Delhi District Court
State vs . Rameshwar Fir No. 547/16 on 2 August, 2022
State vs. Rameshwar FIR No. 547/16
IN THE COURT OF MS. UDITA JAIN GARG: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-06, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State vs. Rameshwar
FIR No.547/16
U/Sec. 279/304A IPC & 177 MV Act
PS: Hari Nagar
Date of institution of the case: 23.12.2016
Date on which judgment is reserved: Not reserved
Date on which judgment is delivered: 02.08.2022
Cr. Case No.3376/17
CNR No.DLWT020184762016
JUDGMENT
a) Date of commission of the offence : 15.08.2016
b) Name of the complainant : ASI Dharampal
c) Name of the accused and his parentage : Rameshwar, S/o Sh. Hanuman Singh R/o H.No RZ E-26, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, Delhi.
d) Offence complained of : Sec. 279/304A IPC & 177 MV Act.
e) Offence charged of : Sec. 279/304A IPC &
177 MV Act.
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Page No.1 of 9
State vs. Rameshwar FIR No. 547/16
g) Final order : Acquittal
h) Date of such order : 02.08.2022
i) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 15.08.2016, information was received at police station Hari Nagar regarding accident. This information was recorded vide DD No.36A in the police station and matter was entrusted to ASI Dharampal for necessary action. Thereafter, he reached the spot i.e. in front of Dayal Optician along with HC Nitin where they found one motorcycle bearing no.DL6ST-5998 in accidental condition. Thereafter, it came to their knowledge that the injured had been taken to DDU hospital. No eye witness was found either at the spot or at the hospital. MLC of the injured was then collected and FIR was registered u/s 279/304 A IPC.
Investigation was undertaken. Thereafter, notice u/s 133 MV Act was given to the depot manager who informed that the accused Rameshwar was driving the vehicle at the date of the accident.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 279/304A IPC & Section 177 MV Act was filed against accused/driver Rameshwar. Consequently, he was summoned to face the trial. On his appearance in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to him as per norms.
Thereafter, charge under sections 279/304A IPC & Section 177 MV Act was framed against accused/driver Rameshwar.
With a view to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution has cited as many as fourteen (14) witnesses including the complainant.
Perusal of the court record shows that the entire case of the prosecution Page No.2 of 9 State vs. Rameshwar FIR No. 547/16 relies on the statement of PW/Sumit Verma who has been cited as an eye-witness in the present case. The prosecution version is that as per his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., PW/Sumit witnessed the accused driving the offending vehicle bearing no.DL1PD-1329 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, consequently, hitting the motorcycle of the victim causing him injuries resulting into his death. However, the said sole eye- witness of the prosecution turned hostile during his deposition in the court.
PW2/Sumit Verma has testified that on 15.08.2016 at about 05:45 pm when he was groing to his home in a cab and reached near Sagarpur Bus Stand, he saw certain public persons gathered due to an accident. Thereafter, he made a call to the police and went to his house. He deposed that he did not see the accident and had simply made a call to the police. He denied any knowledge as to the manner of the accident and the identity of the person who had caused the accident.
Since the witness resiled from his previous statement and turned volteface to the face of the prosecution, he was cross examined by the learned APP for the State with the permission of the court. He during his cross-examination by the learned APP for the State denied that he stated to the police about him going on a motorcycle and witnessing the driver of the offending vehicle hitting against the victim by driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He further denied having seen the driver of the offending vehicle in the Police Station and identifying him as the driver of the offending bus. He further failed to identify the accused in court as the driver of the offending vehicle. He volunteered that he did not see the accident and denied the suggestion that the accused is the same person who was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident. He also denied that he was Page No.3 of 9 State vs. Rameshwar FIR No. 547/16 intentionally not identifying the accused as he has been won over by the accused.
The prosecution has also examined several other formal witnesses like the mechanical inspector etc. to prove the allegation against the accused. However, since the sole eye witness/ complainant had resiled from his previous statement regarding the manner of driving and identity of accused, PE was closed by the order of the court as no useful purpose would be served by examining the rest of the witnesses, who are formal in nature and the request of the learned APP for the State to examine remaining witnesses was declined. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that "...In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date..........."
Since there was no incriminating circumstance against the accused, recording of his statement under section 313 of the Code was also dispensed with.
I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned APP for the State and have perused the records very carefully.
Section 279/338 IPC Undisputedly, it is a case of a motor vehicular accident. The only issue is whether it was the accused who caused the accident while driving the car Page No.4 of 9 State vs. Rameshwar FIR No. 547/16 either negligently or rashly?
Since the accused pleaded not guilty, like in all criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The burden does not shift. There exists no burden on the accused to prove his version or his innocence. It is trite that accused can only be convicted on the strength of the prosecution and not because of weaknesses in his defence.
A successful prosecution of a criminal action largely depends on proof of two things: the identification of the author of the crime and his actual commission of the same. An ample proof that a crime has been committed has no use if the prosecution is unable to convincingly prove the offender's identity.
In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the identity of the culprit, the accused's constitutional right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved is not overcome, and he is entitled to an acquittal, though his innocence may be doubted. The constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary importance, and the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defence he put up but on the strength of the evidence for the Prosecution.
Onus is, thus, on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person facing the trial is, in fact, the same person who committed the offence.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the identity of the accused in the case of Ashraf vs State held as under:-
"....However, in case a witness is completely hostile with regard to identity of the accused even in his examination-in-chief and nothing Page No.5 of 9 State vs. Rameshwar FIR No. 547/16 could be elicited from him to show the involvement of the accused in the offence in the cross-examination by the APP, such a testimony cannot be accepted and made the basis of the conviction....."
On the issue of identification of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle, the complainant/PW2 changed his stance during evidence and stated that he cannot identify the driver as he could not see him. During his cross-examination by the learned APP for the State, when it was suggested to him that accused was the driver of offending vehicle, he denied the same.
Rest witnesses are formal in nature and identify of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be proved from their testimonies.
Thus, in my considered view, identity of the accused Rameshwar as the driver of the offending vehicle is not established beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Rameshwar was behind the wheels of the car at the time of accident.
Rash and negligent driving Even if it is presumed that accused Rameshwar was indeed the driver of the offending vehicle, still the factum of rash and negligent driving has to be proved by the prosecution which is sine qua non for convicting a person under section 279/304A IPC.
Now let us examine if the prosecution has been able to prove that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
Page No.6 of 9State vs. Rameshwar FIR No. 547/16 In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has cited as many as fourteen (14) witnesses in the list of witnesses annexed with the charge-sheet. Out of these fourteen witnesses, PW2 was the complainant/ eye witness while rest witnesses are formal in nature and the guilt of the accused cannot be established from their testimonies, inasmuch as, the alleged incident neither took place in their presence nor it is the case of the prosecution.
Thus, the entire edifice of the prosecution is the statement of the complainant/eye witness Sumit Verma. In the said statement, he claimed that the deceased had received bodily injuries on account of the offending vehicle DL1PD1329 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver.
However, the said witness turned hostile and nothing has come on record to show the manner in which the driver of offending vehicle was driving the said vehicle to prove the rashness and negligence of the accused. The complainant who is also the sole eye witness to the incident has also not deposed anything in regard to the accident or manner in which the vehicle was being driven by its driver.
At this stage, it would be advantageous to refer a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Braham Dass vs. State of H.P decided on 5 May 2009 wherein it was held as under-
"...... Therefore, for bringing in application of either section 279 or 304 A it must be established that there was an element of rashness or negligence. Even if the prosecution version is accepted in toto, there was no evidence led to show that any negligence was involved."
Result In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the Page No.7 of 9 State vs. Rameshwar FIR No. 547/16 case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt. A Court cannot draw an inference of guilt from mere suspicion.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam decided on 28th May, 2013 held as under:-
6. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved, and something that `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017; and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979).Page No.8 of 9
State vs. Rameshwar FIR No. 547/16 In the light of the aforesaid, I find that the State has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the vehicle either negligently or rashly or that while driving the vehicle in said manner struck against the deceased causing his death.
Consequently, accused namely RAMESHWAR is ACQUITTED of the offence punishable under sections 279/304A IPC.
On the basis of his statement, the accused namely RAMESHWAR is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 177 MV Act Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in open UDITA UDITA JAIN
Court on 02th day of August, 2022 JAIN
Date:
2022.08.02
18:04:55
+0530
(Udita Jain Garg)
MM-06/West District
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
02.08.2022
This judgment contains 09 pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally
signed by
UDITA
UDITA JAIN
JAIN Date:
2022.08.02
18:04:59
+0530
(Udita Jain Garg)
MM-06/West District
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
02.08.2022
Page No.9 of 9