Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohammad Yunus on 14 September, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02 (SOUTH DISTRICT) NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Mohammad Yunus
FIR NO. 1085/07
U/s : 279/337 IPC & 179/132 M.V. Act
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. : 1085/07
2.Date of the Commission of the offence : 31.10.2007
3.Name of the accused : Mohammad Yunus
S/o Sh. Raje Ram
R/o village Deenpur,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
4.Name of the complainant : Ct. Yatender Kumar
S/o Sh. Ved Pal Singh
Belt no. 4346/Traffic
Circle Hauz Khas.
5.Offence complained of : 279/337 IPC and
179/132 M.V. Act
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Convicted
8.Date of final order : 14.09.2012
FIR No.1085/07 State Vs. Mohammad Yunus U/s 279/337 IPC
PS Malviya Nagar
2
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION The story of the prosecution is that on 31.10.2007 between 1/1.20pm at press Enclave road, near Andhra Education Society New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Malviya Nagar, the accused Mohammad Yunus was driving the vehicle bearing no. DL9CJ3595 (Car) in a rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in such a manner, the accused hit against Ct. Yatender who signaled him to stop, as a result of which the complainant Ct. Yatender received injuries and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 279/337 IPC & 179/132 M.V. Act.
On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant Ct. Yatender, an FIR bearing number 1085/07 under section 279/337 IPC & 179/132 M.V. Act. was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar on 31.10.2007.
After investigation, chargesheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 28.03.2008.
On the basis of the chargesheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 279/337 IPC & 179/132 M.V. Act was framed against the accused Mohammad Yunus and read out to the said accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 30.09.2009. FIR No.1085/07 State Vs. Mohammad Yunus U/s 279/337 IPC PS Malviya Nagar 3 JUDICIAL RESOLUTION To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution that to 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.
These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
Quoting from the article "Negligence, Mens Rea and Criminal Responsibility" by H.L.A.Hart in Punishment and Responsibility the dictionary further goes on to explain the difference between an act done inadvertently and an act done negligently.
"[A] careful consideration is needed of the difference between the meaning of the expression like 'inadvertently' and 'while his mind was a blank' on the FIR No.1085/07 State Vs. Mohammad Yunus U/s 279/337 IPC PS Malviya Nagar 4 one hand, and 'negligently' on the other hand. In ordinary English, and also in Lawyer's English, when harm has resulted from someone's negligence, if we say of that person that he has acted negligently we are not thereby merely describing the frame of mind in which he acted. 'He negligently broke a saucer' is not the same kind of expression as 'he inadvertently broke a saucer'. The point of adverb 'inadvertently' is merely to inform us of the agent's psychological state, whereas if we say 'He broke it negligently' we are not merely adding to this an element of blame or reproach, but something quite specific, viz. we are referring to the fact that the agent failed to comply with a standard of conduct with which any ordinary reasonable man could and would have complied: a standard requiring him to take precautions against harm. The word 'negligently', both in legal and non legal contexts, makes an essential reference to an omission to do what is thus required: it is not a flatly descriptive psychological expression like 'his mind was a blank'."
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Sixth Edition defines 'Rash'as doing something that may not be sensible without first thinking about the possible results.
Elaborating further, in State of H.P. v. Piar Chand, Cr. Appeal No. 109 of 2003, decided on 2.6.2003, Himachal Pradesh High Court, FIR No.1085/07 State Vs. Mohammad Yunus U/s 279/337 IPC PS Malviya Nagar 5 while dealing with the meaning of the expression " rashness " and " negli gence " held as follows :
"18. Criminal rashness is doing a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and may cause injury but without intention to cause injury and without knowl edge that injury would probably be caused. Therefore, to incur criminal liability, the act must be done with rash ness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable care and proper precaution impera tive to be adopted by a person to avoid causing of injury to the public or a person or a individual."
The court would also like to refer to a very recent judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court of India elaborating further the requirements of section 304A of IPC. Quoting from Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka, (SC) 2007 A.I.R. (SC) 1064.
"Section 304A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are FIR No.1085/07 State Vs. Mohammad Yunus U/s 279/337 IPC PS Malviya Nagar 6 essential elements under Section 304A. 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 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 is the amount of care and circumspection 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 reck lessness or indifference as to the consequences. Crimi nal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and cul pable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either FIR No.1085/07 State Vs. Mohammad Yunus U/s 279/337 IPC PS Malviya Nagar 7 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.
8. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway, J. in these words :
"Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the negligence of the civic duty of circumspection." (See In Re : Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad. HCR 119)".
In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused Mohammad Yunus, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses.
Out of the 7 witnesses examined, PW1 HC Yatender is the complainant himself. The said witness in his examinationinchief has FIR No.1085/07 State Vs. Mohammad Yunus U/s 279/337 IPC PS Malviya Nagar 8 stated that on 31.10.2007, he was posted as Ct. in Traffic line at Hauz Khas Sector and his duty was at Press Enclave road, Malviya Nagar. He further stated that at about 1.00pm he along with ASI Bhagat Ram were on vehicle checking duty at Andhra Education Society when one car bearing no. DL9CJ3595 came from Sheikh Sarai side, being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, thereby jumping the red light. The car was signaled to stop but instead of stopping the car the driver of the car hit against the complainant as a result of which he fell down on the ground and received injuries and was thereafter taken to Modi Hospital and his statement was recorded Ex. PW1/A. The said witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
PW2 Shadi Lal being the mechanical inspection deposed that on 12.01.2008, he conducted the mechanical inspection of the vehicle bearing no. DL9CJ3595 being maruti 800 and his detailed report is Ex. PW2/A. The said witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
PW3 HC Xaberia stated on 21.10.2007 she recorded DD no. FIR No.1085/07 State Vs. Mohammad Yunus U/s 279/337 IPC PS Malviya Nagar 9 22A wich is now Ex. PW3/A and another DD no. 24A which is Ex. PW3/B. The said witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
PW4 HC Radhey Shyam deposed that on 31.10.2007 he was posted at PS Malviya Nagar at about 4.10pm received rukka through W/SI Pratibha on the basis of which he recorded the present FIR, copy of which Ex. PW4/A and endorsement on rukka Ex. PW4/B. The said witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
PW5 Shoaib Khan being the superdar deposed that he got vehicle bearing no. DL9CJ3595, released on superdari vide superdginama mark A and identified the vehicle on the basis of photographs exhibited as Ex. PW5X (colly).
The said witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
PW6 ASI Bhagat Ram deposed that on 31.10.2007 he was posted as ASI in Traffic Line at Hauz Khas Circle and his duty was on Press Enclave road, Malviya Nagar and at about 1pm he along with Ct. Yatender FIR No.1085/07 State Vs. Mohammad Yunus U/s 279/337 IPC PS Malviya Nagar 10 were on vehicle checking duty when one car bearing no. DL9CJ3595 came from Sheikh Sarai side, being driven at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner and jumped the red light. The car was signaled to stop but instead of stopping the car, the driver hit against Ct. Yatender who fell down and received injuries and was thereafter taken to Modi Hospital and his statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded. The accused was correctly identified by this witness.
This witness was cross examined by the accused himself wherein he stated that he does not remember the time of his duty.
PW7 W/SI Pratibha Sharma deposed on 31.10.2007 on receipt of DD no. 22A she along with Ct. Anil went to the spot at Press Enclave road where it was learnt that the injured had already been shifted to Modi Hospital. Thereafter on being discharged Ct. Yatender came to PS and got his statement recorded which is Ex. PW1/A. On the basis of the same Tehrir Ex. PW7/A was prepared. Notice u/s 133 M.V. Act was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle which is Ex. PW7/B. Notice was also issued to the accused which is Ex. PW7/C and Ex. PW7/D. Maruti car being the offending vehicle was seized vide memo Ex. PW7/E. DL and copy of the challan were seized vide memo Ex. PW7/F. Copy of the RC of FIR No.1085/07 State Vs. Mohammad Yunus U/s 279/337 IPC PS Malviya Nagar 11 the accused was seized vide memo Ex. PW7/G. Mechanical inspection was conducted. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW7/H. Investigation was completed in this case and challan was filed in the court. The crossexamination of this witness was deferred.
Final arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as accused in person. Heard. Considered.
For proving the guilt of the accused u/s 279/337 IPC, it has to be proved the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The factum of rashness has been substantiated by the oral testimonies of PW1 Ct. Yatender being the complainant himself and PW6 ASI Bhagat Ram. Both were on vehicle checking duty on the time and day of alleged incident and both have corroborated each others testimonies. The fact that the accident took place is also substantiated by mechanical inspection report as per which the front bumper of the offending vehicle was also damaged. The factum of injury to the complainant Ct. Yatender is substantiated by MLC on record which states the nature of injury to be simple with multiple abrasions on the body of injured.
Thus, it is quite clear that on 31.10.2007, the victim/complainant Ct. Yatender who is PW1 suffered injuries, which are simple in nature FIR No.1085/07 State Vs. Mohammad Yunus U/s 279/337 IPC PS Malviya Nagar 12 caused due to the accident by the offending vehicle being maruti 800 bearing registration no. DL9CJ3595. The fact that the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused has also been substantiated by the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW6, wherein the accused has been duly identified to be driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
DD no. 22A and 24A placed on record further substantiates the factum of accident having taken place.
Further, it has also been stated by the complainant that the vehicle of the accused was being driven at a fast speed. He further deposed that the accused did not stop at the red light and jumped the red light. It is further deposed that when being signaled to stop, instead of stopping the vehicle the accused hit the complainant thereby causing injury to him. This in itself, speaks enough about the rashness and negligence of the accused.
Thus, the court is satisfied that all the the ingredients of section 279 as well as 338 of the IPC have been proved by the prosecution beyond doubt.
Further the offences u/s 179/132 M.V. Act also stand proved by the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW6 wherein both state that the accused jumped the red light despite being signaled to stop. FIR No.1085/07 State Vs. Mohammad Yunus U/s 279/337 IPC PS Malviya Nagar 13 Accused Mohammad Yunus is accordingly, convicted for offences punishable under section 279/337 of the IPC & section 179/132 M.V. Act Matter be listed for arguments on the point of sentence on 17.09.2012 at 2.00 P.M. ANNOUNCED IN THE COURT (CHETNA SINGH) ON 14.09.2012 MM02(SD)/14.09.2012 Certified that this judgment contains 13 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM02(SD)/14.09.2012 FIR No.1085/07 State Vs. Mohammad Yunus U/s 279/337 IPC PS Malviya Nagar