Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Kumar Etc on 30 May, 2019
FIR No. 375/2014
PS I.P.Estate
U/s 279/304 A IPC
& u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act
State Vs Anil Kumar etc
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPLAV DABAS
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03, CENTRAL, DELHI
CIS No. 292486/2016
FIR No. 375/2014
PS I.P.Estate
U/s 279/304 A IPC & u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act
State Vs Anil Kumar etc
Date of Institution of case : 10.04.2015
Date of Judgment : 30.05.2019
JUDGMENT:
a) Date of offence : 06.09.2014
b) Offence complained of : U/s 279/304 A IPC & 134 (a) M.V.Act
c) Name of Accused, his : 1) Anil Kumar
parentage & residence S/o Sh. Nathu Ram
R/o Dhani Mani Ram,
VPO Gangwa, PS Sadar,
District Hisar, Haryana.
2) Sunder Lal @ Shyam Sundar,
S/o Sh.Kana Ram,
R/o F135, Lal Kuan,
Delhi44.
d) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
e) Final order : Acquitted
1/10
FIR No. 375/2014
PS I.P.Estate
U/s 279/304 A IPC
& u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act
State Vs Anil Kumar etc
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
1. On 06.09.2014, at about 12:25 p.m, at flyover in front of Power Plant, ITO, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS I.P.Estate the accused Sunder Lal was driving Tempo bearing no. DL 1LP 4167 and accused Anil Kumar was driving Honda Car bearing no. HR 22D 3147 in a manner so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the said vehicles in aforesaid manner the accused persons caused death of one scooterist Narender Kumar not amounting to culpable homicide and accused Anil Kumar fled away from the spot after causing the said accident and causing injuries to deceased Narender Kumar. On the basis of aforesaid facts, the present FIR was registered for offence punishable under Section 279/304 A IPC and offence punishable under Section 134 (a) of M.V.Act against the accused and after usual investigation chargesheet was filed.
2. The Court took cognizance of the abovesaid offence u/s 279/304 A IPC and u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act and provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C complied. After hearing arguments, as a prime facie case was made out against the accused Anil Kumar and Sunder Lal for offence punishable u/s 279 & 304 A IPC and u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act, notice was accordingly framed against them to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trail.
2/10 FIR No. 375/2014PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304 A IPC & u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act State Vs Anil Kumar etc
3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s 279 & 304A IPC & u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act, 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 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.
c. Section 134 (a) M.V.Act : That the motor vehicle is involved in an accident and that the driver of the vehicle or other person in charge of the vehicle did not take all reasonable steps to secure medical attention of the injured person.
4. To prove its case, prosecution started examining its witnesses.
5. PW1 Sh. Ramu @ Ramesh S/o Sh. Narain deposed that on 06.09.2014, he was present in the tempo bearing no. DL 1LP 4167 as helper and the said tempo was driven by accused Sunder Lal who is his uncle by way of his extended family, 3/10 FIR No. 375/2014 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304 A IPC & u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act State Vs Anil Kumar etc that they were going from Bawana to Gurukul, Faridabad in the abovementioned tempo, that when they were on the Salimgarh bypass Power Plant flyover and going towards ITO, they heard a noise of hitting the vehicle, that they stopped their tempo on the side of the road and saw that a white colour car stopped in front of their tempo for few seconds and ran away towards ITO, that they saw after stopping of the tempo that a scooter was lying on the road and some person was hit by the aforesaid white car, that due to that the injured person was lying at the driver side tyre of the tempo, that blood was oozing from the head of the injured person, that helmet was also lying nearby on the road, that other vehicles also stopped at the spot, that thereafter accused Sunder Lal made a call at 100 number and that accused Sunder Lal had taken the injured person at hospital and that he left the spot with tempo. PW1 Ramu @ Ramesh S/o Sh. Narain further deposed that accident was caused by white colour car and that he can not tell whether the bumper of said white colour car was broken or not as he could not see the same.
During cross examination conducted on behalf of accused the witness deposed that he does not know the registration number of the aforesaid white colour car and that he also does not know the brand name and manufactures and model of that white colour car.
6. PW2 Sh. Ravi S/o Sh. Prahlad deposed that he is the registered owner of vehicle bearing no. DL 1LP 4167, that accused Sunder Lal is his driver, that he handed over the vehicle to accused Sunder Lal who was driving the vehicle in his ordinary course of job, that after two days when he was in Rajasthan he was 4/10 FIR No. 375/2014 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304 A IPC & u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act State Vs Anil Kumar etc intimated about the accident, that he also received a notice under Section 133 M.V.Act Ex.PW2/1 to which he duly complied and reported to the PS I.P.Estate on 24.09.2014 where he had produced the documents of the vehicle and that documents were seized by the police.
This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
7. PW3 Sh. Arvinder Singh s/o Sh. Darshan Singh proved the mechanical inspection report Ex PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. During cross examination on behalf of accused Anil Kumar, the witness deposed that he does not know when the accident occurred of the vehicle which was brought to him for the mechanical inspection, that accident occurred on dated 06.09.2014 and mechanical inspection of the aforementioned vehicle was conducted on 12.11.2014, that usually in routine course of events there are more chances that left side of a vehicle may get scratched or touched, that in his report there is no description of dates when the said vehicle got scratched, dislocated or damaged, repaired and repainted, that no fresh damages were found on the aforesaid vehicle while inspecting the same and volunteered that the damages which may be 1015 days old are usually considered as fresh damages.
The witness denied the suggestion that damages occurred to the aforementioned vehicle after the date of accident i.e. 06.09.2014, that he had not examined the aforementioned vehicle and had prepared the report at the instance of the police, that he was well aware about the date of accident and that as there were no fresh damages on the vehicle so he prepared this report in his office without 5/10 FIR No. 375/2014 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304 A IPC & u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act State Vs Anil Kumar etc inspecting the vehicle.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Sunder Lal the witness deposed that he cannot tell what was the intensity/ impact of damages on the vehicle in question and volunteered that he has already mentioned the details of damages in his report.
8. PW4 Smt. Afsana W/o Rashid Khan deposed that on 06.09.2014, she was going to Patiala House on motorcycle along with her husband, that her husband was driving the motorcycle and she was sitting on the pillion seat of the motorcycle, that at about 12.1512.30 p.m, they reached near flyover at ring road near power plant where they saw that a tempo was stationed there and one dead person was lying under that tempo, that the driver of the tempo was pointing towards a car and saying that car had hit the person lying under the tempo, that her husband tried to chase that car but they could not see that car for a moment, that thereafter, they reached at the flyover Geeta Colony and they again saw that car on the road, that they told to the police officials present on the road that the car which was running ahead of their motorcycle had caused accident and that police officials flashed the information on the wireless.
Ld. APP for the State was permitted to cross examine the witness as she is resiling from her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and witness deposed that she did not made any statement to the police, that police did not make any inquiry from her and that the statement dated 19.09.2014 u/s 161 Cr.P.C was read over to the witness who denied making such statement to the police. The witness 6/10 FIR No. 375/2014 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304 A IPC & u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act State Vs Anil Kumar etc denied the suggestion that when they were going to Patiala house court a car was going ahead of their motorcycle at a distance of 6070 meter and that car hit a scooter as a result of which that scooter fell down on the road on its left side and scooterist also fell down on the road and he sustained injuries on his head and she had stated this fact to the police in her statement. The witness denied the suggestion that registration number of car was HR 22D 3147 and she had told the same to the police, that she and her husband had followed the offending car bearing no. HR 22D 3147 at Vikas Marg towards Laxmi Nagar and she stated this fact in her statement to the police, that she has been won over by the accused or that she had settled the matter with her or that she am deposing falsely.
This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
9. PW5 Sh. Rashid Khan deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW4 Smt. Afsana W/o Rashid Khan and supported his version.
This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
10. During the prosecution evidence, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the Ld. Counsel for accused that the star/ eye witnesses PW4 Smt. Afsana and PW 5 Sh. Rashid Khan are not supporting the prosecution and resiling from their statement recorded earlier, that no material could be extracted from the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses and that the witnesses have turned hostile in toto. It is submitted that there is no other eye witness of the incident and there is no circumstance available on record to prove that the vehicle driven by the accused 7/10 FIR No. 375/2014 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304 A IPC & u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act State Vs Anil Kumar etc persons caused the accident and that accused persons were rash or negligent in their conduct which led to the death of the victim. It is submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution against the accused as remaining witnesses are all police / medical witnesses who are formal in nature and the involvement of accused and his vehicle in the alleged incident as well as the presence of rash or negligent conduct on part of the accused which is necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused can not be proved at all by the remaining prosecution witnesses.
11. Submission heard on behalf of State and defence. Record perused.
12. Perusal of the record reveals that submissions of the Ld. Counsel for accused persons are not baseless. Record shows that PW4 and PW5 are the eye witnesses and PW1, PW2 and PW3 are the helper of one of the offending vehicle / tempo which was driven by accused Sunder Lal, owner of the said tempo and mechanical inspector respectively.
The testimony of PW1 shows that he is not an eye witness of the accident as he has not seen the accident at the time of its happening. It is further clear that PW1 failed to establish the identity of the alleged offending vehicle i.e white Car. The testimony of PW2 shows that factum of commission of accident by the vehicle driven by accused Sunder Lal due to his rashness / negligence who was the driver of the alleged offending vehicle in ordinary course, is not established at all.
It is evident from the testimony of PW3 that the mechanical examination 8/10 FIR No. 375/2014 PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304 A IPC & u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act State Vs Anil Kumar etc was conducted on 12.11.2014 whereas the accident had occurred on 06.09.2014 and the delay in the said mechanical inspection, remains unexplained which indicates that chances of false implication of accused can not be ruled out.
It is further clear from the testimony of PW4 and PW5 that they have turned hostile in toto qua their being the eye witnesses of the accident and that prosecution failed to extract any material despite their cross examination at length.
13. Considering the record, the fact that the only eye witnesses/star witnesses are not supporting the prosecution and are resiling from their statement recorded earlier regarding the fact of their being eyewitness to the accident as well as regarding the fact that accused persons and their vehicle were involved in the incident and that there is no other eye witness of the incident or other circumstance to establish identity of the accused persons and their vehicle being the offender and offending vehicle respectively and the element of rashness or negligence in the conduct of accused persons or any act / omission committed by accused persons resulting into the death of the victim and the fact that one of the accused Anil fled away from the spot after committing the accident without taking all reasonable steps to secure medical attention of the injured person, which is a necessary element for completion of offences u/s 279 & 304 A IPC & u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution evidence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is closed and recording of statement of accused is also dispensed with as there is no substantially incriminating circumstance available on record.
9/10 FIR No. 375/2014PS I.P.Estate U/s 279/304 A IPC & u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act State Vs Anil Kumar etc
14. In view of aforesaid discussion and present circumstances, as no substantially incriminating material is available on record, accused 1) Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Nathu Ram and 2) Sunder Lal @ Shyam Sundar, S/o Sh.Kana Ram are hereby acquitted of the charge u/s 279 IPC & 304 A IPC & u/s 134 (a) M.V.Act levelled against them.
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.
Fresh bail bonds and surety bonds in compliance of Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C already furnished, considered and accepted.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedVIPLAV by VIPLAV DABAS DABAS Date: 2019.06.04 17:11:15 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (VIPLAV DABAS) on 30.05.2019 MM03/ CENTRAL:DELHI 30.05.2019 10/10