Delhi District Court
State vs . Manveer Singh on 16 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL VERMA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 411/2017
PS - Sunlight Colony
U/s - 279/304A/471/474 IPC
State Vs. Manveer Singh
JUDGMENT
Part A - The list at a glance A. Serial No. of the Case : 6245/2018 B. Date of Commission of offence : 20.10.2017 C. Date of Institution of Case : 20.09.2018 D. Name of the Complainant : Mohd. Khaleel S/o Mohd.
Suleman R/o House No. 2206,
First Floor, , Shankar Wali Gali,
Sitaram Bazar, Chandani Mahal,
Delhi
E. Name of the Accused : Manveer Singh S/o Late Shri
Babu Singh R/o House No. 186,
Gali No. 1, In front of Hanuman
Mandir Wali Gali, Basantpur
Colony, Faridabad, Haryana and
also at village Alampur (Liha),
PS Sikandrau District Hathras,
UP.
F. Offence charged of : 279/304A/471/474 IPC
G. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final Order : Convicted u/s. 279/304A/474 IPC
Acquitted u/s. 471 IPC
I. Judgment reserved on : 03.01.2023
J. Date of judgment : 16.01.2023
State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.1 of 15
Part B - A brief statement of reasons for the decision (As mandated u/s 355(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.10.2017 at about 06.15 AM at Sarai Kale Khan, DND Loop, near Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, the accused was driving TSR bearing registration no. DL1RS4191 on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, and while so driving the aforementioned vehicle he struck against one rickshaw and caused death of Ali Ahmed by his act not amounting to culpable homicide. Further, on the abovesaid date, time and place, the accused fraudulently and dishonestly used the forged insurance policy of the said vehicle as genuine and the same was found in possession of the accused which he knew or had reasons to believe to be forged.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused and the cognizance of offence was taken. Documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). On the basis of material on record, charge under Section 279/304A/471/474 IPC was framed upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Vide statement recorded under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., the accused admitted the genuineness of following documents:
(i) FIR (without contents) registered in the present case Ex. PA1.
(ii) MLC of Mohd. Ali bearing no. 338334 (14595) dated 28.10.2017 Ex. PA2.
(iii) DD No. 18A dated 28.10.2017 Ex. PA3.
State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.2 of 15
(iv) MVI Report of vehicle bearing no. DL 1RS4191 Ex. PA4.
(v) MVI Report of vehicle rickshaw (three wheeler) Ex. PA5.
(vi) Post mortem report of deceased Ali Ahmed Ex. PA6.
(vii) DD No. 10A dated 31.10.2017 Ex. PA7.
(viii) Identification statement of witnesses Mahmood Alam Ex. PA8.
4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses:
(i) PW1 Mohd. Khalil deposed that in the year 2017 he was residing at Sita Ram Bazar Delhi and he was doing the business of selling old clothes by moving on rickshaw. He further deposed that on 28.10.2017, at about 55:30 am, he was driving the rickshaw and one Ali Ahmed was sitting in the back seat of the rickshaw and they were going towards Taimoor Nagar in order to sell old clothes. He further deposed that when they reached DND flyover loop, suddenly one TSR bearing no. 4191 hit his rickshaw from behind. Due to the impact of hitting, Ali Ahmed and he fell down on road and Ali Ahmed became unconscious. He correctly identified the accused as driver of the said TSR. He further deposed that name of the driver of the TSR was Manveer Singh and he came to know about the name of the driver of TSR later on at Safdarjung hospital. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith driver of the TSR took Ali Ahmed to Safdarjung hospital.
He further deposed that he met the police at Safdarjung hospital and he narrated the whole incident to police. He further deposed that accused Manveer was also present at the spot when the police reached there.
State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.3 of 15 Thereafter police recorded his statement which was Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that police seized his rickshaw and the said TSR vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that after 2 - 3 days Ali Ahmed was declared dead by the officials of hospital. He further deposed that the abovesaid incident took place due to the negligence on the part of the accused as he hit his TSR to his rickshaw from behind. He identified the TSR bearing no. DL 1RS 4191 as the offending vehicle though its photographs Ex.P1 (colly) and deposed that this was the same TSR which caused the accident. He further identified the said rickshaw / rehdi which he alongwith deceased Ali Ahmed were riding on the day of the incident, from its 06 photographs Ex.P2 (colly.). This witness was not cross examined despite availing opportunity.
(ii) PW2 ASI Dinesh Kumar deposed that he is the second IO of this case and the further investigation was marked to him after few days from the death of victim in this case. He further deposed that during investigation he verified the insurance policy of the offending vehicle and for that purpose, he served notice Ex.PW2/A to Oriental insurance company and the same was found to be false as per the reply given by the insurance company on the notice Ex.PW2/A from point B to B1. He further deposed that they also gave him copy of the correct insurance certificate Ex.PW2/B (colly). He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed it in court. This witness was not cross examined despite availing opportunity.
State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.4 of 15
(iii) PW3 Kushal Kumar deposed that he had been working in the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., DO14, Plot No.80, First Floor, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi92 as Administrative Officer, since year 2010. He further deposed that one policy bearing no. 271700/31/2016/7007 was issued to Mohd. Ehsan S/o Mohd. Islam R/o House No.151 Village Mamoora, Noida for the period 18.09.2015 till 17.09.2016 for a new vehicle make Bajaj Auto having engine number E44814 chasis no. E67983. He admitted the seal of the company and signature of Rajiv Chopra Senior Divisional Manager letter/ notice dated 29.11.2017 at point C and D respectively. He further deposed that he was working with the said Rajiv Chopra and came across with his signature in daily routine and thus he was able to identify his signature. He further deposed that the abovesaid letter was issued to the Manager, Oriental Insurance and in consequence to the abovesaid notice / letter, Rajiv Chopra Sr. Divisional Manager replied on the same notice from point B to B wherein he had stated that the abovesaid policy was issued to Mohd. Hasan. He identified the insurance policy bearing number 271700/31/2016/7007 Ex. PW2/B (Colly) as the same policy which was issued to said Mohd. Ehsan. He further identified the seal of the insurance company on it. He also produced the certified copy of the policy bearing no. 271700/31/2016/7007 Ex. PW3/C (colly) bearing the seal of the company. The witness was shown the alleged insurance policy in question bearing number 271700/31/2016/7007 issued in favour of Premwati Devi, to which he replied that no such policy was issued by the Oriental Insurance Company as the policy period shown in the abovesaid policy from 27.05.2017 till 26.05.2018 which falls in the policy year 2018 and not State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.5 of 15 in year 2016 and thus it seemed a fake policy. The said fake policy was exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that he could not identify the signature and seal in the abovesaid policy Ex. PW3/A. He produced copy of his identity card Ex. PW3/B (OSR). This witness was not cross examined despite availing opportunity.
(iv) PW4 Ct. Pratap deposed that on 28.10.2017 he along with HC Komal went to Safdurjung Hospital and found one injured Ali Ahmed who was hospitalized in the said hospital. He further deposed that injured Ali Ahmad was not found fit for statement. He further deposed that statement of one Khalil Ahmed was recorded by HC Komal. He further deposed that accused was also present at the hospital. Thereafter, IO prepared the tehrir and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. Thereafter, upon registration of FIR he came back to the spot i.e. DND Loop with copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to IO HC Komal. Thereafter, Khalil was discharged from the spot by the IO. He further deposed that thereafter, the accused was arrested by IO HC Komal vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A and he also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW4/B. He further deposed that IO also seized the rickshaw and TSR vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C respectively. He further deposed that IO also seized the documents of the offending vehicle vide Ex. PW4/C. He correctly identified the accused. This witness was not cross examined despite availing opportunity.
(v) PW5 HC Komal deposed that on 28.10.2017 he was on emergency duty and at about 3.58 PM he received an information State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.6 of 15 about the MLC from Safdurjung Hospital. Thereafter, he along with Ct Pratap went to Safdurjung Hospital. He collected the MLC of injured Ali Ahmed who was hospitalized in that hospital. He further deposed that one Mohd. Khalil was also present in the hospital. He inquired from Mohd. Khalil about the incident and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. Mohd. Khalil further disclosed that the person who caused the accident was present in the hospital and he pointed towards the accused Manvir Singh there. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka which was Ex. PW5/A and sent the same with Ct. Pratap to PS for registration of FIR. He further deposed that injured Ali Ahmed was unfit for statement as declared by the concerned doctor. Thereafter he along with accused, complainant Mohd. Khalil came back to spot i.e. DND loop. In the meanwhile, Ct. Pratap reached the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him. Thereafter, he interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/A and also got conducted his personal search Ex. PW4/B. Thereafter, he seized the rehri/rickshaw and TSR vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. Thereafter, the accused produced the DL, RC and insurance of offending vehicle, and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/C. He further deposed that accused also produced photocopy of his driving license and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. Thereafter, he recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan of the place of incident Ex. PW5/C. He further deposed that on 31.10.2017 information of death of deceased Ali Ahmed was received at PS. Thereafter, post mortem of deceased Ali Ahmed was conducted and body of deceased was identified by the relatives of the Ali Ahmed. He State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.7 of 15 went for conducting the postmortem with SI Shabab Alam and after examination, he recorded the statement of SI Shabab Alam. He further deposed that during investigation, mechanical inspection of both the vehicles got conducted. During investigation, he served notice to accused to produce the original DL. Accordingly, the accused produced the original DL which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/D. He further deposed that thereafter, the present case was marked to ASI Dinesh for further investigation. He correctly identified the accused. He also identified the TSR bearing no. DL 1RS 4191 as the offending vehicle though its photographs Ex.P1 (colly) and deposed that this was the same TSR which caused the accident. He further identified the said rickshaw / rehdi which was driven by the complainant at the time of incident, from its 06 photographs Ex.P2 (colly.). This witness duly cross examined on behalf of the accused.
5. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 19.07.2022.
6. Statement of accused u/s. 313 r/w 281 of Cr.P.C was recorded on 01.08.2022 wherein the accused denied the incriminating evidences appearing against him and opted to lead defence evidence. He examined the following witness:
(i) DW1 Manveer Singh deposed that on the day of the incident the police obtained the documents of his TSR outside the Safdarjung Hospital. Thereafter, the police officials alleged him that he was involved in an accident case. He told them that his daughter was disabled and after school hours, he used to go for his work and that his wife was also not well and he had to take care of her also. His sister in State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.8 of 15 law's husband namely Megh Singh got the insurance of his auto, who was driving the present TSR and he died just about 1015 days prior to the date of alleged incident. He further deposed that he had been falsely implicated in the present matter and no accident was caused by his TSR. This witness was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
7. Subsequently, final arguments from the counsel for accused and Ld. APP for the State were heard.
8. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for offences punishable under Section 279/304A/471/474 IPC. Section 279 IPC punishes the act of a person driving or riding a vehicle on a 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. Section 304A IPC punishes the act of causing death (not amounting to culpable homicide) of a person by doing a rash or negligent act.
9. These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However, as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances. A distinction between "rashness" and "negligence" is that "rashness" conveys an idea of doing a reckless act without considering any of its consequences, whereas, "negligence" connotes want of proper care. It was held by the Apex Court in the case of S.N. Hussain v. State of A.P., (1972) 3 SCC 18 that:
"Rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury.
State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.9 of 15 The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
10. Besides this, prosecution is also required to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and the identity of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined total 5 witnesses. PW1 Mohd Khalil is the eyewitness and injured in the present case. He specifically described the mode and manner in which the offending vehicle struck him. He deposed that on 28.10.2017, at about 55:30 AM, he was driving a rickshaw and one Ali Ahmed was sitting in the back of the said rickshaw. Thereafter, when they reached DND flyover loop, suddenly one TSR bearing no. 4191 hit his rickshaw from behind. Due to the impact of hitting, Ali Ahmed and he fell down on the road, and Ali Ahmed became unconscious. He further deposed that Ali Ahmed was admitted to hospital but after 2 - 3 days he died in the hospital. He further deposed that the said incident took place due to the negligence on the part of the accused as he hit his TSR to his rickshaw from behind. He correctly identified the accused as driver of the said TSR bearing no. DL 1RS 4191.
12. Here, it is pertinent to note that PW1 was not crossexamined on behalf of the accused. It is settled law that noncrossexamination of a State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.10 of 15 witness implies that the statement of witness has not been disputed. It was held in case of A.E.G. Carapiet vs. A.Y. Derderian, AIR 1961 Cal 359 that:
"Wherever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross examination, it must follow that he believed that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. It is wrong to think that this is merely a technical rule of evidence. It is a rule of essential justice."
13. Thus, the effect of noncrossexamination of the PW1 Mohd. Khali is that his testimony has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. In fact, except PW5 HC Komal no other prosecution witness has been crossexamined on behalf of the accused. It must follow that the accused himself believed that the testimony of the said prosecution witnesses could not be disputed at all. Even in the crossexamination of PW5 HC Komal, nothing has come on record to disbelieve his testimony.
14. In defence of the accused, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the alleged offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1RS 4191 was not involved in the accident. It is argued by the counsel for the accused that the photographs of offending TSR Ex. P1 and the rickshaw driven by the complainant do not show any dent or damage. However, damage on both the said vehicle has been mentioned in their mechanical inspection reports Ex. PA4 and Ex. PA5 which are also the admitted documents. Further, the photographs available on record not disclosing any damage on the vehicles does not imply that there was no damage on these vehicles at all. The said photographs were not taken at the time of mechanical inspection, rather were taken after the applications for vehicle release were allowed. The purpose for State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.11 of 15 which these photographs were taken, was entirely different, and thus, these photographs do not aid the said defence of the accused.
15. As far as, the identity of the offending vehicle and the accused as driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, the same is established by the unrebutted testimony of PW1 Mohd. Khalil which has been corroborated by PW4 Ct. Pratap and PW5 HC Komal. Nothing has come on record to disbelieve their testimonies. The involvement of the offending TSR bearing number DL1RS4191 and the identity of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle is also established from the fact that both the vehicles involved in the accident were seized from the spot of the accident vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. As already discussed, the mechanical inspection report Ex. PA4 and Ex. PA5 also show the damage on the offending vehicle and the rickshaw. Thus, it is clear that the vehicle bearing no. DL 1RS4191 was involved in the accident and the accused Manveer Singh was driving the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1RS4191 at the time of the accident.
16. Now, moving to the issue whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and had caused fatal injury to deceased. As already discussed, eyewitness PW1 Mohd. Khalil has already deposed in his unrebutted and unchallenged testimony that the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1RS4191 had hit his rickshaw from behind and that the said incident took place due to the negligence on the part of the accused. This fact is also clear from the mechanical inspection reports of the offending TSR and the rickshaw i.e. Ex. PA4 and Ex. PA5 respectively. Since the offending TSR struck the rickshaw driven by the complainant from behind, it was for the accused to explain as to how the State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.12 of 15 accident had occurred if not due to his rash or negligent driving. However, no such explanation has come on record from the accused.
17. Act of negligence in this case can be clearly attributed to the accused as he is solely responsible for causing the accident without any fault of the complainant driving the said rickshaw. Rashness or negligence is clear from the manner in which the accident had taken place. Since the complainant and the deceased Ali Ahmed on the rickshaw were hit from behind by the accused driving the offending vehicle, such an act of the accused by itself amounts to rash and negligent driving.
18. The injuries caused to the deceased and the manner of accident clearly shows that the accused had driven the offending vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner which not only endangered the human life and safety of others but also caused fatal injuries fatal injuries to deceased. The testimony of prosecution witnesses and evidence on record including the Post Mortem Report of deceased Ex. PA6 proves the factum of injuries caused to the deceased in accident and his consequential death in the hospital.
19. The accused is also charged under Section 471/474 IPC. Perusal of Section 471 of IPC reveals that the offence herein pertains to the dishonest or fraudulent use of any forged document as genuine. Further, Section 474 IPC provides for the punishment for being in possession of a document, as described under Section 466 IPC knowing it to be forged and intending it to be so used.
20. Qua charge under Section 471 IPC, it is not clear from the evidence on record as to how and in what manner the accused was actually using the forged policy as genuine one. Therefore, in opinion of this court, ingredients of Section 471 IPC are not satisfied.
State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.13 of 15
21. Regarding the charge under Section 474 IPC, testimony of PW4 Ct. Pratap and PW5 HC Komal shows that the insurance policy Ex. PW3/A of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1RS4191 was produced by the accused and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/C. The testimony of PW3 Kushal Kumar working as Administrative Officer in Oriental Insurance Company shows that the insurance policy in question, which was found in possession of the accused, bearing number 271700/31/2016/7007 Ex. PW3/A issued in favour of Premwati Devi having policy period from 27.05.2017 till 26.05.2018, is a fake policy. PW3 Kaushal Kumar deposed that as per the record of the insurance company, the original policy bearing no. 271700/31/2016/7007 Ex. PW2/B (Colly) was issued to one Mohd. Hasan for the period 18.09.2015 till 17.09.2016 for new vehicle make Bajaj Auto having engine number E44814 chasis no. E67983. PW3 Kaushal Kumar was not crossexamined by the accused despite availing opportunity. It is thus clear that the insurance policy Ex. PW3/A found in possession of the accused was a forged policy.
22. Since the said insurance policy was produced by the accused himself during the investigation when he was asked for the same, and was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/C, it is clear that the accused was in possession of a forged insurance policy and he intended the same to be used as genuine fraudulently or dishonestly.
23. The accused has taken the defence that he was not aware that the said insurance policy was forged as the said policy was not obtained by himself, rather was given to him by his brotherinlaw Megh Singh who expired a month later. It is settled law that when a fact is within the special knowledge of a person, then burden of proving such fact is upon himself. However, no State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.14 of 15 evidence has been brought on record by the accused in support of this defence to discharge this burden. I find this defence of the accused frivolous and conjured as a convenient excuse. In my opinion the commission of offence by the accused under Section 474 IPC is established beyond reasonable doubt.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, the court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused and that the death of deceased Ali Ahmed was caused due to injuries sustained in the said accident. The prosecution has also proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 474 IPC
25. Accordingly, the accused is held guilty of offences punishable under section 279/304A IPC and Section 474 IPC, and he is accordingly convicted of the same.
26. The guilt of the accused has not been proved for offence under Section 471 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC.
27. Copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
Digitally signedAnnounced in open RAHUL by RAHUL
VERMA
VERMA Date:
court on 16.01.2023
2023.01.20
17:00:53 +0530
(RAHUL VERMA)
Metropolitan Magistrate07,
South East, Saket, New Delhi
State Vs. Manveer Singh; FIR No. 411/17 PS Sunlight Colony Page No.15 of 15