Delhi District Court
State vs . Nand Lal on 11 September, 2012
1 FIR No:496/2000
State Vs. Nand Lal
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 496/2000
PS: Dabri
U/s 279/304A IPC
State V. Nand Lal
Date of institution of the case : 16/03/2001
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 11/09/2012
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 692/2
b) Date of commission of offence : 25.05.2000
c) Name of the Complainant : Banwari Lal Sahu
S/o Sh. Suraj Deen Sahu
R/o RZ10B Gali No.2,
Kailash Puri, New Delhi.
d) Name of accused and address : Nand Lal
S/o Sh. Gya Deen
R/o H.No. 408, LBlock,
Near Water Tank, Mangla
Puri, J.J. Colony, Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : u/s 279/304A IPC
2 FIR No:496/2000
State Vs. Nand Lal
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 11/09/2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The present case was registered on the complaint of complainant Banwari Lal Sahu in which he alleged that on 25.05.2000 at about 1.30 pm, he was going to his house from Mangol Puri through Palam Dabri Road on his scooter No. DL 9SF 4796. When he reached near Temple Dabri mor, then a truck number DIG 8495 came from backside driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner and hit against his scooter from leftside. He fell down on the road and because of the collusion he sustained injuries on his hand, feet and other body parts. Someone called PCR and PCR Van took him to DDU hospital. At his complaint the present case was registered u/s 279/337 IPC. During 3 FIR No:496/2000 State Vs. Nand Lal investigation, the complainant /injured died during treatment and therefore section 304A was added. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Nand Lal for the offence u/s 279/304A IPC.
2. Accused was summoned and notice was served upon the accused for the offence u/s 279/304A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and trial started.
3. Prosecution has filed list of Twelve witnesses and has examined the Five witnesses.
4. PW1 Sh Ram Karan record clerk from DDU hospital brought the record of MLC Ex.PW1/A of injured/deceased Banwari Lal on which he identified the signatures of Dr. Mahipal who prepared the MLC and 4 FIR No:496/2000 State Vs. Nand Lal stated that the said doctor left the hospital and his whereabouts are not available in the hospital.
5. PW2 Sh. S.K. Minocha is the photographer but his evidence was deferred for want of negative and therefore his evidence not completed and cannot be read into evidence.
6. PW3 Dr. L. K Baruah conducted post mortem on the body of deceased Banwari Lal on 26.05.2000 vide P.M.R Ex.PW3/A and as per his opinion, cause of death was excessive bleeding.
7. PW4 Retd. ASI Devender Kumar mechanically inspected the offending truck No. DIG 8495 vide his report Ex.PW4/A and also mechanically inspected the scooter No. DL 9SF 4796 vide his report Ex.PW4/B. 5 FIR No:496/2000 State Vs. Nand Lal
8. PW5 ASI Chand Ram is the IO of the case. He deposed that on 25.05.2000 he along with Ct. Ram Chander reached at the spot on receiving information about accident and found that injured was already shifted to DDU hospital. He went there and recorded the statement of injured/deceased Banwari Sahu Ex.PW5/A they went back to the spot and prepared rukka Ex.PW5/B and got the case registered. He prepared site plan Ex.PW5/C. Truck was seized vide memo Ex.PW5/D. Scooter was seized vide memo Ex.PW5/E. RC of truck was seized vide memo Ex.PW5/F. The money recovered from scooter was seized vide memo Ex.PW5/G. D/L of accused Nand Lal was seized vide memo Ex.PW5/H. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/I and he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/J.
9. No other witness examined by the prosecution despite several 6 FIR No:496/2000 State Vs. Nand Lal opportunities. Thereafter, PE closed. Statement of accused recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the allegations against him and stated that he do not want to lead any evidence in his defence.
10. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the case is totally proved against the accused and he be given maximum punishment. On the other hand accused stated that he had committed nothing wrong. Statements of witnesses are false. Story of the prosecution is concocted one. He is falsely implicated in the present case and is liable to be acquitted. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record and analyzed the statement of witnesses.
11. In the present case there is no eye witness appeared before the court. The complainant Banwari Sahu was the only eye witness upon whose complaint the present case was registered but he was died during treatment. 7 FIR No:496/2000
State Vs. Nand Lal No other eye witness was joined into investigation. It is admitted by the IO in his cross examination that there were many people apart from accused on the spot but no one agreed to give statement. It is also admitted by him that statement of helper of truck was not recorded by him. There is no explanation given by the IO that why he not joined into investigation the helper of the truck.
12. IO in his cross examination stated that he was informed that injured was shifted to hospital in some private vehicle whereas as per complaint Ex.PW5/A, he was taken to hospital by PCR Van. PW2 Sh. S.K. Manocha appeared before the court to prove the photographs of the spot but IO in his cross examination stated that the did not get the photographs of the site, truck or scooter.
13. The owner of the offending truck is also not examined as a 8 FIR No:496/2000 State Vs. Nand Lal witness. There is no any other evidence placed on record to prove the fact that at the time of incident, the accused was driving the offending vehicle. Moreover, only driving the offending vehicle by the accused at the time of incident does not itself means that he was driving in rash and negligent manner.
14. The other examined witnesses are formal in nature and their statement is not sufficient to link the accused with the alleged offence. There is also no any documentary or circumstantial evidence came on record showing that at the time of incident, the accused was driving the offending in rash and negligent manner and because of his negligence the deceased fell down from the scooter and sustained injuries. It is also held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State Vs. Dharmender Singh Mehta and anr. 2012 V AD (Delhi) 108 that "it is now very well established that in all criminal cases, the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the 9 FIR No:496/2000 State Vs. Nand Lal accused beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable evidence".
15. The above said discussion shows that the material placed on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to complete the chain of evidence and ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused and the prosecution miserably failed to prove essential ingredients of the offence alleged against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Nand Lal S/o Sh. Gya Deen is hereby acquitted in the case FIR No.496/2000 for the offence u/s 279/304A IPC. Bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for the period of six month starting from today in accordance with section 437A Cr.P.C as no fresh bail bonds furnished by the accused. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court on this 11th day of September' 2012 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) This judgment contains 9 pages METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE which bears my signatures at DWARKA COURTS/DELHI each page.
10 FIR No:496/2000
State Vs. Nand Lal FIR NO: 496/2000 PS: Dabri U/s 279/304A IPC State V. Nand Lal 11/09/2012 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused is present on bail.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment pronounced and dictated in the open court, accused Nand Lal is acquitted for the offence u/s 279/304A IPC. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI