Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Kumar Nagar on 23 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 3004/2023
FIR No. : 323/2021
Police Station : Saket
Section(s) : 279/338 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
Amit Kumar Nagar
S/o Sh. Nawal Singh
R/o 51, G-II, Madangir
New Delhi .... Accused
1.Name of Complainant : Sh. Ajay Rawat 2. Name of Accused : Amit Kumar Nagar 3. Offence complained of or proved : 279/338 IPC 4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty 5. Date of commission of offence : 07.11.2021 6. Date of Filing of case : 22.05.2023 7. Date of Reserving Order : 08.08.2025 8. Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2025 9. Final Order : Convicted Argued by - Ld. APP for the State. Ld. Counsel for the accused. State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 1 of 17 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. Succinctly stated, it is the case of prosecution that on 07.11.2021 at about 10:30PM, near Court Chowk, Saket, within the jurisdiction of PS Saket, accused Amit Kumar Nagar S/o Sh. Nawal Singh was found driving car bearing registration no. DL3CCP7454, on the wrong side of the road, and in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others, and while driving so, he collided with a scooty bearing registration no. DL3SEA5912. As a result of the impact, complainant Sh. Ajay Rawat and Sh. Ravinder Rawat, who were both riding the scooty, sustained grievous injuries. It is,thus, alleged that the accused committed offences punishable u/s 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Cognizance was taken, and he was summoned to face trial. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, formal notice in terms of Section 251 CrPC was served upon him for the offences punishable u/s 279/338 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of PE.
3. In support of its version, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses:
State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 2 of 17 PW Name Nature of Testimony PW1 Sh. Ravinder Bisht Injured.
PW2 Sh. Ajay Rawat Complainant/injured.
PW3 Smt. Maya Devi Registered owner of the offending car.
PW4 Sh. Virender Sharma To prove the CCTV footage.
PW5 Sh. Naveen Kumar Eyewitness
PW6 Sh. Anil Rajora Eyewitness
PW7 SI Tejpal First IO.
PW8 Sh. Vikas Eyewitness.
PW9 HC Basant Kumar Second IO.
PW10 HC Manjeet Kumar Accompanied the first IO/formal
witness.
4. Accused admitted, as per Section 294 CrPC, the genuineness of the following documents:
1 Endorsement by DO Ex. A1 2 FIR No. 323 /2021 Ex. A2 3 Certificate U/S 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex. A3 4 MLC of injured Ravinder Rawat Ex. A4 5 MLC of complainant Ajay Rawat Ex. A5 6 Mechanical Inspection Report of vehicle Ex. A6 bearing no. DL3CCP7454 7 Mechanical Inspection Report of vehicle Ex.A7 bearing no. DL3SEA5912 State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 3 of 17
4.1 In view of the above said admission, rest of the prosecution witnesses, all formal in nature, were dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined. PE was closed thereafter.
5. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statement of accused was recorded under Section 281/313 CrPC, wherein he claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations levelled against him. He denied his presence at the spot altogether. To a specific query, accused stated that he does not wish to lead any DE in the affirmative.
6. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of final arguments. Arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
7. Before proceeding further, it shall be apposite to note the provisions of law germane for the adjudication of present proceedings :
Section 279 IPC - Rash driving or riding on a public way -
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 to 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 - Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others -
Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 4 of 17 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. Liability for the aforesaid offences can be affixed upon the accused only if the prosecution is able to prove he was "rash or negligent" when driving the offending vehicle, which resulted in the accident. In Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam vs State Of Andhra Pradesh (2000) 7 SCC 72, the scope of the terms "rashness or negligence" was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India thus, "A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a 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 the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
9. With the above in mind, the facts of the case shall be adverted to. In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s 279/338 IPC, the prosecution had to establish -
(i) That the accident took place on a public way.
(ii) That the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.
(iii) That in the accident that took place, Sh. Ajay Rawat (complainant), and Sh. Ravinder Rawat sustained grievous injuries. State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 5 of 17
(iv) That the accident took place because of the 'rashness or negligence' of the driver of the offending vehicle.
(v) That the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at the relevant time.
10. Out of the five ingredients that the prosecution had to establish, ingredients (i) and (iii) have been admitted by the accused himself. The accused has nowhere controverted the case of prosecution to the extent that the accident took place on a public road. Accused has also admitted that both the injured suffered grievous injuries in the accident, and their MLCs Ex A4 and Ex A5 have also been admitted. Now, prosecution case shall be examined to see if the remaining ingredients have been proved by it.
11. In the case at hand, the allegation of the prosecution against the accused is that he was found driving the car bearing registration no.DL3CCP7454 on the wrong side of the road, rashly and negligently, and while so driving he hit against the scooty bearing registration number DL3SEA5912, as a reason of which the scooty driver as well as the pillion rider Ajay Rawat and Ravindra Rawat both sustained grievous injuries, upon falling down from the scooty as a result of the impact. Scrutiny of prosecution evidence reveals that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused cogently.
12. PW1 Ravindra Bisht, one of the injured, deposed that on the day of the incident at about 10:30 PM, he along with his friend Ajay Rawat State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 6 of 17 was travelling from Malviya Nagar towards Madangir on a scooty bearing no. DL3SEA5912. He stated that after crossing Saket Court Chowk and proceeding towards NBCC Plaza, the offending vehicle, being driven on the wrong side of the road, collided with their scooty. In the impact, both he and Ajay Rawat sustained injuries. He further stated that somebody informed the police at 100 number, and thereafter both of them were shifted to Max Hospital for treatment. During his deposition, the witness correctly identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle and also identified Ex. P1 (colly.) as the photographs of the offending vehicle. The testimony of PW1 is consistent and cogent, explaining the circumstances of the accident clearly. Even in cross-examination, the witness remained firm. He explained that he did not himself call the PCR, as he was having difficulty breathing after the accident. He also clarified that he could not say whether Ajay Rawat had lost consciousness upon the impact. This omission appears natural and reasonable in light of the traumatic circumstances faced by him, having himself fallen and sustained injuries. PW1 further explained that his statement was recorded by the IO in the hospital on the day following the incident.The witness denied the defence suggestion that he and Ajay Rawat had fallen on their own and that the offending vehicle was not involved. This line of defence is vague and untenable, particularly as the accused has admitted the correctness of the mechanical inspection reports of the two vehicles, Ex. A6 and Ex. A7. These reports clearly establish a head-on collision between the vehicles, which is possible only if one of the vehicles was being driven on the wrong side of the road. The testimony of PW1, State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 7 of 17 attributing the accident to the rash and negligent driving of the accused on the wrong side, thus stands corroborated by the mechanical inspection reports. Accordingly, the testimony of PW1 is found to be reliable, trustworthy and fully supportive of the prosecution case. From his evidence, duly corroborated by documentary material, it stands established that the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused.
13. Similarly, case of prosecution receives due fortification from the testimony of PW2 Ajay Rawat as well. PW2 testified that on the day of the incident, at about 10.30 a.m., while he was driving the scooty bearing registration number DL3SEA5912, and his friend Ravinder was sitting as a pillion rider thereon, they had just crossed the Saket Court red light towards NBCC Plaza when one car of the make "Renault Kwid" bearing registration number DL3CCP7454 came from the front side. He deposed that the driver of the said car was driving in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, and in doing so crossed the dividing line of the road and hit his scooty from the front side. He further stated that as a result of the collision, both he and his friend Ravinder fell down from the scooty and sustained injuries. He also testified that the accused initially stopped the vehicle for a few seconds but then fled the spot. Thereafter, some people gathered at the place of occurrence and one of them made a call to the police at number 100. Pursuant to this call, he and Ravinder were shifted to Max Hospital. In his deposition, the witness relied upon his earlier statement Ex. PW2/A, bearing his signatures at point A. He further State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 8 of 17 stated that the site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer at his instance. The witness correctly identified both the accused and the offending vehicle from the photograph Ex. P-1 (colly) placed on record. The testimony of this witness is clear, cogent, and unambiguous. It also corroborates in material particulars the version of PW1 regarding the manner in which the accident took place. PW2 has explained in detail how the accident was the direct result of the accused driving his vehicle rashly and negligently, and on the wrong side of the road. His evidence, therefore, unequivocally establishes the negligence of the accused in driving the offending vehicle, which resulted in the accident in question. Even during his cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited by the accused to discredit his testimony or to shake the prosecution's case. The only point raised in cross-examination was that, in his statement under Section 161 CrPC (Ex. PW2/A), the witness had not specifically mentioned that he himself was driving the scooty at the relevant time. However, such a minor omission or deviation in a statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, when compared with the testimony recorded in court, cannot by itself be treated as a contradiction. It is a settled principle of law that every minor inconsistency or omission does not affect the core truth of the prosecution version. During the recording of his testimony, the witness remained consistent on the core fact that he was on the scooty which met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The mere omission of the witness to mention before the Investigating Officer, or perhaps the failure of the Investigating Officer to record categorically, that he himself was driving the scooty State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 9 of 17 at the relevant time, does not in any manner dent the credibility of his testimony. In his cross-examination, the witness further stated that during the accident he had lost his mobile phone and also one shoe, but had not informed the Investigating Officer about the same. Such omission also cannot be considered to be a lapse of a nature sufficient to dispel the credibility of the witness. His version has consistently remained intact with respect to the manner in which the accident occurred and the immediate aftermath thereof. It is true that there are slight deviations in his testimony as compared to his earlier statement under Section 161 CrPC. For instance, he accepted during cross- examination that he had not earlier mentioned the fact that the accused had stopped his vehicle briefly before fleeing the spot, or that some members of the public had gathered at the place of occurrence after the accident. However, such omissions cannot be treated as contradictions of a material nature. The testimony on these aspects can be regarded as merely clarificatory in nature. Most importantly, the witness clearly identified the accused in court during his testimony, and no circumstance suggesting false implication of the accused has been brought on record. Consequently, his identification of the accused is reliable and can safely be accepted as correct. In view of the above, it is held that no material discrepancy or contradiction has been elicited from this witness so as to discredit his version. His testimony is found to be credible, reliable, and wholly supportive of the prosecution case.
14. The testimonies of the injured witnesses receive further corroboration from the depositions of PW3 Maya Devi, PW5 Naveen State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 10 of 17 Kumar, and PW6 Anil Rajora. PW3 Maya Devi, the owner of the offending car, testified that two days prior to the incident she had handed over her vehicle to her nephew Vikas, who had told her that he required the same in order to attend a wedding. The witness correctly identified the offending vehicle from the photographs Ex. P1 (colly). Supporting her testimony, PW5 Naveen Kumar deposed that on the day of the incident he, along with his friends Amit Nagar (the accused), Vikas, and Anil Rajora, was returning from a party at Sector 3, Pushp Vihar. He categorically stated that the accused Amit Kumar Nagar was driving the offending vehicle, a Renault Kwid car, and that he himself was seated on the back seat at the time of the accident. He testified that the accident occurred because the accused could not control the vehicle, as a result of which it veered into the opposite carriageway and struck the scooty that was approaching from the opposite direction with two persons riding on it. In his cross- examination by the learned APP for the State, PW5 stated that he had not seen the accused consuming liquor at the party. When confronted with his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, he clarified that the accused was not a habitual drinker but only consumed liquor occasionally at social functions or parties. He further added that the accident may have taken place due to a burst tyre of the vehicle, and also mentioned that prior to the accident, the axle of the car had broken. PW6 Anil Rajora also testified broadly on similar lines. He too stated that the accident could perhaps have occurred because of a mechanical fault in the vehicle.
State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 11 of 17
15. When construed together, the testimonies of these three witnesses firmly establish that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. It also stands established from the testimony of PW5 and PW6 who, significantly, were not cross-examined by the accused that the accident took place when the car driven by the accused crossed over the median verge of the road and struck the scooty in a head-on collision. Their depositions further show that the accident occurred because the accused lost control over his vehicle, which, ipso facto, demonstrates that the car was being driven rashly and negligently and at such a high speed that the accused could not keep it under control. Lastly, their testimonies also make it clear that the accused had brought his vehicle onto the wrong side of the road, directly resulting in the accident.
16. As regards the suggestions made by PW3 and PW5 that the accident might have been caused due to a fault in the vehicle, the same stand negated by the mechanical inspection report Ex. A6, which records that the vehicle did not suffer from any pre-existing defect that could have contributed to the occurrence. All damages noted therein were attributable only to the impact of the accident itself.
17. From the testimonies of these witnesses, considered both cumulatively and individually, the conclusion is inescapable that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, and that the accident occurred because he drove the same in such a rash and negligent manner that he lost control of it, crossed over to the wrong State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 12 of 17 side of the road, and caused a head-on collision with the scooty on which the injured persons were travelling.
18. Pertinently, the prosecution also examined one Vikas as a witness. However, PW8 Vikas turned completely hostile to the prosecution case. He deposed that he had not attended any party and that he had given the vehicle to PW Anil. He further stated that he did not know anything about the facts of the case.When cross-examined by the learned APP for the State under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the witness admitted that the photographs Ex. P1 (colly) pertained to the offending vehicle and also accepted as correct the suggestion that when he had received the vehicle on superdari, it bore accidental impact. Nevertheless, he maintained that he had no knowledge of the circumstances in which the accident had taken place. He also admitted during his testimony that he is a friend of the accused. Although the witness resiled from the prosecution case and gave evidence contrary to it, the overall case of the prosecution, as already discussed, stands well fortified by the testimonies of the injured eyewitnesses and the other material witnesses. Therefore, the mere fact that PW8 Vikas turned hostile does not, by itself, irreparably damage or weaken the prosecution version.
19. PW7 testified that information regarding the accident in question was received at the concerned Police Station on 07.11.2021 vide DD No. 67A. He further deposed that information regarding the injured being admitted at Max Hospital was subsequently received on State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 13 of 17 08.11.2021, upon which he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured, Ex. PW2/A. He stated that it was on the basis of this statement that the FIR was registered, whereafter he prepared the site plan Ex. PW2/D1. The witness further testified that he seized the scooty of the injured vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A.He also deposed that the accused was apprehended by the PCR while attempting to flee from the spot of accident and, when he (PW7) returned to the police station, the accused was already present there. He further testified that he seized the offending vehicle as well as the remaining documents of the said vehicle. He stated that he arrested the accused after interrogation vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/E, personally searched him vide memo Ex. PW7/F, and also recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW7/G. The witness correctly identified the offending vehicle from the photographs Ex. P1, and also correctly identified the accused during trial. He further testified that he had collected the CCTV footage of the incident, Ex. P1.In his cross-examination, certain deviations were noticed. The witness deposed that he was the one who had brought the offending vehicle to the police station at about 2:30 a.m., but he could not specify the manner in which it had been brought there. He, however, explained that he had reached Max Hospital at about 12:30 a.m. for the purpose of meeting the injured. He also testified that he had gone to the spot of the accident, but no public persons were found there as the accident had occurred in the wee hours of the night. His explanation for non-joining of public witnesses in the investigation appears reasonable, and the prosecution version cannot be faulted solely for this reason, particularly when it stands State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 14 of 17 corroborated by the testimonies of multiple eyewitnesses who themselves were directly involved in the accident, as already discussed above. Apart from the above, only certain suggestions were put to the witness in cross-examination, which have no probative value. Nothing substantial was elicited from him that could impeach his credibility. Minor discrepancies aside, the witness remained consistent and sure- footed in his testimony, which lends further support to the prosecution case.
20. On similar lines as the aforesaid witness, PW10 HC Manjeet also testified that he had joined the investigation of the case along with the Investigating Officer. He corroborated and reiterated the version of PW7 SI Tejpal in material particulars. In his cross-examination, the witness was confronted with the site plan of the spot of the incident, and it was suggested to him that the site plan was inaccurate as there were shops around the spot. The witness categorically denied this suggestion and stated that there were no shops at the place of the incident. Significantly, no concrete evidence was brought on record by the accused to dislodge this assertion. The witness admitted as correct the suggestion that the site plan does not bear the signatures of the complainant or of any public person. However, this omission is explained by the fact that the complainant was admitted in the hospital at the relevant time, and the witness had also clarified that, since the accident occurred in the late hours of the night, no public persons were available at the spot. In these circumstances, the mere absence of signatures of the complainant or of any independent public witness on State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 15 of 17 the site plan cannot render it unreliable. There is, no doubt, a minor discrepancy in the testimony of this witness regarding the date of the seizure memo of the offending vehicle. Yet, considering that the accident occurred in the intervening night of 07/08.11.2021, such discrepancy is inconsequential and does not go to the root of the matter. When the testimonies of both these witnesses PW7 SI Tejpal and PW10 HC Manjeet are considered together, they not only corroborate each other but also support the testimonies of the public witnesses examined by the prosecution.
21. The remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal in nature, and do not have anything incriminating against the accused. The aforesaid testimonies shall be discussed briefly. PW4 Virender Sharma, Coordinator, SPDA Office, 6th Floor, Select City Walk, District Center, Saket, proved the CCTV footage of 07.11.2021, from the time duration of 10:10 pm to 10:20 pm, being Ex P1. The said CCTV footage does not relate to the timing of the accident in question and is of no relevance to the case. PW9 HC Basant Kumar testified that the investigation of the case was marked to him on 03.07.2022. He testified that substantial investigation had already been concluded by the previous IO, and he merely filed the subject charge sheet after removing the objections raised by the Prosecution Department. The testimony of both witnesses does not add anything substantial on record against the accused.
22. From the above discussion, this Court is of the considered State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 16 of 17 opinion that the prosecution has been able to cogently and unambiguously establish that the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of accused Amit Kumar Nagar, and that the same resulted in grievous injuries to the victims. As such, accused Amit Kumar Nagar is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC.
23. Let a copy of the judgment be provided to the convict free of cost. Let he be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by Pronounced in open Court on 23.08.2025 in the presence Medha Medha Arya Date:
of accused. Arya 2025.08.23 16:41:06 +0530 (Medha Arya) Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 23.08.2025 State vs. Amit Kumar Nagar FIR No. 323/2021, PS: Saket Page 17 of 17