PW1 would show that his testimony is not able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner and that he had caused the accident while driving the vehicle in such manner.
37. PW1 has deposed, interalia, that when he reached near CNG Cremation ground, while driving his motorcycle, one old aged person was trying to cross the road. The witness has specifically stated that the said person was sometime moving ahead and sometime backwards to cross the road. To save the said man he had applied the brakes due to which he had fallen on the road alongwith his motorcycle. In the meantime, the offending vehicle had come and hit the said van due to which the Page 19 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh man had come under the wheels of the offending car. Thus, the testimony of PW1 itself proves beyond reasonable doubts that the person who was crossing the road was not walking properly on the road at the relevant time. His act of moving forward and backward was such a nature that no prudent driver of a vehicle could have understood whether the said person was going backward or forward. Further as per the testimony of PW1 himself, he had fallen on the road with his motorcycle. In such circumstances it is highly improbable that he would see the speed of the offending vehicle. Therefore, his testimony that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at high speed does not inspire confidence. There is nothing on Court record to suggest what was the speed of the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Also there is nothing on Court record to show as to what was the speed limit on the road where the accident had happened. There are no photographs on the record to show whether there were any skid marks of the tyres of the offending vehicle on the spot so as to lead to a conclusion that the offending vehicle was at a high speed.
Page 20 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh
38. The term high speed is a relative term and in all the cases it does not lead to conclusion automatically that a particular vehicle was being driven in rash or negligent manner. At a particular place a vehicle at a speed of even 30 Kms/hr can be considered as rash driving while on some highway where there is no traffic even the speed of 60 Kms/hrs can not be considered as rash driving. In any case, I am of the view that the testimony of PW 1 does not show that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle in any rash or negligent manner. The fact as deposed by PW1, in itself, does not lead to conclusion in all probabilities that the accused was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently.
39. There is nothing on Court record to show that there was any red light signal or any zebra crossing at the spot from where the deceased was crossing the road. Thus, it is shown that the victim had been crossing the road from a place which was not meant for crossing the said road. A driver of a vehicle can not anticipate presence of a person in the middle of a road where there is no traffic signal or Zebra crossing or any other signboard to inform the driver that the people might be crossing the road at the said spot.
Page 21 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh No rash or negligent act on the part of the accused has been proved on record beyond reasonable doubts.
40. Further the circumstances of the case as available on the record also indicate towards the innocence of the accused. PW1 has deposed that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle at high speed and hit the victim due to which the man came under the wheels of the car. PW9 has deposed that he had seen that one person was lying under Tata Indica Car and he was removed from there. As per the medical evidence available on record the deceased had suffered injuries caused by blunt force impact. Such an accident was not possible if the offending vehicle was at high speed. Had the offending vehicle been at high speed, the victim must have been thrown away due to the impact caused by the speeding car. In such situations, he could not have come under the wheels of the car. This fact itself shows that the offending vehicle was not at high speed.
41. After going through the material on record, I am of the opinion that the theory as put by the prosecution in relation to the accident in question can not be believed completely. There are chances, as suggested by Ld. Page 22 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh Defence counsel, that the accident was actually caused by the motorcycle of PW1 Abhishek and due to the said impact the victim had also fallen on the road, and in the meantime, the car of the accused had also come there and the victim came under the offending car. It is settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court. It is settled proposition of law that burden is on the prosecution to prove as to how the accused was rash or negligent in driving the offending vehicle. I get strength from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supereme Court of India in Mahadeo Hari Lokre vs The State Of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 221. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "4. It must be said that there is really no good evidence on the side of the prosecution to show how exactly the accident took place..... If a person suddenly crosses the road the Bus Driver, however slowly may be driving may not be in a position to save the accident. Therefore, it will not be possible to hold that the Bus Driver was negligent."
42. In the present case also it cannot be presumed that the accused must have been driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner only because one person had Page 23 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh met with an accident with it on a busy road while crossing it from a place where there was no zebra crossing or any traffic signal.
43. In view of the discussion hereinabove, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to other person. Hence, ingredients of offence punishable under Section 279, IPC are not proved beyond reasonable doubts.
44. Once it is not proved that the accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner, it also remained not proved that any rash or negligent act of the accused had caused death of Shailender Prasad, the deceased, not amounting to culpable homicide. To impose criminal liability on the accused for an offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must have been the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another negligence. It must have been the causa causans; it Page 24 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18 FIR No. 335/2007, PS : Kotwali State Vs. Jaspal Singh is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non.
45. In the light of discussion hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish that death was occasioned by either rash and/or negligent driving of the vehicle or any negligent act of accused. Therefore, benefit of doubts is given to the accused as per law. He is acquitted of the offences alleged.
46. The accused has already furnished bond under Section 437A, with one surety along with photographs and copies of address proof.
Pronounced in the open Court on (Dinesh Kumar) this 22nd day of December 2018. MM08 (Central) Tis Hazari Court Delhi.
Page 25 of 25 MM08 (C)/THC/Delhi/22.12.18