Delhi District Court
3.Title : State vs Ram Pratap Yadav on 25 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA : METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (WEST) -11
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
1.FIR No. : 196/2000
2.Unique Case ID No. : Not alloted.
3.Title : State Vs Ram Pratap Yadav
3(A).Name of complainant : Sh Shalig Ram s/o Ram Nihor
r/o H. No. A353, B58, Rama
Road, Moti Nagar, Delhi.
3(B).Name of accused : Ram Prakash Yadav s/o Mami
Ram r/o Village Garhi PS Sadar
Gurgoan, (Haryana).
4.Date of institution of challan : 17.04.2001
5.Date of Reserving judgment : 25.11.2010
6.Date of pronouncement : 25.11.2010
7.Date of commission of offence : 23.04.2000
8.Offence complained of : Under Section 279/337 IPC
9.Offence charged with : Under Section 279/337 IPC
10.Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
11.Final order : Accused convicted U/sec
279/337 IPC
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:
1 In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 23.04.2000 at about 08:45 PM at
B58, Rama Road PS Moti Nagar, Delhi accused was found driving vehicle No.
HR26X5474 on the public way in rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety, and while driving the aforesaid vehicle in aforesaid manner caused simple injury on the person namely Kiran and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 279/337 IPC.
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C and after hearing parties, notice u/s 279/337 IPC was framed on 14.11.2002 against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution in order to proved its case in total examined as many as nine witnesses.
PW1 Ashok Kumar, who prepared the MLC Ex PW1/A. PW2 HC 2 Ranbir Singh, who is duty officer.
PW3 Ombir Singh, who joined investigation with IO and got the FIR registered and that accused arrested on 15.10.2004 and he witnessed the arrest of the accused vide arrest memo Ex PW3/B and identified the accused and also deposed that the Maruti Van was seized vide memo Ex PW3/D. PW4 J. S. Pawar, is mechanical inspector and conducted the mechanical inspection of Maruti Van bearing No. HR26K5474 vide his report Ex PW4/A. PW5 Saligram, who is the complainant of the present case and has deposed that on 23.04.2000 at about 08:45 PM while he was walking on the road and present near gol chakkar one minor girl age about 5 years was standing there and one Maruti van came from the side of Zakhira driven by accused at a fast speed and hit against the girl from side. He further deposed that the accused and other public persons took the girl to the hospital and he also went to the hospital. He further deposed that accused ran away from the hospital and he made statement Ex PW 5/A. PW6 HC Shishdar, conducted investigation and served notice U/sec 133 M. V. Act Ex PW6/A which was replayed by accused himself and he arrested the accused and also seized the offending vehicle and got the judicial TIP of accused conducted before the Ld. Link MM but accused refused in participant in TIP.
PW7 SI Sanjeev Kumar, conducted investigation and recorded statement of Salig Ram and prepared rukka Ex PW7/A, side plan Ex PW7/B. PW8 HC Ram Niwas, who deposed to have collected the opinion on MLC. PW9 ASI Narender Pal, who is MHC (M) and registered the entry in register No. 19 vide serial No. 2330.
4. No other prosecution witness was examined . PE was closed vide order dated 08.11.2010. Accused was examined u/s 281 Cr.P.C on 25.11.2010, wherein accused submits that he is innocent and has been falsely and wrongly implicated in this case. However, he denied to lead any evidence in defence.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have gone through the entire record carefully.
6. Now the stage has been set to discuss the testimonies of PW's. The most material witness examined by the prosecution is PW5 Saligram, who is the complainant of the present case and has deposed that on 23.04.2000 at about 08:45 PM while he was walking on the road and present near gol chakkar one minor girl age about 5 years was standing there and one Maruti van came from the side of Zakhira driven by accused at a fast speed and hit against the girl from side. He further deposed that the accused and other public persons took the girl to the hospital and he also went to the hospital. He further deposed that accused ran away from the hospital and he made statement Ex PW 5/A. Thus, PW Shalig Ram has not only identified the accused but has also deposed that it was accused who was rash and negligent in driving and struck against the minor girl from behind. This witness was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW Salig Ram.
7. Here it is further observed that accused himself refused to participate in the judicial TIP and even otherwise the accused has not disputed the factum of the vehicle being driven by him at the time of accident.
8. The law is well settled to the effect as held in " SUKHDEV YADAV & ORS VS STATE OF BIHAR" (2001)8 SCC 186 that " once the trustworthiness of evidence stated in a case stands satisfied, the court should not hesitate in accepting the same. If the evidence in its entirety appears to be trustworthy it can not be discarded meraly on the ground of presence of minor variation in evidence. When the witnesses are examined after a long gap minor contradiction commission and discrepancies are bond to occur in the testimony of witness.
That by way of examination of the remaining witnesses the prosecution has been able to prove that it was accused who on 23.04.2000 at about 08:45 PM at B58, Rama Road PS Moti Nagar, Delhi was found driving vehicle No. HR26X5474 on the public way in rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety, and while driving the aforesaid vehicle in aforesaid manner caused simple injury on the person namely Kiran.
9. Thus, on the basis of the discussion aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused. Accordingly, the accused stands convicted for the offences U/sec 279/337 IPC.
He be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the (Sunil Kumar Sharma)
Open Court on 25.11.2010 Metropolitan Magistrate
(West11)Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains six pages and each page bears my signature.
(Sunil Kumar Sharma) Metropolitan Magistrate (West11)Delhi FIR 196/2000 PS Moti Nagar U/sec 279/337 IPC 25.11.2010 Present : Ld. APP for the State Accused on bail with Ld. Counsel Statement of accused recorded. Accused does not want to lead DE. Final arguments heard today.
Vide separate statement dictated and announced today in the open court, accused stands convicted for the offece U/sec 279/337 IPC.
(Sunil Kumar Sharma) Metropolitan Magistrate (West11)Delhi FIR 196/2000 PS Moti Nagar U/sec 279/337 IPC 25.11.2010 ORDER ON SENTENCES Present : Ld. APP for the State Accused on bail with Ld. Counsel I have heard Ld. APP and convict and considered the rival submissions. I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice shall meet if convict is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 500/ to the offence U/sec 279 IPC in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 10 days. Convict is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 500/ to the offence U/sec 337 IPC in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 10 days.
Convict is also directed to deposit a compensation of Rs 2,000/, to be awarded to injured Kiran through her natural guardians.
Fine and compensation deposited by convict.
Notice be issued to the natural guardians that is to the father of injured Kiran to be served through SHO PS Moti Nagar for collection of compensation amount for 05.01.2011.
(Sunil Kumar Sharma) Metropolitan Magistrate (West11)Delhi