Delhi District Court
State vs Akshay Sharma on 15 July, 2025
State Vs. Akshay Sharma
IN THE COURT OF MS. PAYAL SINGAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Akshay Sharma
FIR No. 37/2017
PS Burari
U/s. 279/337/338 IPC
Cr. Case No. 10547/2018
JUDGMENT
15.07.2025
1) CNR Number of the case : DLCT02-023452-2018
2)The date of commission of offence : 01.02.2017
3) The name of the complainant : Vicky
4) The name & parentage of accused : Akshay Sharma, S/o Dushyant
5) Offence complained of : Section 279/337/338 IPC
6) The plea of accused : Not guilty
7) Final order : CONVICTION Date of Institution : 23.07.2018 Date of reservation : 05.06.2025 Date of Judgment : 15.07.2025 BRIEF FACTS:
1) The brief case of the prosecution is that on 01.02.2017, at about 07.20PM at 100 Foota road, near Bindal Vatika, Nathupura, Burari, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Burari, the accused was driving a car bearing registration No. DL-8CV 6168 in a rash and negligent manner so as to FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 1 of 19 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date:
SINGAL 2025.07.15 17:31:40 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma endanger human life and personal safety of others and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly, on the above mentioned date, time and place and while driving in the aforesaid manner, the accused hit against a motor cycle bearing No. DL9SG 6154 on which injured persons namely Vicky and Rakesh were riding and due to impact Vicky/complainant received simple injuries and injured Rakesh received grievous injuries on their person and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 337/338 IPC. Accordingly, the accused person has been charged with offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
2) After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court, upon which cognizance was taken of the offence and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.), since prima facie, offence was being made out under the said section, vide order dated 24.05.2019, notice was framed u/s 279/337/338 IPC against the accused Akshay Sharma to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was proceeded further for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
3) Before proceeding with the prosecution evidence, it is relevant to mention here that during the course of trial, the accused had admitted the copy of FIR (Ex. AD1);
endorsement on Rukka (Ex. AD2); Certificate u/s 65B FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 2 of 19 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date: SINGAL 2025.07.15 17:31:49 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma Indian Evidence Act (Ex.AD3); DD No. 38-A dated 01.02.2017 vide which information was received about the present accident (Ex. AD4); MLC of PW Rakesh (Ex.AD/MLC/A1) and MLC of PW Vicky (Ex.AD/MLC/A2) alongwith corresponding opinions thereof without admitting the contents of the said documents. Thus, the said witnesses were not summoned.
4) Accordingly, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the remaining seven witnesses in support of its case i.e. PW-1 Sh. Vicky, PW-2 Sh. Rakesh, PW-3 ASI Gurdeep, PW-4 ASI Ram Avtar, PW-5 ASI Rajiv Baliyan, PW-6 Rajneesh Kumar and PW-7 ASI Mukund. Now, the relevant portions of the testimonies of all these witnesses shall be discussed one by one.
5) PW-1 Sh. Vicky deposed that on 01.02.2017, at about 07.30 PM, he was going to Burari Jal Board from Keshav Nagar from his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL9SG6150 make CT-100 as a pillion rider alonwith his brother-in-law namely Rakesh who was riding the said mowtorcycle. PW-1 deposed that when they reached in front of Bindal Vatika and moved a little ahead, a car make Dzire bearing registration No. 6168 came from the side of Burari in a high speed and the driver of the said car hit our motorcycle. Then, PW-1 deposed that the accused came for their help and he was surrounded by the public persons whereafter, police reached at the spot and they were taken to BJR Hospital. Thereafter, PW-1 stated that his statement was recorded at the spot, Ex.PW1/A and that he received Digitally FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 3 of 19 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.07.15 17:31:58 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma the injuries on his shoulders and his brother in law's both legs got fractured. The said witness correctly identified the accused in court alongwith the photographs of the offending car and the victim bike. On being put leading questions by the ld. APP for the State, the witness stated that the driver of the car had overtook against a bus, did not give any indicator and while so overtaking, hit against their bike.
6) PW-2 Sh. Rakesh deposed that 01.02.2017, he alongwith his relative namely Vicky were going to drop Vicky, from his house (i.e. H No. 197, Gali No. 1, A Block, Keshav Puram, Delhi) towards Delhi Jal Board, Burari where his relative Vicky used to work, on his motorcycle make Kawasaki Bajaj bearing no. DL-6151 but that he did not remember the complete number. The witness deposed that he was driving the motorcycle and his relative Vicky was sitting on the pillion seat and at about 6.30 pm, when they reached at Burari road near Bindal Vatika, a Maruti Swift Desire car bearing no.6168 came from the wrong side and at a fast pace and hit their motorcycle in a head-on collusion due to which they fell down and sustained injuries. PW-2 deposed that somebody called the police and police persons came at the spot and that he saw the accused who revealed his name to be as Akshay Sharma.
Thereafter, PW-2 deposed that they were taken to LNJP Hospital in the police vehicle for their medical treatment. The witness further stated that this accident has been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 4 of 19 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date:
SINGAL 2025.07.15 17:32:06 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma vehicle by the accused person and that his statement was not recorded on the same day as he had been unconscious and that his statement was recorded afterwards. The said witness correctly identified the accused in court alongwith the photographs of the offending car and the victim bike.
7) PW-3 ASI Gurdeep, Retired Mechanical Expert was a formal witness who deposed that on 07.02.2017, he was requested by ASI Ram Avtar to inspect the vehicle involved in the present accident whereafter, both the vehicles were inspected by him and his inspection mechanical report of both the vehicles is on record Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively. The witness deposed that both the vehicles were not in a drivable condition when he inspected them. The said witness correctly identified the photographs of both the vehicles Ex. P1 to P7.
8) PW-4 ASI Ram Avtar deposed that on 01.02.2017, he was posted as ASI at PS Burari when at about 7.30 pm, a DD No. 38 A was marked to him regarding accident at Burari Nathupura Cut. PW-4 deposed that after receiving the same, he alongwith HC Rajiv reached at 100 foota road near Bindal Vatika, Burari, Nathupura where they saw one Swift Car bearing registration no. DL-8CU-6168 white in colour and one motorcycle make Kawasaki Bajaj, Black in colour bearing registration no. DL-9SG-6151 in an accidental condition. PW-4 further stated that he also got to know that the injured had already been removed in the PCR van to BJRM Hospital and that he took the FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 5 of 19 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.07.15 17:32:18 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma photographs of the scene of crime through his mobile phone whereafter, he left HC Rajiv at the spot to preserve the same and went to BJRM Hospital where he received the MLC of injured namely Vicky who also got discharged from the hospital. PW-4 deposed that there was another injured namely Rakesh and that he received his MLC as well and that he was further referred to LNJP Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, PW-4 stated that he went to LNJP Hospital where injured Rakesh was under observation and concerned doctor opined that he is unfit for the statement and so, he returned to the spot where Vicky also reached at the spot. In the meanwhile, the accused also reached at the spot and after seeing the accused, the witness identified him as a driver of the offending vehicle who caused the accident. PW-4 then stated to have recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A; he also prepared tehrir Ex/PW4/A and handed over the same to HC Rajiv who left the spot at about 2.30 am and went to PS Burari. After some time, HC Rajiv returned to the spot along with computerized copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to him. Then, PW-4 stated that he seized the offending car and accidental motorcycle Ex PW4/B; he prepared site plan Ex. PWA/C; he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/D in the presence of his father; he also conducted personal search of the accused and prepared corresponding memo Ex. PW4/E and as the offence was bailable one, accused was released on police bail after furnishing surety vide bail bond/personal bond Ex. PW4/F. Then, PW-4 stated that he Digitally FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 6 of 19 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.07.15 17:32:26 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma also served notice u/s 133 MV Act to the registered owner of the offending vehicle and received the reply of the said notice from Rajnish Sharma who stated that at the time of incident, the car was being driven by the accused who was his brother-in-law. The said notice is Ex. PW4/G. Rajnish also produced documents i.e RC and insurance pertaining to the offending car and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/H. Thereafter, PW-4 deposed that on 07.02.2017 at his request, the mechanical Expert conducted mechanical inspection of the offending car and the accidental motorcycle and handed over to him the detailed report Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW3/A whereafter, he verified the documents pertaining to the offending vehicles from the concerned Authorities. Then, PW-4 stated that he filed the DAR in the concerned MACT Court and also received the opinion from the concerned doctor regarding the nature of injury caused to the injured person.
Thereafter on 29.06.2017, PW-4 stated that he got transferred in Traffic Unit and so, he handed over the present file to MHC(R). The said witness correctly identified the photographs of the offending car and the victim bike and the identity of the accused was not disputed by the said witness.
9) PW-5 ASI Rajiv Baliyan deposed that on 01.02.2017, he was posted as HC at PS Burari and on that day, IO/ASI Ramavtar received a call regarding accident at about 07:20 pm, near Bindal Vatika. Naththupura Road. Thereafter, he alongwith IO / ASI Ramavtar went to the aforesaid spot FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 7 of 19 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date:
SINGAL 2025.07.15 17:32:36 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma and they saw that a car bearing registration no. DL8CV6168 and motorcycle bearing no. DL9SG6154 were in accidental condition at the spot. On local inquiry, IO came to know that injured has been shifted to BJRM Hospital whereafter, IO left him at the spot and he himself went to BJRM Hospital. PW-5 deposed that as it was night time, the IO returned to the spot on night time of 02.02.2017 at the spot and he told that the injured namely Rajesh, In the meantime, second injured namely Vicky who had come to the spot at that time. Public were gathered at the spot and the accused was also apprehended by the public persons. The witness further deposed that in the mean time, IO/ASI Ram Avtar returned to the spot who made inquiry with the complainant Vicky and recorded his statement Ex. PWI/A and on the basis of the said statement, ASI Ram Avtar prepared tehrir and handed over the same to him for the registration of FIR. PW-5 deposed that he left the spot and went to PS Burari where he handed over the tehrir to the DO for the registration of the FIR. After registration of the same, he returned to the spot and handed over computerized copy of FIR alongwith original tehrir to ASI Ram Avtar. ASI Ram Avtar seized the offending car and motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex.
PW4/B; IO made inquiry with the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/D; IO also conducted the personal search of the accused vide personal search memo Ex. PW4/E and as the offence was the bailable one, accused was released on a bail/personal bonds after FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 8 of 19 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.07.15 17:32:47 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma furnishing surety. The said witness correctly identified the accused in court alongwith the photographs of the offending car and the victim bike
10) PW-6 Sh. Rajneesh Kumar was again a formal witness being the superdar of the offending vehicle. He deposed that he was the registered owner of the Maruti Suzuki Desire Car bearing registration no. DL-SCU-6168 which was involved in an accident due to which the present FIR was registered. He stated that his car was seized by the police officer and that on 13.02.2017, he got released his car on superdarinama by giving the indemnity bond Ex. PW6/A. The photographs of the car are Ex.
PW6/B (colly 1 to 06 photographs). In cross-examination, the witness stated that he was forced to write that on the date of the accident, his car was being driven by his broher-in-law Akshay Sharma at point A to A1 in Ex.PW4/G.
11) PW-7 ASI Mukund was again a formal witness who deposed that on 24.08.2017, he was posted as HC at PS Burari and on the aforesaid date, the present file was marked to him for further investigation. The witness deposed that he sent the DL of the accused to the concerned Authority Kanpur to verify the same but the record could not be traced and that he placed on record the said documents which was handed over by the Authority Ex. X1 (colly 1 to 3). Thereafter, the witness stated that he filed the challan before the concerned court.
Digitally
signed by
FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 9 of 19 PAYAL
PAYAL SINGAL
SINGAL Date:
2025.07.15
17:32:57
+0530
State Vs. Akshay Sharma
12) All the witnesses were duly cross-examined on
behalf of the accused and the relevant portions of the same shall be duly discussed at the appropriate stage.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED:
13) Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 08.05.2025 wherein the accused denied the case of the prosecution and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case and was the victim himself. The accused further chose not to lead any defence evidence and accordingly, DE was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
14) The final arguments were advanced by Sh. Sumit Kaushal, Ld. counsel on behalf of the accused and Sh. Rohit Lohat, Ld. APP for the state.
15) It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the accused that the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence was that the prosecution was required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt which the prosecution had miserably failed to do in the case at hand. It was argued that the non-joinder of public witnesses despite availability and material contradictions in the testimonies of PWs were fatal to the case of the prosecution. It was argued that the IO ASI Ram Avtar had no idea about the phone from which he allegedly took photographs of the spot or the shop from which the said photos were gotten FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 10 of 19 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date: SINGAL 2025.07.15 17:33:08 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma develop; neither the same were accompanied by any certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act in which scenario the photographs of the spot or the vehicles involved in the present incident could not be relied upon. Then, it was argued that all the witness i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and the police witnesses had given different numbers of the offending vehicle and that the same was a material contradiction in the case of the prosecution, the benefit of which had necessarily to go to the accused. Lastly, it was argued that there were material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses as to the time of the alleged incident and that no verification was done by the investigating agency qua the particulars of the victim vehicle as well in the present case.
Accordingly, it was argued that the benefit of the doubt necessarily had to go to the accused and that he was entitled to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
16) Per contra, it was argued by the Ld. APP for the state that there were ocular and documentary evidences on record to bring home the guilt of the accused. It was argued that the accused had failed to bring any material contradictions in the testimonies of PWs and the same were also corroborated by the testimony of the other police witnesses which taken together were sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it was argued that the state had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the accused who had caused the injuries to the PW Vivky and PW FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 11 of 19 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date:
SINGAL 2025.07.15 17:33:17 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma Rakesh by his negligent and rash driving and was bound to be convicted of charges u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
17) I have heard the arguments from both the sides and have carefully gone through the record.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:
18) In the case at hand, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused has committed an offence u/s 279/337/338 IPC and accordingly, the prosecution was required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, the following aspects:
a. That at the time of alleged incident, it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle, and b. The offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, and c. That the accused, while so driving the offending vehicle, in the aforesaid manner, caused simple injuries to PW-1 Vicky and grievous injuries to PW-2 Rakesh.
19) Now, it is the case of the prosecution that while the injured Ankur and Rakesh were driving on a motorcycle on the Burari Road, the accused came driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, thereby hitting both the said persons and causing injuries to both of them.
The prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of independent witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 6; expert witnesses PWs 3 and police witnesses PWs 4, 5 and 7 to prove the case in its favor qua the above-discussed ingredients of the offence u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
20) First and foremost, the essential ingredient for an offence under Section 279 IPC is driving/riding a vehicle FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 12 of 19 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date:
SINGAL 2025.07.15 17:33:26 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Similarly, Section 337 and 338 of IPC is made out when simple injuries and/or grievous injury is caused due to said rash and negligent act.
21) In the case at hand, in order to prove that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the alleged incident, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 both of whom are the injured in the present case and PW-3 (superdar/owner of the offending vehicle). Firstly, coming to the testimony of PW-3, now, although the said witness has stated in his reply to the IO that at the time of the incident, his brother-
in-law Akshay was driving his car however, during his testimony in court, the said witness has stated that he gave the said reply under force. In view of the said contradiction as well as the fact that the said witness appears to be some relative of the accused, he cannot be taken to be an independent witness and his testimony cannot be relied upon to establish the fact that it was the accused who was or was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. Then, coming to the remaining two witnesses i.e. both the injured persons. Now, since both the said witnesses are the injured themselves, their presence at the spot is natural and the same cannot be questioned so the court has now to see as to whether they established the presence of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle at the spot. In the testimony of both the said FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 13 of 19 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.07.15 17:33:35 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma witnesses, they have stated that after the present accident, the accused came out of his car as public had gathered and revealed his name as Akshay; they both also correctly identified the accused in court as well as the photographs of the offending vehicle. Although, neither of the witnesses was able to tell the complete registration number of the offending vehicle but both stated that the number was 6168 and also correctly identified the photographs, in which scenario, the same can only be said to be owing to memory lapses and does not hit the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, all the suggestions put to these two witnesses that it was not the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the alleged accident have been denied by both the witnesses. In the given circumstances, the court is of the considered opinion that no material contradictions have been brought in the testimonies of either of these witnesses qua the identity of the accused and that the prosecution has successfully proved that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.
22) Once contention (a) stands proved, we move to the other two contentions. In order to examine the merit or otherwise of contentions (b) and (c) as aforementioned, it is necessary for the Court to first and foremost examine what is rash and negligent driving and whether it can be gathered from the attendant circumstances. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 14 of 19 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.07.15 17:33:44 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances.
23) From a catena of judgments, the meaning of the said terms is no more res integra. 'Negligence' means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence.
24) Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wan-
ton act with the knowledge that it is so, that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in run- ning the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or in- difference as to its consequences i.e. without belief in the result of such doing. Criminal negligence, on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exer- cise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to Digitally signed by FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 15 of 19 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.07.15 17:33:52 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma guard against injury either to the public generally or to a particular individual, which having regard to all the cir- cumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act and is opposed to a deliberate act, even if it is partly deliberate act; it is done without due thought and action. An illegal "omission" if negligent, may come under this section.
25) Thus, the preliminary conditions are as follows:-
(i) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven;
(ii) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and
(iii) such rash or negligent driving should be suc h as to endanger human life.
26) Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated under section 279 IPC is attracted. It is also settled law that in a case under Section 279/337/338/304A, in order to impose criminal liability upon the accused, it must be determined as a fact that a collision/accident was entirely, or at least mainly, due to rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. It is not sufficient to say that the accused was driving the vehicle at a fast speed. A mere error of judgment on the part of the driver would not make him liable under section 337/338 or 304A. Moreover, the injury/death must be the direct result of the rash or negligent act of the accused and the act must be sufficient cause or the causa causans.
27) Now, at this stage, as already discussed above, it
Digitally
FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 16 of 19 signed by
PAYAL
PAYAL SINGAL
SINGAL Date:
2025.07.15
17:34:00
+0530
State Vs. Akshay Sharma
stands proved that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The court is of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond all reasonable doubt the remaining two ingredients
(b) and (c) wherein it is upon the prosecution to prove that the said vehicle was being driven in such a rash and negligent manner so as to cause the accident and consequential simple/grievous injuries to the victim/s.
28) Firstly, coming to (c), the medical documents on record of victim Vicky (Ex.AD/MLC/A2) and of victim Rakesh (Ex.AD/MLC/A1) shows that injuries were caused to Vicky on his shoulder and to the injured Rakesh on his leg. The said fact is duly corroborated by the testimonies of both these witnesses as given in court. Furthermore, no suggestion whatsoever was even given to any of the injured disputing the same in which case, the court has no hesitation in holding that indeed injuries were caused to the two victims owing to the present accident.
29) Subsequently, coming to (b) as to whether the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the accident was caused due to the same. To appreciate whether the accused was so driving the vehicle, the testimonies of both the injured persons PW-1 and PW-2 has to be carefully seen. PW-1 has stated in his chief examination that, "...a car make Dzire bearing registration no. 6168 came from the side of Burari in a high speed and the driver of the said car hit our motorcycle..."; "...the driver of the said car had overtook against a bus and did FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 17 of 19 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date: SINGAL 2025.07.15 17:34:10 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma not give any indicator and while overtaking, he hit against my motorcycle". Then, coming to the testimony of PW-2 Rakesh, the said witness has stated in his chief examination that, "...at about 6.30 pm, we reached at Burari Road near Bindal Vatika, a Maruti Swift Dezire car bearing registration no. 6168 came from wrong side and at a fast case and hit our motorcycle in a head on collision due to which we fell down..."Now, it is pertinent to mention that no suggestion whatsoever was put to any of the said witnesses to the effect that the accused was not driving the vehicle in a negligent manner. It has been merely put to PW-1 that the said fact of negligent driving by the accused has not been disclosed by him to the police in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and when a suggestion was put to PW-2 that he was overtaking a bus at the time of the incident, the said witness denied the said suggestion and instead stated that it was the accused whonwas overtaking the bus.
30) Now, the court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of both the PWs are of such stellar quality that it is sufficient to prove the ingredient of rash and negligent driving wherein the accused was coming from wrong side, without giving indicator, at high speed, overtaking a bus.
Moreover, the factum of head-on collision is also corroborated by the reports/testimony of PWs 3 i.e his reports of offending vehicle and victim bike being Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/A respectively which show injuries on the front side of both the said vehicles. At this FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 18 of 19 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.07.15 17:34:19 +0530 State Vs. Akshay Sharma stage, it is also relevant to mention that in the cross- examination of PW4 ASI Ram Avtar, the said witness has stated that, "..the offending vehicle was lying in the wrong side lane of the road..." which further supports the fact that the offending vehicle was being driven from the wrong side. In the given circumstances, the court is of the considered opinion that the above discussed factors leave no iota of doubt that the offending vehicle was being driven in such a rash and negligent manners so as to cause grievous injuries to the injured PW-2 and simple injuries to PW-1.
31) In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the ingredients that the prosecution was duty bound to prove to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 279/337/338 IPC have been successfully proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Akshay Sharma is convicted in the present case for offences that he is charged with i.e. 279/337/338 IPC for causing simple injuries to PW-1 Vicky and grievous injuries to the injured/PW-2 Rakesh.
(Announced in open Court on 15th July 2025 ) Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL (The judgment contains 19 pages SINGAL Date:
2025.07.15 17:34:27 +0530 and all the pages bear my signatures) (Payal Singal) JMFC-09/Central District Delhi/15.07.2025 FIR No. 37/2017, PS Burari Page No. 19 of 19