Delhi District Court
State vs Jitender Kumar on 10 September, 2025
In the Court of Ms. Isra Zaidi: JMFC-04, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Jitender Kumar
FIR No. 24/2008
U/sec. 279/338 IPC
PS: Khajuri Khas
Date of institution of the case: 18/10/2008
Date for final arguments: 10/9/2025
Date on which judgment is delivered: 10/9/2025
CNR No.DLNE-02-000327-2008
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 466079/2015
b) Date of commission of the offence : 25.01.2008
c) Name of the complainant : Umesh Chandra Rai
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : Jitender Kumar
S/o Sh. Harcharan Singh
e) Offence complained of : Section 279/338 IPC, 3/181 &
146/196 M.V. Act
f) Offence charged of : Section 279/338 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 10/09/2025
Brief facts of the case
1. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint are that on 25/01/2008 at about 09:00 pm at Khajuri Pusta Road, Near A Block, Khajuri Khas, FIR No.24/2008 1/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.09.10 15:39:10 +0800 Delhi, accused was found driving a TSR bearing no. UP 14X 9586 in a rash and negligent manner and he hit against a two wheeler scooter bearing No. DL 3S AE 1938 and caused grievous injury to complainant Umesh Chandra Rai. Thereafter, an FIR against one Jitender Kumar (hereinafter, referred to as the accused) was registered under section 279/338 IPC.
Court Proceedings
2. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 279/338 IPC, Act was filed before the court against the accused. The then Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 18.10.2008 and accused was summoned to face the trial. On his appearance in the Court, copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to him as per norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.11.2010, notice under sections 279/338 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
Prosecution Witnesses S. No. Witness number Name of the witness
1. PW1 Umesh Chandra Rai
2. PW2 ASI Brij Pal
3. PW3 Khachera Ram
4. PW4 Retd. SI M.L. Dhyani
5. PW5 Retd. SI Rajender Singh FIR No.24/2008 2/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2025.09.10 ZAIDI 15:39:20 +0800 Documents relied upon by the prosecution S. No. Ex./Mark Nature of documents
1. P1 DD No.28A dated 25/1/08 2 P2 FIR No.22/2008
3. P3 DD No.24A dated 25/1/08
4. P4 MLC of Umesh Chand
5. P5 X-ray report
6. P6 RC of vehicle no.UP-14X-9586 Statement of the Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C
4. The accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C examined on 17.07.2025. The accused stated that he was not present at the place of incident. He further stated that no accident had occurred from his vehicle and police officials have falsely implicated him in the present case.
Evidence of the Defence
5. No defence evidence was led by the accused despite granting him an opportunity.
Final Arguments
6. The court heard final arguments on behalf of both the parties on 10/09/2025. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the case against the accused is false and frivolous and has prayed that accused be acquitted of the offence charged. He pointed out various discrepancies in the versions of the prosecution witness. Learned APP for the state submitted that accused be convicted of the offences under the above- mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused.
FIR No.24/2008 3/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.09.10 15:39:28 +0800
This court has heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
7. In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC beyond reasonable doubt:
Section 279 IPC:-
"Section 279 IPC provide that "whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both".
Section 338 IPC:-
"Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.".
8. Section 279 IPC makes rash driving or riding on a public way so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person an offence. 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. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil FIR No.24/2008 4/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2025.09.10 ZAIDI 15:39:36 +0800 consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. The question whether conduct of the accused amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
9. Relevantly, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is observed that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC inter alia are that there must be,"rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person."
10. Section 279 IPC makes rash driving or riding on a public way so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person an offence. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. The question whether conduct of the accused amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused. Relevantly, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is observed that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC inter alia are that there must be,"rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any FIR No.24/2008 5/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.09.10 15:39:44 +0800 person."
11. In order to prove the ingredients of section 338 IPC, it is to be proved that accused caused grievous hurt by doing an act in a rash and negligent manner and consequently endangered the safety of the complainant. In order to prove the ingredients of section 338 IPC, it is to be proved that accused caused grievous hurt by doing an act in a rash and negligent manner and consequently endangered the safety of the complainant.
Points for determination The following points arise for consideration:
1. Whether the accused was driving the TSR at the relevant date and time?
2. Whether the accused drove the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner?
3. Whether the accused caused grievous hurt to the complainant by such act?
4. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?
12. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond 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.
13. PW1 deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 25-01-2008, he was going to his house by his own scooter bearing no. DL 3S AE-1938 when at about 9:00 pm, he reached at Khajoori opposite to PS Khajoori Khas; in the meantime, one TSR bearing no. UP 14X-9586 came there at a very high speed from the front side and struck to his scooter due to which, he along with scooter felt down on the road.
FIR No.24/2008 6/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.09.10 15:39:56 +0800
14. He further deposed that public persons taken him aside and police taken him to GTB Hospital. He further deposed that the name of driver of said TSR was Jitender, accused present in the court and the said witness correctly identified him. He further deposed that police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A which bears his signatures at point A. He further deposed that accused was driving his vehicle on one way road. He further deposed that accused had ran away from the spot after leaving his TSR. He further deposed that owner of TSR came at the spot. He further deposed that the accident taken place due the rash and negligent diving of the accused and he sustained injuries on his left wrist, right knee and thigh. He further deposed that bone of his knee and thigh were broken. He further deposed that steel road (nail) inserted in his right thigh and plates were also inserted in his knee. During his cross- examination, he testified that that it was not necessary that there would be fog continuously during the month of January. He further testified that he did not tell in his statement to IO regarding having license on that day as the same was not asked by the IO.
15. He further testified that there was no barricading opposite to PS Khajuri Khas on the date of accident. He further testified that he had seen the accused driven the vehicle at high speed from a distance of 200 meters. He further testified that the head light of the TSR was turned on at that time. He further testified that he did not stop his scooter voluntarily. He further testified that he remained on the road for about five minutes after the accident and thereafter public lifted him to the side of the road and he remained at the side of the road for about 15 minutes. He further testified that police came at the spot in his presence. He further testified that police did not record his statement at the spot. He further admitted that he did not disclose the description and name of the accused to the police in his statement recorded in the hospital. He further testified that he had seen accused first of all in the court and not in the police station. He further testified that he did not know the accused before the accident. He further testified that the photographs of the scooter were clicked after getting it FIR No.24/2008 7/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.09.10 15:40:05 +0800 repaired.
16. PW2 deposed in his examination in chief that on 25/01/2008, he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas as constable. He further deposed that on that day, on receiving of DD No. 24A regarding an accident, he along with ASI Rajender Singh reached at Khajuri Park, near A Block, where one TSR No. UP 14X - 9586 and one scooter no. DL3S AF 1938 were found in accidental condition. He further deposed that they came to know there that injured had already been taken to GTB hospital by the PCR Van. He further deposed that IO left him at the spot and he went to GTB hospital. He further deposed that IO returned to the spot and handed over him a rukka for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he returned to the spot, handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to IO. He further testified that he along with IO/ASI Rajender Singh left PS for the spot at about 9:05 pm just after receiving DD no.24 A. He further testified that IO made their departure entry while left the PS for the spot however, he did not remember the DD entry of the same. He further testified that the distance between PS and spot might be 750 mtrs.
17. He further testified that they reached at the spot on motorcycle. He further testified that they reached at the spot at about 9:10 pm and public persons gathered there. He further testified that IO inquired from public persons regarding incident on which they disclosed that injured was taken to GTB hospital by PCR van. He further testified that he did not remember whether IO requested public persons to join the investigation or not. He further testified that IO prepared the site plan in his presence at the spot. He further testified that the offending vehicle and scooter were taken to PS by the IO one by one. He further admitted that he did not know how to drive the scooter at the time of accident. He further admitted that at that time registration number was mentioned on TSR i.e UP 14X 9586. He further admitted that registration number was not mentioned in the photographs of TSR (Ex.P3 colly.) while shown to him in the court.
18. PW3 deposed in his examination in chief that he did not know anything about FIR No.24/2008 8/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2025.09.10 ZAIDI 15:40:14 +0800 the present case and police taken his signature on the blank paper. He further deposed that accused Jitender, who was present in the court was his neighbour. As the said witness resiled from his previous statement hence, ld. APP for the State confronted by portion A to A1, Mark X and he deposed that he had not given any such statement to the police. He denied the suggestions that police recorded his statement. Despite having been given opportunity, he was not examined by the ld. counsel for the accused.
19. PW4 deposed in his examination in chief that on 29-01-2008, he conducted the mechanical inspection of vehicles bearing TSR No. UP 14X 9586, make Bajaj RE and of one scooter bearing registration no. DL 3SAE 1938 at PS Khajuri Khas on the request of IO/ASI Rajender Singh. He further proved his mechanical inspection reports Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B bearing his signatures at point A on each. Despite having been given opportunity, he was not examined by the ld. counsel for the accused.
20. PW5 deposed in his examination in chief that on 25.01.2008, he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas as ASI and on that day he was on night emergency duty from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am. He further deposed that at about 09:10 pm, he received one DD entry No. 24A regarding an accident. He further deposed that he along with Ct. Brij Pal reached at the spot where they found TSR and scooter were in damaged condition. He further deposed that he came to know that the injured taken to the GTB hospital. He further deposed that he left Ct. Brij Pal at the spot and he reached at the hospital. He further deposed that he received the MLC of the injured, namely, Umesh Chandra Rai. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of the complainant Ex.PW1/A.
21. He further deposed that he came to know through the owner of the vehicle Munna Lal that he sold out the above mentioned TSR to the Khacheru Ram but still the case property i.e. TSR was in the name of Munna Lal. He further deposed that he FIR No.24/2008 9/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.09.10 15:40:29 +0800 handed over the ownership documents to Khacheru Ram. He further deposed that he served notice U/s 133 MV Act to the Khacheru Ram and he stated that at the time of the accident another person, namely, Jitender was driving the TSR. He further deposed that on 29.01.2008 Khacheru Ram produced the accused Jitender, he interrogated accused Jitender and arrested him. During his cross-examination, he testified that he did not remember the registration number of that motorcycle. He further testified that there was no jhuggi or any landmark situated at the spot. He further testified that he came to know through a passerby that the injured had already been taken to the hospital. He further testified that he did not record the statement of any passersby. He further testified that he had not visited the hospital.
22. PW1 (the complainant) is the sole eyewitness claiming to have seen the accused driving the TSR at the time of the incident. He deposed that the TSR was being driven at a very high speed but nothing has been presented by the prosecution to establish this allegation. There is no assessment of the speed of the TSR or the scooter. There is no evidence on record to show the prescribed speed limit of that area at the relevant time. It is important to note that high speed alone does not constitute rashness or negligence, unless it is shown that the speed was excessive for the conditions of the road and traffic at the relevant time, and endangered human life. The photographs of the scooter were taken after repair, which further reduces their evidentiary value in establishing the damage from the accident. The rash and negligent manner has not been proved by the prosecution.
23. PW1 further admits that he saw the accused for the first time in court, and not at the police station . No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to verify the witness's claim that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle which could have been relevant under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. Further, the accused was not apprehended at the spot, and fled the scene. He was produced later, on 29.01.2008 by Khacheru Ram, the owner of the vehicle. There is no proof that that FIR No.24/2008 10/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.09.10 15:40:39 +0800 the accused was employed by Khacheru Ram. Apparantly as per the record Ex. P6 TSR was in the name of Munna Lal. This again raises suspicion about the story of the prosecution.
24. PW1 alleged that the TSR was coming from the wrong direction. However, the site plan prepared by the IO does not indicate whether the road was a one-way. Its is not even clear if there was a divider on the road. Neither the IO (PW5) nor any other witness testified regarding traffic signagls at the spot. The site plan annexed is inadequate. In the site plan Ex.PW5/B, it is not depicted from which direction the of- fending vehicle was going. The speed at which both the vehicles were being driven has not been ascertained. Point' A' is shown where accident took place. It was incumbent upon IO to scale an accurate site plan. The exact point of impact as well as tyre skid marks and the point at which offending vehicle had come to rest af - ter the collision should have been specified. No photography or videography was conducted by the IO just immediately after the accident. The photography or videog- raphy of site and surrounding areas ought to have been conducted so that the exact to- pography could have been discerned by this Court. The entire testimony of the prose- cution witnesses is silent about the rash and negligent manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused.
25. There was no red light or Zebra crossing at the spot as per the site plan. The accused did not jump any red light or caused the accident. In the case of Mahadeo Hari Lokara vs. State of Maharashtra 10 (72) 4 SCC 758 it was held that if a person suddenly cross road without taking a note of approaching vehicle the driver however slowly he may be driving may not be in a position to save the accident. In the judgment by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Vinod Kumar vs. State, (2012) 1 RLR (Cr.) 567 it was held that no evidence or any material was placed on record by the prosecution to show the manner in which the said petitioner was driving FIR No.24/2008 11/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2025.09.10 ZAIDI 15:41:15 +0800 the vehicle to prove rashness and negligence of the petitioner. There is no evidence to show the speed of vehicle or the manner in which the vehicle was being driven to show his rashness or negligence. The gravamen of the offence consists in conduct of accused being rash and negligent which has not been proved by the prosecution.
26. The evidentiary value of the spot map/sketch map prepared by the investigating officer is relevant under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and since it is based on the actual observation of the officer at the crime scene, it is treated as direct evidence and is admissible u/s 60 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is well settled that every defect in the site plan cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution though non-mentioning of the essential features in the site plan can create a doubt on the story of the prosecution. In the case of Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana (2003)12 SCC 758 it was held that any defect in the site plan creates a doubt regarding the place of occurrence and accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. The site plan prepared by the IO was not even signed by the complainant. It is doubtful that the site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant.
27. There is no independent public witness produced despite several being al- legedly present. No statement from such persons was recorded, or local person were examined by the prosecution. The lack of any independent witness casts serious doubt on the prosecution story, especially regarding identity of the accused. In case of Pradeep Narayan State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 1930 held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
28. PW3 does not appear to be a reliable witness. He did not depose in line with his previous statement. It is no longer res integra that sole testimony of complainant can be relied upon to convict an accused provided the same is reliable and credit-
FIR No.24/2008 12/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.09.10 15:41:24 +0800
worthy. In the case of Lallu Manjhi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 401 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had classified oral testimony of witnesses into three categories wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The testimony of PW1 does not support the case of prosecution. The main witnesses does not appear to be credible and reliable. They refused to identify the accused persons. Moreover, they denied the entire incident on being cross-examined.
29. Adverting to the testimonies of the Police witnesses they were not an eye witness to the incident. None of the police witnesses witnessed the accident. The investigation has been conducted in a routine and a stereotypical manner. Mere testimonies of the police witnesses are insufficient and cannot be made a sole basis of the conviction of the accused person.
30. In the present case also a mere bald statement that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving in a rash and negligent manner, does not prove the guilt of the accused. There is no evidence to show the speed of vehicle or the manner in which the vehicle was being driven to show his rashness or negligence. The gravamen of the offence consists in conduct of accused being rash and negligent which has not been proved by the prosecution.
31. In a criminal trial, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time has not been established beyond doubt. There is insufficient evidence to conclusively prove rash and negligent driving by the accused. It is an adage that law works on the wheels of evidence. Every criminal trial is a journey of discovering and unfolding the truth. But in the present case no sufficient evidence is there on record to warrant the conviction of the accused person. In the case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI 178 (2011) DLT 529 it was held that where it is possible to have both views one in favor of prosecution and one in favor of accused, FIR No.24/2008 13/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2025.09.10 ZAIDI 15:41:30 +0800 the later one should prevail. The prosecution could not prove by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt. For the reasons outlined above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to discharge the heavy burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
32. Consequently, accused Jitender Kumar is acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 279/338 IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today i.e 10-09-2025.
This judgment contains 14 pages and each page bears my signature.
ISRA Digitally signed
by ISRA ZAIDI
Date: 2025.09.10
ZAIDI 15:41:43 +0800
(Isra Zaidi)
JMFC-04/NE/KKD/Delhi
10.09.2025
FIR No.24/2008 14/14 State Vs. Jitender Kumar