Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajesh Kumar Sharma on 4 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
S. C. No.11/13
Unique case ID No. 02402R0535462008
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma
FIR No. 518/07
PS Shakar Pur
U/s 279/338/308 IPC
Date of Institution : 06.04.2013
Date of judgment reserved : 02.03.2015
Date of judgment : 04.03.2015
J U D G M E N T
Case of the prosecution is that accused Rajesh Kumar Sharma was driver of a bus bearing No. DL IP A 7795 and while driving the said bus on 05.07.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. near Hathisala, Shakapur, he hit a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No. DL 7S AP 5960 which was driven by Mr. Yogesh Gupta and one Vijay Babbar was a pillion rider. Both of them had sustained injuries. FIR bearing No. 518/07 dated 05.07.2007 was registered and after S.No.11/13 State Vs. Rajesh Kr. Sharma Page 1 of 10 investigation chargesheet U/s 279/338 IPC was filed before Ld. Magistrate and trial commenced. Ld. M.M. framed charges U/s 279/338 IPC against accused on 26.04.2010 to which accused pleaded not guilty and trial started. After recording testimony of PW1 Vijay Babbar, injured; PW2 HC Sompal Singh who had recorded the FIR; PW3 Yogesh Kumar Gupta and PW4 Ct. Jitender, Ld. Trial Court came to the conclusion that offence U/s 308 IPC was also made in view of section 323 Cr.P.C., so case was committed to Court of Sessions for trial. File was received in the Sessions Court on 06.04.2013. Charges U/s 279/338/308 IPC were framed against accused Rajesh Kumar Sharma to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2 Prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. Thereafter statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 05.11.2014 in which the entire prosecution evidence was put to him. Defence of the accused was that he did not cause the accident, rather it was another vehicle which had hit the motorcycle of the complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, accused had led no evidence in his defence.
3 I have heard Ld. counsel for the accused, Ld. Chief S.No.11/13 State Vs. Rajesh Kr. Sharma Page 2 of 10 PP for the State and have gone though record of the case. My considered view is as under : 4 PW1 Vijay Babbar and PW3 Yogesh Kumar Gupta are the injured in this case. PW1 and PW3 have clearly identified the accused as driver of the bus which caused accident. Moreover, PW4 Sh. Ram Pal, owner of the bus, has stated in his statement that accused Rajesh Kumar Sharma was driver on his bus bearing No. DL1P A 7795 on 05.07.2007 when an accident had taken place. It was PW4 Sh. Ram Pal who had produced the accused before the police officials in response to notice U/s 133 M.V.Act. 5 PW1 Vijay Babbar has stated in his statement that he was a pillion rider on the motorcycle being driven by his friend Yogesh Kumar Gupta(PW3) and when they reached near Hathishala after crossing ITO Bridge on Vikas Marg at about 8.30 p.m., a bus bearing registration No. DL IP A 7795 came from the back side at a very high speed which was driven rashly and negligently by the accused and it hit the motorcycle from back side and with this impact both the riders of the motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained injuries. PW1 was dragged along with the bus and he sustained multiple serious injuries on his lower back, both his limbs and urine S.No.11/13 State Vs. Rajesh Kr. Sharma Page 3 of 10 bladder. He remained in ICU for 56 months. He was operated upon 4 times and then he was referred to PGI Hospital, Chandigarh for plastic surgery where he remained under treatment for another 34 months. Even thereafter, his treatment continued from a private hospital. He is now 69% handicapped. Police had recorded his statement. In his cross examination by Ld counsel for the accused, this witness states that he did not see the number of the bus when it hit motorcycle but after the accident, he looked back and had seen the number of the bus. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place when motorcycle rider was trying to overtake the bus. PW1 had seen the driver of offending bus first time when he was being removed to Hospital in a Gypsy by the police.
6 PW3 Sh Yogesh Gupta has seconded the statement of PW1. Police had recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A after he regained consciousness in the hospital. He also identified the accused as the person who was driving the bus at a very high speed and in dangerous manner and who hit and dragged his motorcycle. He has denied the suggestion that he was driving the motorcycle parallel to the offending bus.
7 PW2 is HC Sompal Singh who had registered FIR S.No.11/13 State Vs. Rajesh Kr. Sharma Page 4 of 10 bearing No. 518/07 on receipt of Rukka vide DD No 29A. He has proved the FIR as Ex.PW2/A. PW4 is Ram Pal is owner of the bus who had submitted reply to the notice U/s 133 M.V.Act Ex.PW4/A and had also produced accused Rajesh Kumar Sharma before the IO. Accused was arrested in his presence vide memo Ex.PW4/B and his personal search Ex.PW4/C was conducted. Accused was released on bail and PW4 stood surety for the accused vide surety bond Ex.PW4/D. The offending bus was released to him on superdari vide superdarinama vide Ex.PW4/E. 8 PW5 is Constable Jitender, who was on emergency duty on 05.07.2007. He accompanied ASI Balraj on receipt of information at about 9.20 pm. They found the bus and motorcycle in accidental condition and came to know that injured had been rushed to LBS Hospital by the PCR van. PW5 was left at the spot to safeguard the same. When ASI Balraj came back, he handed over Rukka to PW5 to get FIR registered. Photographs of the scene of crime were taken in his presence. Motorcycle and offending bus were seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B respectively. During the course of investigation, owner of the bus had produced his driver i.e. accused Rajesh Kumar Sharma in his presence. He had S.No.11/13 State Vs. Rajesh Kr. Sharma Page 5 of 10 identified motorcycle which was parked in the parking. Bus was stated to be not in moving condition. However, the identity of the bus was not disputed.
9 PW7 HC Rajender Singh was on duty in PCR van and he had stated that on receipt of a message, he reached the spot where he found the bus and motorcycle in accidental condition. Public persons had gathered there. Two injured were found who were taken to the hospital in his PCR van. PW6 Taslimuddin Siddique, who is the government approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor, had mechanically inspected the offending bus No. DL 1P A 7795 and motorcycle No. DL7S AP 5960 vide his detailed report Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively. In these reports, it has been shown that damage has been caused to the vehicles which were involved in accident.
10 PW8 Doctor Rajni Lohiya had prepared the MLC of Yogesh which is Ex.PW8/A and that of Vijay Babbar as Ex.PW8/B. PW9 Dr. Rachna(Radiologist) had examined Xray plate of Yogesh and found that there was fracture of tibia and fibula. Her report is Ex.PW9/A. PW10 Dr. Arvind Kishore had identified signatures of Dr.Mayank Bansal, who had opined the nature of injury on MLC S.No.11/13 State Vs. Rajesh Kr. Sharma Page 6 of 10 Ex.PW8/A of Yogesh as 'grievous' and on MLC Ex.PW8/B, injured Vijay Babbar was declared unfit for statement. PW12 Dr. Rohan Gupta, SR, Department of Surgery had identified the signatures of Dr.Dharmender, Jr. Resident, who had opined the nature of injury vide Ex.PW12/A as 'simple'.
11 PW13 ASI Balraj Singh is IO of the case who has reiterated entire facts of the case. He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel in detail but nothing came on record to dislodge the case of prosecution. PW14 is Dr. Manish Chadha from GTB Hospital. He had seen MLC of injured Vijay Ex.PW8/B on which nature of injury has been opined by Dr. R.P.Singh, Sr. Resident(Ortho.). PW15 Dr. Sumit Chakravarti, Consultant Surgeon, ESI Hospital had given opinion on MLC Ex.PW8/B of Vijay which was 'dangerous' in nature.
12 On the basis of evidence of both the injured PW1 Vijay Babbar and PW3 Yogesh Gupta who have identified accused as the person who was driving the offending bus dangerously, rashly and negligently and moreover PW4 Ram Pal, owner of the bus who had produced the accused before the IO and had identified him as driver of the bus at the relevant time and keeping in view nature of injuries S.No.11/13 State Vs. Rajesh Kr. Sharma Page 7 of 10 suffered by both the injured and after going through evidence of other witnesses especially of PW6 Taslimuddin Siddique, who has given his reports Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B, I am of the considered opinion that it was the accused Rajesh Kumar Sharma who was driving the bus No. DL IP A 7795 plying on route No. 374 from Nand Nagri to Nehru Place at a very high speed rashly and negligently, having knowledge that if death is caused by his such act, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and being driven rashly and negligently and struck the motorcycle being driven by PW3 Yogesh Gupta from behind and with this impact, both PW1 and PW3 fell down and offending bus driven by accused dragged the motorcycle with both the victims for a long distance. So, accused Rajesh Kumar Sharma has committed offence punishable U/s 279/308 IPC. He is accordingly convicted for abovesaid offences. Since he has been been convicted for committing more serious offence for the same act under Section 308 IPC, there is no need to separately convict him under Section 338 IPC.
Announced in the open Court (TALWANT SINGH)
Dated: 04.03.2015 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
S.No.11/13 State Vs. Rajesh Kr. Sharma Page 8 of 10
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
S. C. No.11/13
FIR No. 110/13
PS Shakar Pur
U/s 279/338/308 IPC
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Vide judgment of even date, accused Rajesh Kumar Sharma has been convicted for offences under Sections 279/308 IPC.
2. I have heard Ld. counsel for the convict as well as Ld. Chief PP for the State on the quantum of sentence. 3 Ld. Chief PP for the State has submitted that maximum punishment be awarded to the convict. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for convict has submitted that convict is a driver by profession; he has already suffered the trauma of trial for the last 8 years earlier before the Court of Ld. M.M. and then before this court; he is not a previous convict and he is only bread earner for his family. S.No.11/13 State Vs. Rajesh Kr. Sharma Page 9 of 10 It is prayed that a lenient view be taken while awarding sentence to the convict.
4 Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, convict Rajesh Kumar Sharma is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ for offence under Section 279 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo SI for a period of one month. For offence U/s 308 IPC, convict is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.70,000/. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo SI for a period of three months. Out of the fine awarded, a sum of Rs.60,000/ be paid to injured Vijay Babbar who had suffered grievous injury and a sum of Rs.10,000/ be paid to Sh. Yogesh Gupta, who had suffered simple injury. Amount of fine of Rs.5000/ be deposited in Government Treasury. Since both the injured have been ordered to paid compensation out of the fine amount, so no order of compensation is being passed separately under Section 357A Cr.P.C. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to convict free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (TALWANT SINGH)
Dated: 04.03.2015 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
S.No.11/13 State Vs. Rajesh Kr. Sharma Page 10 of 10