Delhi District Court
State vs . Inder Mehta on 7 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. HEM RAJ, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
WEST - 09, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. INDER MEHTA
FIR No : 179/06
U/S : 279/338/174A IPC
P.S : VIKAS PURI
1. Serial No. of the Case : 403/2/10
2. Unique ID of the Case : 02401R1326462006
3. Date of Commission of Offence : 05.04.2006
4. Date of institution of the case : 09.11.2006
5. Name of the complainant : Ms. Jyoti Seth
6. Name of accused, parentage & : Inder Mehta
address of the accused S/o Sh. Rampreet Mehto
R/o H. No. C194, Hari Nagar,
Ghanta Ghar, New Delhi.
7. Offence complained : U/s. 279/338/174A IPC
8. Offence Charged with : U/s. 279/338/174A IPC
9. Plea of Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
10.Final Order : Acquitted for 279/338 IPC but
convicted for 174A IPC.
11.Date of Final Order : 07.12.2012.
J U D G M E N T
1 The prosecution filed a charge sheet on the allegations that on FIR No. 179/06 STATE V/s INDER MEHTA PAGE No. 1 /4 05.04.2006 at 07.45 AM at Red Light, Vikas Puri Mor, the accused while driving TSR No. DL 1RE 0492 rashly or negligently hit against one scooter bearing no. DL 4S AH 2097 and caused simple injuries to the complainant Jyoti Seth. Therefore, the accused was alleged to have committed offences under Sections 279/338 IPC.
2 In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the copy of the charge sheet along with other documents were supplied to accused. Later on, vide order dated 05.03.2012 notice for offences under Sections 279/338 IPC framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3 During the trial, the accused absented himself and he was declared a proclaimed offender. The prosecution filed a supplementary chargesheet against the accused. Charge U/s. 174A IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded guilty. He was convicted and accordingly sentenced.
4 In order to prove its case against the accused in the main chargesheet, the prosecution examined only two witnesses. FIR No. 179/06 STATE V/s INDER MEHTA PAGE No. 2 /4 5 PW1 HC Jagmohan participated in the investigation of this case.
6 PW2 Retd. ASI/ Tech. Devender Kumar conducted the mechanical inspection of the vehicle.
7 No other witness was examined by the prosecution. 8 In his statement U/s. 281 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the commission of offence. He did not lead any evidence. 9 I have heard the arguments and perused the record carefully. 10 In this case, PW complainant Jyoti Seth was the star and the only eye witness of the prosecution. However, prosecution has filed to produce the said witness in the witness box. Despite repeated efforts, the witness remained untraceable. In the absence of her testimony, the prosecution case could not have been proved. No evidence has come on record against the accused to connect him with the offence alleged against him.
FIR No. 179/06 STATE V/s INDER MEHTA PAGE No. 3 /4 11 Therefore, in view of the discussions made herein above and the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Inder Mehta is hereby acquitted for the offence under section 279/338 IPC, he has been charged with. However, he stands convicted for offence U/s. 174A IPC. His earlier B/Bs are extended for a period of six months from today for the purposes of Section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary formalities.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (HEM RAJ)
TH
TODAY i.e. ON 7 DECEMBER, 2012 MM09:WEST:THC:07.12.2012
FIR No. 179/06 STATE V/s INDER MEHTA PAGE No. 4 /4