Delhi District Court
State vs Manvender Pratap Singh on 11 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA YADAV
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04 (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Manvender Pratap Singh
FIR No. : 469/2018
U/s : 279/338 IPC
P. S. : Dwarka South
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW02-013368-2019
2. Date of commission of offence : 06.12.2018
3. Date of institution of the case : 19.03.2019
4. Name of the complainant : Sh. Ravinder Singh
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Manvender Pratap Singh
S/o Om Prakash Singh
R/o H.No. 410/6, Radha Nagar
Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh.
6. Offence complained of : 279/338 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 11.02.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Amit Sehrawat, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. J.S. Raghav and Sh. Manish Vashishth, Ld. Counsels for accused.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX:
FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.1 of 21
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 06.12.2018 at about 9.00 P.M. at Red Light of Sector 6 or 10 Dwarka, New Delhi the accused Manvender Pratap Singh was found driving the vehicle bearing no. UP 16 BD 0194 in a rash and negligent manner and had hit the complainant Ravinder Singh and caused grievous injuries to him. As such, it is alleged that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") for which FIR No. 469/2018 was registered at the police station Dwarka South, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED:
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused was filed. The court took the cognizance against the accused and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "Cr.P.C"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, notice under section 279/338 of IPC was framed against the accused on 06.09.2019. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Sh. Bikram Singh PW-2 Sh. Gaurav Rana PW-3 Sh. Ravinder Singh PW-4 HC Sher Singh FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.2 of 21 PW-5 Dr. Vinay Gahlot PW-6 Sh. Chander Prakash PW-7 Retired IO SI Nanu Ram DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/C Seizure memo of victims car Ex. PW1/D Seizure memo of RC & Insurance Ex.PW1/E Superdarinama Ex.PW1/F Panchnama Ex.PW2/A Site plan Ex.PW2/B Arrest memo Ex.PW3/B MLC of victim/injured Ex.PW6/A Request letter Ex.PW6/B Mechanical inspection report Ex.PW7/A Rukka Ex.PW7/C Disclosure statement Ex.PW7/D Seizure memo of DL of accused Ex.PW1/A Notice u/s 133 MV Act ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A-1 FIR No.469/18 alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A-2 DD No.26A dated 06.12.2018 Ex.A-3 DD No.28A dated 06.12.2018
4. The PW1 Sh. Bikram Singh, in his examination in chief deposed that on 10.12.2018 upon receiving notice u/s 133 M V Act, he along with his car and documents of the car reached at the P.S. Dwarka South. He gave his reply on notice u/s 133 M V Act that on 06.12.2018 at the time of accident the accused was driving his vehicle. Accused is son of his friend. His car, RC and insurance of the offending vehicle were seized by the police. He got the offending vehicle released on superdari. Thereafter, the offending vehicle was released to him after conducting the panchnama of the same. The registration number of the vehicle is UP16BD0194. Accused present in the court was correctly identified by the witness. He stated that he can identify the case property, if shown to him. Identity of the case property is not disputed by the FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.3 of 21 Ld. defence counsel. Despite opportunity given, he was not cross examined by the ld. counsel for the accused.
5. The PW2 Sh. Gaurav Rana in his chief examination deposed that he is a cook/chef by profession. On 06.12.2018, he along with his friend Ravinder Singh were going to their respective houses and when they were crossing the red light of Sector 6/10, Dwarka on foot, one car bearing no. UP 16 0194 colour white, came from the side of Sector 2, Dwarka and hit Ravinder Singh first and thereafter, hit him and they both sustained injuries because of the hitting of the car. The car was in a very high speed and first, it moved towards some other persons and thereafter, sudden break was taken and came towards their side and hit them. Accused present in the court correctly identified by the witness. Site plan was prepared at his instance. Photographs of the car bearing no. UP 16 BD 0194 are shown to the witness and correctly identified by him.
In his cross examination PW2 he deposed that he is a graduate. He does not possess any professional qualification. He has not obtained any driving license. He knows the traffic rules. He submits that it is correct that whenever a person crosses the red light it will be through the zebra crossing. He does not remember whether they were crossing the road through zebra crossing. He denied the suggestion that he was crossing the road from the mid of the road and not by zebra crossing. His office timings were not fixed at that time as it was a new opening and restaurant was not functioning. He was crossing the road along with 5-6 persons. These 5-6 people were ahead of him. He submits that it is correct that except complainant no other person sustained injury. (Vol. He himself also sustained internal injury). He did not go to hospital for treatment. He submits that it is correct that he had not gone to hospital as he did not sustain any external injury. He went to hospital along with the FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.4 of 21 complainant. They remained at hospital till 4 AM.. next day. He cannot differentiate between different types of cars i.e., SUV, Sedan and Hatchback. He does not remember the number of persons sitting on the back seat of the offending vehicle, however, there were persons sitting on the back seat. He did not state this fact to the IO. The offending car after hitting them stopped near them for a few seconds and thereafter it again started moving and during that time he shifted his friend to the side of the road. He cannot comment whether persons at the spot pelted stones on the offending vehicle or not as he was busy in taking care of his friend Ravi. He had noted down the registration number of the offending vehicle i.e. UP 16 BD0194. He was not aware of the two letters of the registration number i.e. BD but last time when he saw the photographs and he identified the vehicle he saw these two letters on the number plate. He does not remember how many documents were got signed by him during investigation. He had signed some documents at Police station and some at the hospital. He had not gone anywhere else along with police officials. He had signed the documents after going through the content of the same. Complainant was on his left side when car hit him. Complainant was in conscious state but he was having pain. Photographs of the vehicle were shown to him in Court only. He was with the complainant till 4 A.M. and thereafter, he had no contact with him.
6. The PW3 Sh. Ravinder Singh in his examination in chief deposed that on 06.12.2018 he was working as Cook at Century Restaurant at Sector 10 Dwarka, New Delhi. After finishing his duty, while he was going to his home, when he reached at Sector 6/10 red light and he was crossing the road through zebra crossing, one vehicle make Etios white colour registration no. UP 16 0194 came at high speed from the side of Sector 2 and in a rash manner and hit him. Due to which he got fracture. His friend called at 100 number and police FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.5 of 21 took him to the DDU Hospital. He was operated in the hospital for fracture on his left leg. He was admitted in the hospital for 22 days. Meanwhile, he gave his statement to the police which and FIR was registered. His friend's name is Gaurav Rana. He can identify the offending vehicle, if shown to him. At this stage, the photographs of the offending vehicle are shown to the witness and the witness correctly identifies the same and witness has correctly identified the accused by pointing out. In his cross examination has PW3 deposed that his name is Ravinder Singh and he possessed his Aadhar card in the name of Ravinder Singh. He knows Gaurav Rana for last 2 years. (Vol. He knows Gaurav Rana since the year 2017 when they used to work at Restaurant). He has denied the suggestion that the statement voluntarily is wrong and an afterthought. He submits that it is correct that Gaurav Rana is still his friend. The statement given by Gaurav Rana was with regard to the incident which had happened at the spot. He submits that it is correct that he has not stated about the presence of Gaurav Rana to the IO at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he had deliberately concealed the fact about the presence of Gaurav Rana at the spot as he was not present and that Gaurav Rana was made a witness in the present at the instance of IO and himself. The incident took place at about 9.00 PM. He submits that it is correct that he has stated to the police that he was crossing the road by zebra crossing. Confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A wherein it is not so recorded. He denied that suggestion that Ex.PW1/A does not mention regarding his crossing the road by zebra crossing as he was not doing so. He did not tell to the police that his friend had called at 100 number. He denied the suggestion that he did not tell the police regarding the fact because his friend never called at 100 number. He met him once regarding investigation of the case. He does not remember the date on which IO met him. IO did not take him to the place of incident. (Vol. He was injured and hospitalised). He denied the suggestion that he does not remember FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.6 of 21 the date when IO met him because he never met him and that IO did not take to him to the place of incident as no incident had taken place. He does not remember whether he told the doctor about the vehicle number. The police had told about the place of incident to the doctor. He submits that it is correct that he has told the doctor about his name as Ravinder Singh. He submits that it is correct that MLC was got conducted in my name as Ravinder Singh. At this stage, witness is confronted with MLC Ex.PW3/B and asked whether same is in the name of Ravinder Singh. Witness states that his name is Ravi Chauhan also. He submits that it is correct that the MLC does not show his name as Ravinder Singh. (Vol. he has two names of official documents). Again said, his name is mentioned in the document pertaining to this case as Ravinder Singh as well as Ravi Chauhan. On his official documents the name is mentioned as Ravinder Singh. He submits that it is correct that he does not have any ID card where his name is mentioned as Ravi Chauhan. He does not remember whether IO has recorded his statement in regard to the other name as Ravi Chauhan. He denied the suggestion that he never recorded his statement to this effect because his name is not Ravi Chauhan but only Ravinder Singh and that MLC is of some other person by the name of Ravi Chauhan and not his and that he is identifying the case property and the accused at the instance of the IO.
7. The PW4 HC Sher Singh, in his examination in chief deposed that on 06.12.2018 he was posted as Constable at P.S. Dwarka South. On that day, he was on emergency duty alongwith SI Nanu Ram. SI Nanu Ram received DD no.26A regarding accident at Red Light of Sector 6/10 Dwarka and thereafter, we reached at the spot but nobody was found there. Meanwhile, IO SI Nanu Ram received DD no.28A regarding MLC at the DDU Hospital of the victim. Thereafter, they reached at the DDU Hospital and there victim Ravinder Singh FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.7 of 21 met them. IO recorded his statement and prepared the rukka which was handed over to him for registration of FIR. He went to the P.S. and after getting the FIR registered, returned to the spot and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to the IO who was present at the spot. In his cross examination PW4 deposed that he was posted at P.S. Dwarka South in the year 2015 and remained there till 2021. The information was received at about 9.00 PM and they reached at the spot at about 9.20 PM. He does not remember that by what mode they reached at the spot. He alongwith SI Nanu reached at the spot. Nobody else was accompanying them. He does not remember the exact time of their arrival at the hospital. He reached at the P.S. for the registration of FIR at about 5.00 AM on 07.12.2018. He was present at the hospital when the statement of the victim was recorded by the IO but he did not personaly interacted with the victim. He does not know whether victim has shown any identity proof to the IO at the hospital or not. He had not seen the MLC at the hospital. He did not see the name of the victim on the MLC. He denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation in the present case on the intervening night of 06/07.12.2018 and therefore, he does not remember the mode by which they travelled on the said night and that he didn't accompany the IO to the hospital and therefore, he had not seen the name of the victim on the MLC as well as his statement.
8. The PW5 Dr. Vinay Gahlot, in his examination in chief deposed that on 06.12.2018 he was posted as Junior Resident, DDU Hospital. On that day one person namely Ravi Chauhan was brought to the casualty with the alleged history of RTA. He personally examined him and there was no external injuries seen on his person. However, there was internal pain on left side of the victim and therefore X-ray of the same was done and patient was referred to Ortho Department for further management/treatment. In his cross examination FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.8 of 21 PW5 deposed that the name of the victim on the MLC is usually recorded as per the version of the victim or on the version of the person who brings the victim to the hospital. On the MLC the mark of the victim is also mentioned in order to identify the victim. He submits that it is correct that the victim was conscious at the time when the victim was brought to the casualty and when patient is in conscious state, details of the patient is asked by him only and recorded as per his statement .(Vol. In the present case, the patient was brought to casualty by ASI Satish). He submits that it is correct that name of the patient on the MLC is mentioned as Ravi Chauhan and not of Ravinder Singh. He never asked to read the statement after it was recorded by the IO. The MLC was handed over to the IO after opinion was received by the concerned department to whom the patient was referred to. He does not know how much time is taken to obtain the opinion of the concerned doctor in such cases. He had referred the patient to the Ortho Department as soon as patient became stabilised. The patient was in pain when he was brought to the casualty.
9. The PW6 Sh. Chander Prakash in his examination in chief deposed that on 11.12.2018 he received a request from the IO of the present case to conduct the mechanical inspection of the vehicle bearing no.UP16BD 0194 Toyota Itios white colour. He conducted the mechanical inspection of the abovesaid car at the P.S. Dwarka South, Sector 9 Dwarka. He prepared the report on completion of inspection of the said car. He has mentioned the details of damages on the above-mentioned car from point A to Al on the report and i.e. right side rear bumper scratch (old), front bumper dented scratch (old) red mark and left side ventilation (jail) brake upper side. In his cross examination PW6 deposed that he is 12th class fail. He did ITI. He does not have license from Delhi Police to obtain the mechanical inspection. He does not have license from any authority regarding the mechanical inspection. He submits FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.9 of 21 that it is correct that his name is not mentioned by the police official on the request letter. He has not raised any bill for inspection of said vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he has not done the inspection of the said vehicle that is why he has not submitted the bill for the inspection to the IO. He is not doing any job. He does not have any office to carry the inspection work. He denied the suggestion that he had made inspection report at his home and not at the P.S. Dwarka south and that without seeing the vehicle he prepared the inspection report.
10. The PW7 Retired SI Nanu Ram in his examination in chief deposed that on 06.05.2018 he was posted as SI at P.S. Dwarka South. On that day, he received DD no.26A at about 9.30 P.M. regarding the accident at the red light of Sector 6/10 Dwarka. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Sher Sigh reached at the spot but nobody was found present there. Meanwhile he received DD no.28A regarding admission of patient at DDU Hospital. Thereafter they both reached at the hospital and there victim Ravinder Singh was found admitted. He obtained the MLC of victim Ravinder from the hospital. He recorded the statement of the victim at the hospital. Thereafter, they returned at the spot and there he prepared and he handed over the same to Ct. Sher Singh for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and after getting the FIR registered, returned to the spot and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to him. On 08.12.2018, he called Gaurav Rana friend of victim Ravinder Singh and recorded his statement at PP Sector 1 Dwarka. Gaurav was accompanying victim Ravinder at the time of the accident. On 09.12.2018, he served notice u/s 133 MV Act on the owner of the offending vehicle bearing no.UP16BD 0194 namely Vikram. On the next day, he joined the investigation and replied on the notice in his own handwriting that at the time of the accident, accused Manvender was driving the offending vehicle. He also produced the offending FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.10 of 21 vehicle. He seized the offending vehicle. He also produced RC and insurance of the offending vehicle which he seized. On 10.12.2018, one more notice u/s 133 MV Act was served upon Vikram to produce the driver/accused. He produced the accused on 11.12.2018 before him at the P.S. Dwarka South. On 11.12.2018, the accused was produced before him. He inquired from him regarding the accident, recorded his disclosure statement and also seized the Driving licence of the accused. He then formally arrested the accused he got the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle done from expert Chander Prakash on 11.12.2018. On the same day, he prepared the site plan at the instance of eyewitness Gaurav Rana. During the investigation, he recorded the statement of the witnesses and placed the MLC with the opinion of doctor on the record. On completion of the investigation, he filed the charge- sheet before the Court. Accused present in the court correctly identified by the witness.Photographs of the vehicle are shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the same. In his cross examination PW7 deposed that he does not remember when he was posted in P.S. Dwarka South. He went to the spot by his motorcycle but he does not remember the registration number of motorcycle. At the spot no witness, offending vehicle and victim was found. He saw the CCTV footage but no offending vehicle was traced. Injured Ravinder told me the registration number of the vehicle. The injured told me the registration number is UP16 0194. He obtained the full number of the offending vehicle from Noida Authority. He submitted the application to Noida to obtain the actual number of the offending vehicle. At this stage, notice is shown to the witness where no date was mentioned.At this stage, again file is shown to the witness where no reply from the authority is on file. He does not remember at what time he reached at the hospital. No one except victim was found in the hospital. No one except victim was injured in the accident in question. He did not obtain the register from the office of the victim FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.11 of 21 regarding the time when he left the office on the day of the accident. He denied the suggestion that victim did not attend the office on the day of the accident. (Vol. I recorded the statement of his friend Gaurav Rana who was also accompanying the victim). He denied the suggestion that voluntarily statement was given as an afterthought and that eyewitness was present at the hospital but he deliberately did not record the statement of eyewitness due to the reason that they were not aware about the offending vehicle. At this stage Ex.PW3/A is shown to the witness where the number of the vehicle was noted. He submits that it is correct that registration number 01 prior to 94 was written by me on later stage. He does not remember on which date he prepared the site plan. He submits that it is correct that the accident did not occur on the main road but it was on slip road. There was no Zebra crossing on slip road. He submits that it is correct that he obtained the MLC of Ravi Chauhan and not Ravinder Singh. He served the notice to the registered owner by visiting his house. He does not remember at which date he visited the house of the registered owner. Again said on 09.12.2018 he visited the house of the registered owner. He does not remember where he had recorded the statement of eyewitness at P.S. Dwarka South. He does not remember whether he has obtained the ID proof of eyewitness as well as victim. He does not remember at what time Ct. Sher Singh left the spot along with rukka. He submits that it is correct that he does not remember at what time he returned back at the spot with the copy of FIR. He remained at the hospital for about half an hour. He denied the suggestion that he neither visited the hospital nor the spot on the day of the accident. He had seen the accused for the first time when he was produced before me at the P.S. Dwarka South on 11.12.2018. The accused was released on bail bond of surety Vikram who was the owner of the vehicle. He denied the suggestion that the accident did not occur on the above-mentioned date and time and that accused was deliberately implicated in the present case and that despite the FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.12 of 21 fact that the spot was covered under the CCTV footage PW7 deliberately did not produce the footage of the relevant time on record as the incident in question never occurred on such date and time.
At this stage, the Ld. APP for the State seeks permission to re- examine the witness as the witness has revealed new facts in his cross examination. Same was allowed.
It was put to him/PW7 that in his examination in chief he had stated that he had obtained the MLC of victim whose name is Ravinder as per record but in his cross examination he had stated that he had obtained the MLC of Ravi Chauhan and it was asked which one of two statement is correct. To which he replied that both are correct as the MLC no. 11969/18 is of Ravinder Singh and during his admission at the hospital he stated that his name as Ravi Chauhan to the doctor and therefore, his name was recorded as Ravi Chauhan on the MLC. Ravi Chauhan and Ravinder Singh are same person.Further it was put to him that in his examination in chief he stated that he recorded the statement of Gaurav Rana at the PP Sector 1 but in his cross examination he had stated that his statement was recorded at P.S. Dwarka South and it was asked which one of two statement is correct, to which he replied that he recorded the statement of Gaurav Rana at PP Sector 1 Dwarka and same falls under the jurisdiction of PS Dwarka South. In his cross examination he deposed that when he examined the victim at the hospital, he obtained the clarification of the different names of the victim on the MLC and he told him that he stated that his name as Ravi Chauhan to the doctor when the same was recorded on the MLC. He submits that it is correct that he recorded the statement of the victim after the MLC was made. He does not remember whether he has mentioned about the names of the victim in brief facts of the charge-sheet or not. He does not remember whether he had obtained any ID proof of the victim Ravinder Singh and Ravi Chauhan during the investigation FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.13 of 21 or not. He denied the suggestion that he was not aware that the MLC was of Ravinder Singh at the time of taking MLC but now he deposed as an afterthought. (Vol. In the DAR file, the identity of the victim was attested.) STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
11.Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 07.10.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further stated he was not present at the spot when the alleged accident took place. He further stated that he does not want to lead any defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS:
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
13. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences
14. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.14 of 21 evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE:
15.The accused has been charged for the offences of rash driving on public way (S. 279 IPC) and causing grievous injuries upon the complainant, Ravinder Singh by a rash or negligent driving (Section 338 IPC) in the present case.
Whereas under Section 279 IPC, the factum of rash or negligent driving likely to endanger human life or cause hurt etc. is in itself the offence, while under Section 338 IPC, the grievous injuries upon the victim due to such rash or negligent driving. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused was driving the offending in a rash or negligent manner, and due to such driving of the accused, the victim suffered injuries.
16.Thus, the gravamen of the offences under Section 279/338 IPC is the act of the accused, done with "rashness" or "negligence". The IPC does not define either of these terms. However, the ambit of these terms has now been settled by judicial pronouncements of superior Courts. In Empress of India vs. Idu Beg ILR (1881) 3 All 776 the term "rashness" was interpreted to mean commission of an act with indifference or recklessness towards the consequences of such act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rathnashalvan vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 474 has observed, inter alia, as under-
"7. .... Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.15 of 21 with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what the amount of care and circumspection is which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused. As noted above, "rashness"
consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. 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."
17. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Ansal vs. CBI (2014) 6 SCC 173 . The standard of negligence was discussed in the said case, by observing, inter alia, as under-:
"58. In the case of "negligence" the courts have favoured a meaning which implies a 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 which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge arises, it may be the imperative duty of the accused to have adopted. Negligence has been understood to be an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.16 of 21 human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. Unlike rashness, where the imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness, negligence implies acting without such consciousness, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him. The imputability in the case of negligence arises from the neglect of the civil duty of circumspection."
18. Thus, rashness implies doing an act despite the consciousness that it might result in injuries. Negligence, on the other hand, means lack of reasonable care that a person placed is the fact situation ought to take, in order to avoid injuries. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standard.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
19. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that an accident had taken place and as a result the victim had sustained injuries on the date of the incident. Now, it was upon the prosecution to prove that offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at the relevant point of time in rash or negligent manner. In the present case, the name of the injured is Ravinder Kumar but on the MLC of the injured his name is mentioned as Ravi Chauhan. On perusal on the record and MLC it is seen that the name of the father of the injured is same i.e., Mr. Dewan Singh. Further, the PW-7 Retired IO SI Nanu Ram in his re-examination has stated that Ravi Chauhan and Ravinder Singh are same person. In the testimony of the PW-7 Retired IO SI Nanu Ram he has stated that he had submitted the application to Noida Authority to obtain the actual number of offending FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.17 of 21 vehicle and further obtained full number of the offending vehicle from Noida Authority, however, the said notice issued by the IO is undated and IO has not placed on record the reply which he has stated he had obtained from the Noida Authority regarding the full number of the offending vehicle. Further, in his testimony he has admitted the fact that the registration number '01' prior to '94' was written by him at a later stage. He has further stated that he saw the CCTV footage but no offending vehicle was traced. No such CCTV footage has been made part of the chargesheet. The PW-1 Gaurav Rana in his testimony has deposed that the car was in a very high speed and first it moved towards some other persons and thereafter, sudden brake was taken and came towards their side and hit them. The PW-3 Ravinder Singh in his testimony has deposed that the vehicle came at high speed from the side of sector-2 in a rash manner and hit him. In the testimony of both the witnesses, there is discrepancy on the point that PW-1 mentioned brakes were applied by the offending vehicle but PW-2 has not mentioned anything about the same. This points towards the important question that whether the offending car was being driven in rash and negligent manner. Both the PW's have not explained the manner of the rashness of the offending vehicle. In the instant case, it is pertinent to note that none of the prosecution witnesses had been able to lead any evidence regarding the approximate speed at which the accused was driving the vehicle in question. It is not the case of the IO that he had made efforts to observe any skid marks on the accident spot or that he had examined any speed checker/radar installed in/around the spot to ascertain the approximate speed of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and had thereby concluded that the offending vehicle was being driven at a speed higher than the prescribed limit. In such circumstances, it would be improper to impute allegations to the effect that the offending vehicle was speeding past the limit on the route on which it was being driven. Other than this, the FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.18 of 21 prosecution witnesses have failed to mention any other manner in which the accused was driving the offending vehicle which can otherwise suggest that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The aforesaid contradictions in the testimonies of the PW's throws a doubt on the case of the prosecution.
20.It is trite law that allegations regarding the offending vehicle being driven at high speed alone, in itself cannot tantamount to act of rashness or negligence, unless the prosecution proves its case otherwise. In this regard, it would be apposite to advert to the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2006 (4) LRC 472 (Del) , wherein, the following was observed:-
"The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court make it more than clear that a mere allegation of high- speed would not tantamount to rashness or negligence. In the present case also, I find that apart from the allegation that the truck was being driven at a very high-speed there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner acted in a manner which could be regarded as rash or negligent. In any event there is no description or approximation of what was the speed at which the truck was being driven. The expression "high-speed" could range from 30 km per hour to over 100 km per hour. It is not even known as to what the speed limit on Mathura Road was and whether the petitioner was exceeding that speed limit. Therefore, in the absence of material facts it cannot be said, merely because there is an allegation that the petitioner was driving the truck at a high-speed, that the petitioner is guilty of a rash or negligent act. Clearly the petitioner cannot be convicted on the sole testimony of PW 3 which itself suffers from various ambiguities."
FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.19 of 21
21.It has also been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Kishore Chand Joshi vs. State 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12337 that:
"17. A witness can depose as to the manner of driving or speed at which the vehicle was being driven but not render an opinion on "rash and negligent". High speed by itself may not in each case be sufficient to hold that a driver is rash or negligent. Speed alone is not the criterion for deciding the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver."
22. Therefore, in view of the settled law, it is clear that mere allegation of the offending vehicle being driven at a high speed alone, would not suffice to draw an inference of act of rashness or negligence by the accused. Specific and cogent evidence has to be led by the prosecution in order to drive home this point by establishing the manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven, which is missing in the present case. No other attending circumstances are either apparent from record or from testimonies of victims in the case, as would necessarily point to negligence of accused being a logical conclusion rather than it being proved by providing an outright demonstration thereof. Moreover, there are no photographs or video of the spot of the date of the accident on the record which can depict the manner in which the offending vehicle had hit the injured.
23. Considering the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove that offending vehicle was being driven in rash or negligent manner by the accused at the relevant point of time.
CONCLUSION FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.20 of 21
24.It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
25.To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 279/338 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and that the injuries caused to injured was a result of the rash and negligent act of the accused. There is no evidence to link the accused with the crime charged against him.
26. Resultantly, the accused, Manvendra Pratap Singh is hereby found not guilty and is hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 279/338 of IPC.
Announced in the open court on 11.02.2025 in the presence of the accused.
DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.02.11 17:53:25 +0530 (Divya Yadav) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04, Dwarka, Delhi/11.02.2025 Note:- This judgment contains 21 pages and each page has been signed by me.
FIR No. 469/18 State vs. Manvender Pratap Singh page no.21 of 21