Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijaya on 14 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHIVALI SHARMA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
EAST: KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
FIR No. : 431/12
PS : Kalyan Puri
U/s : 304A IPC
STATE Vs. VIJAYA
JUDGMENT
A Unique ID No. of the Cr. Case 8001/2016 case B Name of the Shiv Mohan S/o Lakhan Singh complainant C Name of the accused VIjaya & his parentage and W/o Raj Kumar address R/o 4/24 Trilokpuri, Delhi.
D Offence Complained of U/s 304A IPC E Date of commission of 06.12.2012 offence.
F Date of Institution 05.12.2015
G Offence Charged U/s 304A IPC
H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
I Order Reserved on 14.11.2018
J Date of 14.11.2018
Pronouncement
K Final Order Accused is acquitted of offences
u/s 304A IPC.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION PROSECUTION'S CASE 1 The story of the prosecution is that on 06.12.2012 at about 6:45 pm at H. No. 4/24, Trilokpuri, Delhi, accused was trying to pull a FIR NO. 431/12 PS Kalyanpuri STATE VS. Vijaya PAGE NO.1/5 heavy diwan by a weak rope without taking proper precautions in a rash and negligent manner and due to the said rash and negligent act, the rope broke and the bed fell on the head of one Shiv Shankar passing through the area causing his death not amounting to culpable homicide thereby accused Vijaya is alleged to have committed offence punishable U/s 304A IPC. CHARGE 2 After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr. P.C was filed on 05.12.2015 u/s 304A IPC against the accused. 3 On the basis of the charge-sheet and after compliance of Sec.207 Cr.P.C., a charge for the offence punishable under section 304A IPC was framed against the accused and read out to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 27.07.2018.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 4 To bring home the guilt against the accused, prosecution has cited 11 witnesses in all. However only 1 witness was examined. 5 PW-1 is the alleged eye witness of the prosecution case Sh.
Shiv Mohan who did not depose in support of the prosecution. Rather he stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged accident. Though he deposed that the death of his brother was caused due to falling of a heavy bed on him on 06.12.2012. But as per his deposition he was not an eye witness of the accident or the rash and negligent act of the accused resulting in the accident. As per his deposition he is merely a hearsay witness who came to know about the accident from some other persons at the hospital when he went there to visit his brother. He was cross examined on behalf of the State but FIR NO. 431/12 PS Kalyanpuri STATE VS. Vijaya PAGE NO.2/5 even in his cross examination he did not support the case of the prosecution. Although he identified the accused but did not depose being the eye witness to the accident. 6 In addition to examination of this witness, accused has admitted u/s 294 Cr. PC the statement of Sh. Lakhan Singh who had identified the dead body of hte deceased, registration of present FIR and DD no . 62B regarding the accident as well as the post mortem report no. 479/12 dt. 07.12.2012. Accordingly the examination of relevant witnesses was despensed with.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTION 7 I have perused the testimony of PW1 Sh. Shiv Mohan. He has not supported the case of prosecution at all and was declared hostile. There is no other eye witness to the fatal accident as per the case of prosecution. Remaining witnesses are police officials who took part in investigation . Since the star/ sole eye witness of the prosecution has already been declared hostile and has failed to depose in support of the prosecution case, I find it to be a futile exercise to continue with the trial. Ld. APP for the State submits that the remaining witnesses be summoned and examined. To my mind, no fruitful purpose would be served by examining the remaining formal witnesses. Hence, PE is closed. Statement of accused is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.
8 In the opinion of the court, this is a fit case to close PE and acquit accused Vijaya of offences u/s 304A IPC, so as to protect their right of speedy justice as incorporated in Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 FIR NO. 431/12 PS Kalyanpuri STATE VS. Vijaya PAGE NO.3/5 SUPREME COURT 1856 ( Coram : 7 S. P. BHARUCHA, C.J.I., S. S. M. QUADRI, R. C. LAHOTI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, DORAISWAMY RAJU, Mrs. RUMA PAL, A. PASAYAT, JJ.) the Honorable 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. .................. The Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay's case referred to such power, vesting in the High Court (vide paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it was clear that even apart from Article 21, the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting to an end, by making appropriate orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted."
(emphasis supplied) "30........................................ In conclusion we hold:-
(1) ....................
(2)......................
(3) ....................
(4) .....................
(5) The Criminal Courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under Sections 309, 311 and 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure to effectuate the right to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent trial Judge can prove to be better protector of such right than any guidelines. In appropriate cases jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions".
9 Accordingly, PE stands closed, SA is dispensed with and FIR NO. 431/12 PS Kalyanpuri STATE VS. Vijaya PAGE NO.4/5 accused namely Vijaya is acquitted of offences u/s 304A IPC as charged against her.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.11.2018 (SHIVALI SHARMA) CMM (EAST)/KKD/14.11.2018 Certified that this judgement contains 5 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI SHARMA Location: East District Karkardooma Courts Delhi SHARMA Date: 2018.11.14 16:19:18 +0530 (SHIVALI SHARMA) CMM (EAST)/KKD/14.11.2018 FIR NO. 431/12 PS Kalyanpuri STATE VS. Vijaya PAGE NO.5/5