Delhi District Court
State vs . Pankaj Verma on 20 July, 2013
Challan No. - 328810
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI PAREWA , MM, TRAFFIC-01,
(SOUTH DISTRICT) SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
State V/s. Pankaj Verma
Challan No. - 328810
Vehicle no. - DL3CBJ 8778
Circle - G.K.C.
Date of institution of the Challan : 13-03-2013
Date on which order was reserved : Not reserved
Date of decision : 20-07-2013
JUDGMENT :-
(a) The date of commission of offence : 09-03-2013
(b) The name, parentage of accused : Pankaj Verma S/O Sh. Narender Verma R/O- D-216/B, Krishna Park Devli Road, New Delhi
(c) The offence complained of : U/s 185 & 146/196 of M. V. Act
(d) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(e) The final order : Acquitted u/s 185 and convicted u/s 146/196 of M. V. Act.
(f) The date of such order : 20-07-2013 Brief statement of the reasons for the decision :-
1. The accused in this case was sent up for trial the commission of offence u/s 185 & 146/196 of M. V. Act.
2. The facts in brief as per the prosecution story are that on 09-03-2013 at about 9.10 pm the accused Pankaj Verma was driving one vehicle bearing no. DL3CBJ 8778 at Chirag Delhi under fly over and checked Vehicle No. DL3CBJ 8778 State V/s. Pankaj Verma Page 1 of 7 Challan No. - 328810 on alcohol meter device ID-KY810303 and you were found having consumed 83.1mg/100ml alcohol in your blood. Further, the accused was found driving the offending vehicle without insurance.
Accordingly, the accused was challaned u/s 185 & 146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M. V. Act, 1988).
3. The accused appeared in the court and he was informed of the substance of the allegation against him, vide notice dated 13-03-2013 u/s 185 & 146/96 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To substantiate its case the prosecution examined three witnesses namely HC, Narender Singh as PW-1, SI/ZO Shamsuddin i.e. Challaning Officer as PW-2 & Inspector Vijay Kumar as PW-3.
5. PW-1 HC, Narender Singh in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 09-03-2013 he was on duty alongwith SI/ZO, Shamsuddin at Chirag Delhi red light and the accused was driving a car bearing no. DL3CBJ 8778 and was coming from Panchsheel side. He further deposed that at Chirag Delhi red light, the accused was stopped and checked on alcohol meter by the ZO and found to be positive for 83.1mg/100ml. Thereafter the accused was challaned by the ZO.
PW-1 in his cross-examination deposed that the accused was stopped at about 9.00 pm and at around 9.04 pm the alcohol test was conducted. He further deposed that he does not remember the make and model and colour of the offending vehicle.
6. PW-2, SI Shamsuddin in his examination in chief deposed that on 09-03-2013, he alongwith HC Narender Kumar and alongwith other Vehicle No. DL3CBJ 8778 State V/s. Pankaj Verma Page 2 of 7 Challan No. - 328810 staffs was on duty under Chirag Delhi fly over under the supervision of TI, GKC. He further deposed that he alongwith HC Narender Kumar were standing on the road coming from Panchsheel side. He further deposed that at about 9.05 pm, the accused was driving one car bearing no. DL3CBJ 8778 and was coming from Panchsheel side. He further deposed that on suspicion, the accused/driver of the offending vehicle was directed to come for breath analysis and at Chirag Delhi chowk, the breath analysis test of accused was conducted by him. He further deposed that as per the breath analysis report the accused was found positive for 83.1mg/100ml of blood which is exhibited as Ex.PW-2/A. He further deposed that thereafter the accused was asked to produce the driving license and other documents of the offending vehicle which are impounded in the challan. He further deposed that the accused could not produce the insurance of the offending vehicle. He further deposed that thereafter the accused was challaned vide challan no. 328810 Ex.PW-2/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that there was nobody in the car except the accused/driver. He further deposed that he does not remember the make and the model of the offending vehicle. He further deposed that he was present at the spot only with HC, Narender Singh. He further deposed that he does not remember the time when he conducted the alcohol test.
7. PW-3, Insp. Vijay Kumar in his examination in chief deposed that on 09-03-2013, he was posted as TI, GKC and on that day special checking against drunken driving was being conducted near Chirag Delhi fly over under his supervision. He further deposed that at 9.10 pm, one car bearing no. DL3CBJ 8778 was being driven by one Mr. Pankaj Vehicle No. DL3CBJ 8778 State V/s. Pankaj Verma Page 3 of 7 Challan No. - 328810 Verma whose name was known later on. He further denied the suggestion that the violator was stopped near Chirag Delhi fly over and breath analysis test was conducted by SI/ZO Shamsuddin. He further deposed that the result was 93.1mg/100ml whereas the permissible limit is 30mg/100ml. He further deposed that SI/ZO Shamsuddin issued the challan. He further deposed that HC Narender was also present there and made to the witness in this case.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was present at the spot at the time of incident. He further deposed that breath analysis test was not conducted before me. He further deposed that the breath analysis test was conducted outside the traffic police booth under Chirag Delhi fly over. He further deposed that he does not remember how many people were sitting in the offending vehicle. He further deposed that he does not remember the make, colour and the module of the car. He further deposed that the breath analysis test result was not 93.1mg/100ml.
8. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Pankaj Verma was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. dated 20-07-2013. In his statement, the accused denied to have committed any offence. He has produced valid insurance policy no. 35101031126131809415 of the offending vehicle issued on 11-08-2012 which is valid from 05-10-2012 to 04-10-2013.
9. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the accused and also perused the record.
Vehicle No. DL3CBJ 8778 State V/s. Pankaj Verma Page 4 of 7Challan No. - 328810
10. In order to prove an offence u/s 185 of M. V. Act following ingredients has to be fulfilled :-
A) Accused should be driving or attempting to drive a Motor Vehicle.
B) He must be tested by breath analyzer. C) After breath analyzer test, accused was found to have more than 30 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.
The blood alcohol analysis report is also admissible under section 203 (6) of M. V. Act. If it is found on such test that the alcohol content was more than 30 mg per 100 ml of blood then the accused is punishable as per section 185 of M. V. Act.
11. In the present case, the breath analysis report which is relied upon by the prosecution does not stand proved as it does not bear the signatures of the person who conducted the test.
12. Further,the testimony of the Challaning Officer PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 does not inspire confidence as they could not depose regarding the make, model or even colour of the offending vehicle.
13. Further, there is nothing on record to prove that accused Pankaj Verma was driving the offending vehicle at the time of offence. There is no photographic evidence to that effect and no site plan has been filed by the prosecution to ascertain the place of .
14. Further, in this case, no independent witness has been enjoined in the investigation. It is settled proposition of law that when independent public persons are available at the spot and they are not joined in the Vehicle No. DL3CBJ 8778 State V/s. Pankaj Verma Page 5 of 7 Challan No. - 328810 investigation by the investigating agency and unless and until any reasonable and plausible explanation comes from the prosecution as to why the independent public persons were not joined, the case of prosecution should be seen with reasonable circumspection as it would be unsafe to believe the story of the prosecution in absence of the independent public witnesses. In the case of Sanspal Singh, Vs. State of Delhi, 1999 Cr.L.J. 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that non joining of public witnesses would not be fatal to the prosecution in the situation where there were no public witnesses available or none was willing to associate in the investigation but would be fatal only when despite the availability of the public witnesses no one was joined in the investigation.
15. Here is a case where no efforts were made to join any public witness even though they were available. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witness. The Challaning Officer should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witness. No attempt in this direction has been made by the Challaning Officer and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the prosecution case.
16. It seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version given by the aforesaid witnesses and creates a good deal of doubt about the commission of the offence in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
17. Moreover, there is nothing on record to prove the presence of PW-1 & PW-3 at the relevant time. Even the challan has not been signed by the witness. Thus the presence of the witness at the alleged time itself is rendered doubtful.
Vehicle No. DL3CBJ 8778 State V/s. Pankaj Verma Page 6 of 7Challan No. - 328810
18. All these infirmities casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case and seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version given by the aforesaid witnesses and creates a good deal of doubt about the commission of the offence in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
19. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit, whatsoever, from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused.
20. In the result, I find that Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Pankaj Verma beyond reasonable doubt and he is given the benefit of doubt and therefore accused Pankaj Verma is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 185 of M. V. Act. Further, accused is convicted u/s 146/196 of M. V. Act.
Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the accused. Let accused be heard on the point of sentence.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED - 20-07-20-13 (Preeti Parewa) MM-01/Traffic (South) Saket/New Delhi 20-07-2013 Vehicle No. DL3CBJ 8778 State V/s. Pankaj Verma Page 7 of 7