Delhi District Court
State vs Ravinder Singh on 24 September, 2019
FIR No. 210/2012
PS I.P.Estate
U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act
State Vs Ravinder Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPLAV DABAS
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03, CENTRAL, DELHI
CIS No. 292992/16
FIR No. 210/2012
PS I.P.Estate
U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act
State Vs Ravinder Singh
Date of Institution of case : 02.04.2013
Date of Judgment : 24.09.2019
JUDGMENT:
a) Date of offence : 09.11.2012 b) Offence complained of : U/s 279/304 A IPC c) Name of Accused, his : Ravinder Singh parentage & residence S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh R/o H.No. 132, Madhuban, Karnal, Haryana. Permanent address: Village Kawi, District Panipat, Haryana. d) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty e) Final order : Acquitted Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
1. On 09.11.2012, at about 7.35 p.m, in front of WHO Building, Ring Road, ITO, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS I.P.Estate, the accused was found driving bus bearing no. HR 45A 0194 in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or public safety of others and while driving the said vehicle in aforesaid manner, he struck the abovesaid vehicle against a pedestrian Ashrafi Lal thereby causing injuries and that the accused did not take reasonable steps to secure medical attention of said injured who consequently died. On the basis of aforesaid facts, the present FIR was registered for offence punishable under Section 279/304 A IPC & 134 M.Vact against the accused and after usual investigation chargesheet was filed.
2. The Court took cognizance of the abovesaid offences and provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C complied. After hearing arguments, as a prime facie case was made out against the accused Ravinder Singh for offence punishable u/s 279 & 304 A IPC, notice was accordingly framed against him to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trail.
3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s 279 & 304A IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients of the said Sections: a. Section 279 IPC: The accused was driving the vehicle in a public place and that he was driving in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh or to be likely to cause hurt/injury to any other person.
b. Section 304 A IPC : The death of a person is caused by rash or negligent act of accused, that the death of the victim was a direct result of rash or negligent act of accused which must be sufficient cause of death without the intervention of another act and that the act causing death does not amount to culpable homicide.
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses.
5. PW1 Inspector Narender Singh deposed that on 13.12.2012, he was working as Incharge, MTO, HPA, Madhuban, Karnal,Haryana. He got released the bus bearing number HR45 A 0194 on superdari vide superdariama Ex.PW1/AA which met with an accident and at the time ofincident, accused Ravinder Kumar as driving the vehicle. He also given the reply of notice u/s 133 of MV Act. His reply is mentioned at point A to A1 on Ex.PW1/A. During the investigation, he also produced the bus before the IO who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He also produced some documents which were taken into possession by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and the photocopy of documents are Mark X. Photographs of the vehicle are Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.
During cross examination the witness deposed that he had not seen the accident and he does not have personal knowledge about this case.
6. PW2 Mohd Ali Akhtar deposed that he was an electrician by profession. It was the year 2012. On that day, he was doing electric work on a bus stand in front Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh of WHO building, ITO. It was evening time. He was working under the shelter of the said bus stand. Suddenly, he heard the vehicle brake sound. He saw a Haryana police bus hit one person who fell 810 feet away from the place of impact on the road. He recorded the video of the injured and the offending vehicle from his mobile phone and same was handed over by him to the IO. He saw the driver of the offending vehicle as the vehicle was stopped there. He stated that he identifies the driver of the bus i.e. accused in the court. He further deposed that he made call at 100 number. PCR came at the spot. Injured was shifted to hospital in auto rickshaw by the police official. He saw that said auto rickshaw stopped at some distance and he came to know that injured got expired. After some time, some more police officials came at the spot and took the injured/deceased with them. Police also took the offending vehicle with them. He further deposed that injured was crossing the road during the incident. The witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP and during crossexamination, he admitted that the incident was occurred on 09.11.2012 at about 7 pm. He admitted the registration number of the offending vehicle was HR4S A 0194. He deposed that accused was driving the vehicle in a fast speed but not in a zig zag manner and denied the suggestion that vehicle was driven in a Zig Zag manner on being confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
During cross examination conducted on behalf of accused, the witness deposed that he was an electrician and works in individual capacity and not in company. The electric pole where he was working at the time of accident comes under the purview of MCD. He deposed that he cannot produce any document to show the authorization regarding the repair at the aforesaid electric pole. He do not Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh remember the exact date and time of the incident. He had not seen the occurrence of the incident by the offending bus. He had not signed any document pertaining to the present case. He deposed that he do not remember the registration number of the offending vehicle. There was no zebra crossing on the road from where the alleged deceased wanted to cross the road. He admitted that there is the one subway on the road for the purpose of crossing the road. The said subway is at the distance of 20 meters from the place of accident. Many public persons had gathered at the spot at the time of accident and it was a busy public place. When he saw the offending bus no passengers including driver and conductor were in the bus and all of the them were standing on the road. He had not seen the driver and conductor of the offending bus. He identified the accused driver at the instance of police officials. He admitted that he had not handed over any CD containing the recording of the accident to the IO. He admitted that he was a witness in other cases. IO had not seized his mobile phone regarding the present case. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of police officials.
7. PW3 M.L. Dhyani deposed that on 12.12.2012, he mechanically inspected the bus make Tata 1512 bearing number HR 45 A 0194 at the request of IO/ASI Ram Kishan. No fresh damage was found on the bus. The bus was found fit for road test. He prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW3/A. This witness was not crossexamined by or on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh
8. PW4 Naushad deposed that he do not remember the exact date of incident. He was running the auto/TSR at the time of incident and presently also. He used to pick the passengers from Sarai Kale Khan to I.P. Metro Station. On the day of incident, he had come from Sarai Kale Khan after dropping the passengers and saw some public persons gathered near the subway before the flyover to ITO. The registration number of auto was DL1RL 4258. He saw one person was lying on the road in injured condition. He took the help of public persons for taking the injured to the hospital in TSR. He had not seen the incident as well as the accused. This witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP and during crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that the date of incident was 09.11.2012, that he was waiting for the passengers at ITO bus stop in front of the WHO building on the service road and was having tea at that time, that his face was towards the ring road and at around 6.457.00 p.m. one police bus came from the side of I.P. depot and was going towards Rajghat and the driver of the said bus was driving the bus without giving any horn in rash and negligent manner, that said bus hit one pedestrian who was crossing the road and was moving towards Power house, that due to the hit by the bus, public persons gathered at the spot and the said bus also stopped for some time on which Haryana Police was written, that when he was trying to note down the registration number of the said bus, the police persons sitting in the bus scolded him, that he noted down the registration number of the bus as HR45A 0194, that after some time the police officials took the bus from the spot and that the alleged accident happened due to the faulty, rash and negligent driver of the bus bearing no. HR45A 0194. This witness stated after seeing the accused and photographs of Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh the offending bus that he had not seen the accused person and the offending bus at the spot. He denied that he had received consideration from accused Ravinder Singh and that is why he was not deliberately and intentionally identifying him, that he have been overpowered by accused Ravinder Singh and that is why he has not deposed against him.
This witness was crossexamined by or on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
9. PW5 SI Ram Kishan deposed that on 10.11.2012, he was posted at MACT, Cell (Central), Delhi. On that day, present case file was marked to him for further investigation. The postmortem of dead body was got conducted. He prepared the identification memo of deceased through his relative namely Kanchan (daughter of deceased) and one Ashok Kumar (brother in law) which are Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B which bears his signature at point A. He had obtained the signatures of the Kanchan and Ashok Kumar at point C on their statement. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to the daughter of deceased namely Kanchan vide memo which is Ex. PW5/C. He had recorded the statement of witness Naushad on 10.11.2012 which is Mark X. He collected PCR form which is Ex. Z1. He also recorded the statement of PCR caller namely Ali Akhtar which is Mark A. He also recorded the statement of PCR officials. He had given notice U/s 133 MV Act to the Director of H.P.A, Madhuban Training Center, DisttKarnal (Haryana) in whose name the abovesaid vehicle was registered which is Ex. PW5/D. On 12.12.2012, he had again served notice U/s 133 MV Act to Inspector Narender Singh, who was Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh working in the abovesaid training center who handed over to him an authority letter which is already Mark X which was issued by Director Haryana Police Academy, Madhuban in favour of Inspector Narender Singh. Inspector Narender Singh handed over to him documents of the said offending bus HR45A0194. Inspector Narender Singh also produced accused Ravinder Singh and offending bus. He seized the same vide memo already Ex. PW1/C. Attested copy of nakal/rapat i.e departure and arrival of the accused is Mark Y and original is Ex. PW5/ E. Attested copy of the RC is mark Y1 (running into two pages). Fitness certificate is Mark Y2. Insurance certificate is Mark Y3 (running into two pages). He seized the abovesaid bus vide memo already Ex. PW1/B. Accused was joined the investigation and he seized his driving licence vide memo Ex. PW5/F. He prepared the pointing memo at instance of accused which is Ex. PW5/G. He arrested the accused vide memo which is Ex. PW5/H. Personal search memo of accused got conducted vide memo Ex. PW5/I. Accused was released on police bail after bail bond furnished by one Sh. Jai Pal Singh vide memo which is Ex. PW5/J. He collected the PM report. He got verified all the documents of the offending vehicle. After mechanical inspection it was released on superdari. He had also collected the permission U/s 197 of Cr.PC from Superintendent of Police, Sonipat which is Ex. PW5/K. After completion investigation, he prepared chargesheet and file before the Court. This witness identified the accused in the court and the vehicle in four photographs of the offending as Ex. P1 to Ex. P4.
During crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused, he deposed that he had recorded statement of eye witness Naushad on 10.11.2012. He denied the Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh suggestion that he had not properly conducted the investigation of this case, that the documents as mentioned in examination in chief are false and fabricated, that the said documents were prepared while sitting at MACT Cell without going to the spot and that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
10. PW6 ASI Brajvir Singh deposed that on 09.11.2012, he was posted at PCR Rajghat. His duty was from 8 am to 8 pm. He was standing at Gandhi Museum at Rajghat in his PCR Van Oscar 7. At about 7 to 7.30 pm, one TSR driver came to him along with one injured and requested him to shift the injured to hospital as his TSR was not in good condition. He called I/c of other PCR Van which was standing near his PCR Van and the injured was taken to hospital by I/C of other PCR.
During crossexamination, he deposed that he had not seen the accident.
11. On 23.03.2019, vide a separate statement, accused admitted the factum of recording of Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. pertaining to PW Ashok Kumar and Kanchan regarding identification of dead body, which is Ex.A1, Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. pertaining to PW Ct. Sunil Kumar regarding handing over of the dead body after postmortem as Ex.A2, MLC No. 222143/12 dated 09.11.2012 pertaining to unknown prepared by Dr. Himanshu which is Ex.A3, PM Report No. 1181/12 pertaining to deceased prepared by Dr. Manju Nath., which is Ex.A4, DD No. 33A dated 09.11.2012 along with FIR No. 210/12 recorded by DO/HC Satender Kumar, which is Ex.A5, Original Roznamcha, departure entry no. 26 dated 07.11.2012 recorded by DO/ASI Vitin which is Ex.A6 and Original Roznamcha of Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh arrival regarding vehicle no. HR 45A 0194 with DD no. 54 dated 09.11.2012 recorded by DO/ASI Subhash which is Ex.A7 without admitting allegations of the prosecution contained in these documents against him. In view of this statement, the prosecution witnesses qua the said documents were dropped.
12. Thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed as all the material witnesses were examined and statement of the accused u/s 281 read with Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to the accused who stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he was not driving the aforesaid vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The accused chose not to lead defence evidence.
13. At the time of final arguments it is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and all the ingredients of relevant section are completed. In reply to this it is argued on behalf of accused that police had falsely implicated the accused in the present case and accused was not driving the aforesaid vehicle in rash and negligent manner. It is further submited that prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts as no reliable witness has been able to prove rashness or negligence of the accused which is necessary element for completion of offence punishable u/s 279 /304 A IPC.
14. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh
15. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s 279 & 304 A IPC, prosecution was required to prove the fact that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner on a public road and that the victim succumbed to injuries as a result of the accident caused due to rashness/negligence of the accused. It is reflected from the record and the testimony of PW1 Inspector Narender Singh (Superdar) who had replied notice u/s 133 M.V.Act that accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident at a public place.
16. Perusal of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveals that only PW2 Mohd. Akhtar Ali and PW4 Naushad were allegedly present on or near the spot at the time of happening of the alleged incident while the remaining witnesses either reached at the spot after the occurrence of the accident or have deposed about the formal aspects of the investigation like mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle, arrest and personal search of the accused, seizure of offending vehicle etc. So, its the testimony of these witnesses which is material for proving the existence of any rash and negligent act on the part of the accused resulting into occurrence of the alleged accident leading to the death of the victim as all the other witnesses are either police witnesses or medical witnesses who can not establish the fact that the accident had taken place due to rashness and negligence of the accused. It is settled proposition of law that rashness and negligence in the conduct of accused while driving is the most important aspect necessary for fastening criminal liability for the Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC and the mere fact that the accused was driving the offending vehicle which hit against the victim thereby causing death of the victim in a road traffic accident is not sufficient to convict the accused for the aforesaid offences. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussed aspect of presence of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused, it is pertinent to reproduce the testimony of PW2 and PW4.
17. PW2 deposed in his examination in chief that on the day of accident, he was working on a bus stand in front of WHO Building, ITO, that it was evening time, that while working on the shelter of the said bus stand, he suddenly heard the sound of brakes of the vehicle, that he saw a Haryana Police Bus hit one person who had fallen 810 feet away from the place of impact, that he saw the driver of the offending vehicle as the vehicle had stopped there, that he recorded the video of injured and offending vehicle from his mobile and handed over the same to the IO and that the accused i.e. driver of the offending vehicle is present in the court. The testimony of PW2 shows that he did not say anything about the rashness and negligence of the accused while driving as the reason for the accident. Record shows that Ld. APP was permitted to crossexamine PW2 as he was resiling from his earlier statement regarding the alleged date of incident, the registration number of the offending vehicle as well as the presence of rash and negligent act. In the crossexamination, PW2 testified that the incident had taken place on 09.11.2012 and that the registration number of the offending vehicle was HR45A 0194. Perusal of the said crossexamination of PW2 further reveals that he stated in his cross Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh examination that the accused was driving the vehicle at a fast speed but not in a zig zag manner, that the accused did not press horn at the time of impact of his vehicle and that the incident had taken place due to rash and negligent act of the accused. The crossexamination of PW2 conducted by Ld. APP further shows that he denied the suggestion that the accused was driving his vehicle in a zig zag manner whereas the same is recorded in his statement mark A from point A1 to A2 which shows that prosecution failed to extract any material suggesting that the accused was driving the vehicle in a zig zag manner despite crossexamination.
Record further shows that in the crossexamination conducted by counsel for the accused, PW2 deposed that he had not seen the incident by the offending bus, that he does not remember the registration number of the offending vehicle, that he had not seen the driver and conductor of the offending bus, that he identified the accused driver at the instance of police officials, that he had not handed over the CD containing the video of the accident to the IO and that the IO had not seized his mobile phone regarding the present case. PW2 further admitted in his cross examination that he is a witness in other cases and that when he saw the offending bus, no passengers including the driver and conductor were present in the bus and all of them were standing on the road. A bare scrutiny of the aforesaid testimony of PW2 shows that he has contradicted his version regarding his witnessing the accident as well as his identifying/seeing the accused as driver of the offending vehicle due to stopping of the vehicle after the accident. It is further evident that the version of the PW2 regarding the recording of the accident by him in his mobile phone is also shattered as he neither handed over any CD containing the recording Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh of the accident nor the IO bothered to seize his mobile phone as would have been done in the present circumstances by an ordinary person / witnesses as well as by IO. Furthermore, the categoric admission made by PW2 that he had not seen the accident by the offending bus shatters the entire prosecution version as the factum of PW being the the witness of the accident becomes highly doubtful. It is pertinent to mention that PW2 admitted in his cross examination that the electric pole where he was working comes under the purview of PWD and that he can not produce any document to show the authorization regarding the repair at the said electric pole. This omission to produce the relevant document further creates grave doubt upon presence of PW2 on the spot in the alleged manner and thus discredits the prosecution version.
18. PW3 Naushad deposed in his examination in chief that he does not remember the exact date of incident, that he saw one person lying on the road in injured condition and that he had not seen the incident as well as the accused. This testimony of PW4 shows that he did not utter anything about his witnessing the accident as well as regarding the identity of the accused as offender and the rashness and negligence of the accused while driving the offending vehicle. Record shows that Ld. APP was permitted to crossexamine PW4 as he was resiling from his earlier statement and in the crossexamination, PW4 firmly denied the suggestion put by the State to the effect that the alleged accident happened due to the faulty rash and negligent driving of the bus, that he noted down the registration number of the bus as HR45A 0194 and the other suggestions substantiating the fact Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh that he had been an eye witness of the accident which was caused due to rashness and negligence of the offending driver. During the said crossexamination, PW4 firmly deposed that he had not seen the accused driving the offending bus despite his attention being drawn towards accused by Ld. APP. It is further revealed that in the crossexamination conducted by Ld. APP, PW4 further testified that the bus was not present at the spot despite photographs of the bus being shown to him by Ld. APP. It is evident from the aforesaid crossexamination that State failed to extract any material in its favour regarding the fact that the accused caused the accident due to his rashness or negligence and that PW2 is the eye witness of the accident.
19. The bare perusal of the testimony of PW2, whose presence on the spot is already doubtful further reveals that he deposed that the bus was being driven at very high speed and the offending vehicle did not blow horn. PW2 further admitted that there was no Zebra crossing on the road from where the deceased wanted to cross the road and that there is a subway for crossing the road about 20 meters away from the place of accident. It is evident that PW2 did not say anything about the rashness and negligence of the accused in his evidence. PW2 did not even state the approximate speed at which the vehicle was being driven as well as manner in which accused was rash or negligent. It is further clear that there was no Zebra crossing on the road and that contributory negligence on the part of the deceased by not using the subway can not be ruled out.
20. It is settled law that merely driving at high speed does not amount to rashness Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh or negligence as the speed is a relative concept consequence of which depends upon certain other parameters like the level of congestion at the place where the accident took place or as to whether there was some traffic violation. So, mere allegation that accused was rash or negligent without explaining the manner as to how rashness or negligence is being imputed to the conduct of the offending driver can by no stretch of imagination be considered sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the accused as the phrase rashness or negligence unless explained is nothing more than a mere adjective. So prosecution has failed to explain the manner in which the accused was rash and negligent while driving the vehicle and thus the benefit of the same must go to the accused.
21. Furthermore, it is apparent from the testimony of PW2 that the accident had taken place at public place and many public persons were present but no efforts were made to trace their whereabouts to join them in the investigation. This material omission indicates that no proceedings were conducted at the spot and that accused has been falsely implicated by planting false witness.
22. It thus emerges from the aforesaid discussion and perusal of testimonies of PWs as well as record that there is neither any reliable eyewitness of the incident nor any other circumstance to prove that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle as well as the presence of rashness or negligence on the part of accused while driving the offending vehicle which are essential elements for completion of offences punishable u/s 279 & 304 A IPC.
Page No. 17/17 FIR No. 210/2012PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304A IPC and 134 M V Act State Vs Ravinder Singh
23. Considering the aforediscussed testimonies, this Court is of the view that arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients necessary for completion of the alleged offences do not have any force whereas the arguments made on behalf of defence that the accused has been falsely implicated are found to be justified.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis of testimonies, it is clear that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused as the essential ingredients of the offences punishable u/s 279 & 304 A IPC have not been established. Accordingly, accused Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh is acquitted of the charge leveled against him. Bail bond stands cancelled and Surety be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any. Superdarinama if any be cancelled.
Fresh bail bond and surety bond in compliance of Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C filed on behalf of accused is furnished and accepted.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedVIPLAV by VIPLAV DABAS DABAS Date: 2019.09.25 16:57:10 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (VIPLAV DABAS) on 24.09.2019 MM03/CENTRAL:DELHI 24.09.2019 Page No. 17/17