Delhi District Court
State vs Mukesh Kumar on 27 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 661/07
PS : Paschim Vihar
Offence complained of : 279/304A IPC
Date of commission of offence : 28.08.2007
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R0289532010
C C No. : 2147/2/09
State vs Mukesh Kumar
Mukesh Kumar
S/o Mool Chand
R/o Bebeeya Pur, Post Samaspur,
PS Baghauli, Distt. Hardoi, U.P
............. Accused
Bablu Kumar
s/o Sh. Ram Lakhan
r/o F-1/23 Budh Vihar,
Phase-I, Delhi.
........... Complainant
Date of Institution : 23.08.2008
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Date of reserving judgment/ order : 19.03.2015
Date of pronouncement : 27.04.2015
Final Order : Acquitted
FIR No. 661/07 u/s. 279/304A IPC
State Vs. Mukesh Kumar 1/6
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1.Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/304A IPC.
2. Briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 28.08.2007 at about 4.30 pm, 2 labourers namely Deva and Bablu were sitting on a truck bearing registration number HR-13C-4395. Suddenly, the accused Mukesh Kumar, who was driving the said truck, started the truck in a rash and negligent manner, due to which Deva fell down and died. Hence, accused Mukesh Kumar is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 279/304A IPC. FIR
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 661/07 under section 279/304A IPC was lodged at Police Station Paschim Vihar.
CHARGE
4. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet and other relevant documents as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice under section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 279/304A IPC was framed against the accused by my Ld. Predecessor on 25.02.2013, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTION
6. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things FIR No. 661/07 u/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Mukesh Kumar 2/6 need to be proved by the prosecution, that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:-
(1)That the accident actually took place.
(2)That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving. (3)That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
7. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 12 witnesses, out of which Bablu Kumar was the sole eye witness.
8. Prosecution has examined three witnesses-(1) Sh. Shiv Narayan, (2) Sh. Bhim Rai and (3) HC Shri Bhagwan.
9. PW-1 and PW-2 have identified the dead body of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/A.
10.PW-3 HC Shri Bhagwan had gone to the spot with IO on receiving the DD Entry. He had got registered the present FIR on basis of rukka prepared by the IO. He deposed that the IO had collected the MLC of the accused. He recorded the statement of eye witness and seized the Truck and the driving license of the accused vide memo Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively and the RC and Insurance were also seized vide memo Ex.PW3/C. None of the prosecution witness was cross examined by the accused.
11.The sole eye-witness Bablu Kumar has remained unserved even through DCP concerned. Accordingly, name of this witness was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 08.07.2014. All the other remaining witnesses are merely formal witnesses and none of them is a witness to the accident, sufficient only to prove that one person had died in the accident and that an FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged on the same day at PS- Paschim Vihar FIR No. 661/07 u/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Mukesh Kumar 3/6 vide FIR bearing No.661/07.
12.As the eye witness Bablu Kumar has remained unserved even through DCP concerned, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the present case was a result of an act of accused and that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing number HR-13C-4395, which was being driven by the accused Mukesh Kumar in a rash and negligent manner. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/s 279/304A IPC. Hence, PE was closed. Since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, recording the statement of accused was also dispensed with.
13.In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be FIR No. 661/07 u/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Mukesh Kumar 4/6 recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts."
14.It has been also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put to an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
15.In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/304A IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused.
Final Order
16.Since the sole eye witness has remained unserved even through DCP concerned and in the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under section 258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Mukesh Kumar qua offences u/s 279/304A IPC and hereby releases the accused Mukesh Kumar under sections 279/304A IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
FIR No. 661/07 u/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Mukesh Kumar 5/6
17.As per section 437A Cr.P.C accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount. ANNOUNCED ON 27.04.2015 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court /27.04.2015 FIR No. 661/07 u/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Mukesh Kumar 6/6