Delhi District Court
State vs . Dunger Singh on 27 August, 2015
FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 IN THE COURT OF POORAN CHAND: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI FIR No.: 384/02 PS: DBG Road U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs. Dunger Singh Unique ID No.: 02401R1347192008 J U D G M E N T:
______________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case : 319/2/08
(b) Name of complainant : Rajesh s/o Harender Sharma r/o A43, Double Storey Ramesh Nagar, Delhi
(c) Date of commission of offence : 12.11.2002
(d) Name of the accused : Dunger Singh S/o Man Singh R/o Village Chimanpura, PO & PS Kotputli, Jaipur, Rajasthan
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 279/304A IPC
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 27.08.2015
(h) Final Order : Convicted
(i) Date of such order : 27.08.2015 State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 1 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The facts of the case in brief are that on 12.11.2002, upon receipt of DD no.28 regarding some road accident, HC Mahipal along with Anand reached at the spot i.e. 5C/7 New Rohtak Road, Delhi where one truck bearing No. RN Q 5486 and one scooter bearing No. DL6S F 4481 were found in accidental condition. Public persons informed that injured had already been removed to Jeewan Mala Hospital. Thereafter, HC Mahipal reached the Hospital where he obtained MLC No. 3590 of the injured. He did not find any witness. On the basis of said information, he prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, accused Dunger Singh was produced by PCR official before the IO and was arrested in the matter. After completion of necessary investigation, IO prepared the challan and filed the same before the Court.
2. After completion of investigation, accused stood chargesheeted for offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC. Accused was summoned and was supplied the documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C and after hearing arguments, vide order dated 24.01.2004, notice in terms of Section 251 CrPC for offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial as he has defence to lead.
3. In order to prove charges against accused, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and thereafter PE in the matter was closed and statement of accused u/s 281 r/w S. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 2 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 stated that he was falsely implicated in the present matter as he was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
4. I have heard arguments advanced at Bar by the Ld. APP for the State and Mrs Sadhna Bhatia, Advocate for accused and perused the entire material on record.
5. Before adverting to adjudication upon the arguments advanced at Bar, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter, which is as under.
6. PW1 ASI Ramvir Singh is the duty office on the relevant date and time who proved the recording of FIR in the matter. He proved his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/A and copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/B.
7. PW2 HC Gurmail Singh deposed that on 12.11.2002, he was posted at PCR on Oskar 37 Liberty Cinema at about 2.20 pm. One truck no.
RNQ5486 which came at a very fast speed from Anand Parbat side and hit one scooter no. DL6 SF4481 as a result of which two persons on the scooter fell down. Truck was chased by them and it was stopped and the truck was brought back at the spot. The accused present in the court was apprehended. Both the injured persons were removed to Jeewan Mala Nursing home by some other persons. Local police had come at the spot and accused was State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 3 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 handed over to him. He made the call on wireless. Thereafter, police came at the spot. IO had prepared site plan at his instance.
8. PW3 Rajesh Sharma deposed that on 11.11.2002 again said on 12.11.2002 at about 4:00 pm he alongwith his helper Parvez were going from Gulabi Bagh to Kishan Ganj via New Rohtak Road in his two wheeler Scooter. He was driving the scooter & Parvez was sitting on the pillion seat. When they reached at Liberty Cinema, New Rohtak Road, in the meantime one truck no. RN Q 5486 being driven by the accused present in the court that day in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and he hit his scooter. Due to the struck of the truck they fell down on the road. He could not sustain injury but Parvez was crushed by the truck. He took the injured with the help of public person to the hospital and he left the hospital and wait to inform family members. Later on he came to the spot where police recorded his statement. The accused whose name was revealed later on Dunger Singh was also arrested by the police.
9. PW4 Constable Anand Kumar deposed that on 12.11.2002, he was on emergency duty at PP Dev Nagar and after receipt of information, he along with HC Mahipal went at the spot of accident. At the spot he found one truck no. RNQ 5486 and one two wheeler Scooter DL6 SF4481 in accidental condition. At the spot, no body was present and from the public persons, he came to that the injured scooterist had already been rushed to State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 4 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 Jeevan Mala Hospital. HC Mahipal asked him to stay at the spot and he himself rushed to Jeevan Mala Hospital. After sometime, he returned at the spot. He prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of case. He took the rukka to PS and got the FIR registered. The PCR van also arrived at the spot and they produced the accused to the IO. PCR officials also claimed himself to be the eye witness of the accident. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW4/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW4/B. The offending truck as well as scooter were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D respectively. The goods lying at the spot were also seized vide memo Ex. PW4/E and the documents of the truck were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/F and Ex. PW4/G. Driving License of the accused was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/H. IO also recorded his statement.
10. PW5 Sh Niyaz Hasan is the father of deceased Parvez Hasan deposed that his son Parvez was met with an accident at New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh and he was admitted for medical examination at RML Hospital. However, he expired on 22.11.2002 and he identified the body of his son vide Ex. PW5/B.
11. PW6 Sh. Jahid Khan deposed that on 12.11.2002, his friend Parvez Hasan was met with an accident at New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh and he was admitted for medical examination at RML Hospital. However, he was State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 5 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 expired on 22.11.2002. He identified the dead body vide memo Ex. PW5/B.
12. PW7 Sh Suresh Kumar Sharma deposed that he does not remember the date but the in month of November of 2002. He came to know regarding accident of welder Parvez while they were sitting on his scooter with his nephew. He went to the spot situated at new Rohtak Road between Liberty Cinema and Jeewan Mala Hospital. On reaching the spot he came to know that injured have already been taken to Jeevan Mala Hospital. Police also been to the spot. He told the police that he was the owner of scooter no. DL 6SF 4481. He produced the documents of scooter pursuant to the notice u/s 133 MV Act served upon him. He gave a written reply to it which is Ex. PW7/A. The scooter was being driven by his nephew Rajesh Sharma at the time of accident who had also received the injuries. He had produced Rajesh before the police. Rajesh had identified the accused in his presence and gave his statement to the police. Accused present in the court today is the same person who was identified by the Rajesh as driver of the truck who had caused the accident.
13. PW8 Mohd. Muzaffr Hasan brother of deceased Parvez met with an accident and he was taken to RML Hospital. On 22.11.2002, he expired in the said hospital. He identified his dead body and after postmortem he received the dead body. His statement is Ex. PW8/A. State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 6 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015
14. PW9 HC Sri Bhagwan deposed that on 12.11.2002, he recorded DD entry no. 28 regarding accident same has been proved as Ex. PW9/A. He further stated that he recorded another DD entry no. 19 regarding death of deceased who had met with an accident, the information of which is recorded in DD no. 28.
15. PW10 ASI Bal Kishan was the mechanical inspector who inspected the vehicles i.e. truck bearing No. RN Q 5486 and one scooter bearing No. DL6S F 4481 and furnished his report Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B.
16. PW11 Sh. Major Gurmukh Singh, Chief Administrator, Jeewan Mala Hospital, 67/1/New Rohtak Road, New Delhi5 deposed that he has been working as Chief Administrator in Jeean Mala Hospital since 1993. He has been deputed by MS to appear before this Hon'ble Court in pursuant to receipt of summons in the name of Dr. Rohit Krishna, MCH Plastic Surgery. He has seen the MLC No. 3390 dated 12.11.2002 of unknown injured prepared by Dr. Rohit Krishna on 12.11.2002 at 02:45 PM, which is Ex.PW11/A, bearing signature of Dr. Rohit Krishna at point A. He was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the said doctor as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his employment. The said doctor is no more in the services of Jeewan Mala Hospital and his present whereabouts are not State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 7 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 known to the hospital.
17. PW12 Dr. Mukta Rani, Associate Professor, LHMC, New Delhi deposed that on 23.11.2002, she was posted at MAMC (Lok Nayak Hospital), Department of Forensic Medicine as Senior Resident. On that day, she had conducted postmortem on the dead body of one Parvez s/o Niyaz Hassan, a male aged about 25 years, at about 12:00 Noon. The dead body was duly identified by the near relative of the deceased. After conducting the postmortem, she prepared the report Ex.PW12/A . The cause of death as per her opinion was a combined effect of septicemia consequent upon multiple infected wounds and cranicerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact on head. All the injuries were antemortem and about 10 days in duration and could be possible in a vehicular accident.
18. PW13 Inspector Vinay Malik has deposed that on 22.11.2002, he was posted as Incharge PP Dev Nagar, PS DBG Road. On that day, an information was received from duty constable JPN Hospital that injured of the present case admitted in the hospital, expired. Investigation of the present case was marked to him by the SHO. He received the case file from 1st IO HC Mahipal. Thereafter, he alongwith one constable reached at the hospital, obtained dead body of injured Parvez Ahmed. Same was deposited in Mortuary, MAMC. On the next day, dead body was got identified by the relatives of the deceased vide statement already Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW5/B. State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 8 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 Thereafter, after postmortem dead body was handed over to the relatives vide memo Ex. PW5/A. Site plan was prepared by 1st IO Ex. PW13/A. He was acquainted with the handwriting of HC Mahipal as he worked under his supervision. After concluding of investigation, challan was prepared and submitted in the Court through SHO concerned.
19. This is all as far as prosecution evidence is concerned in the matter.
Arguments advanced and case law relied upon :
20. I have gone through the evidence led by the prosecution and have also perused the other documentary evidence proved in the case.
21. The learned defence counsel Ms Sadhna Bhatia has argued that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent act on the part of accused. She argued that the accident was not caused by the vehicle driven by accused. She has further argued that the scooter which was running ahead of the truck was carrying a gas cylinder along with other articles and due to the sudden loss of balance, both the persons sitting on the scooter fell on the road and deceased Parvez Hasan came under the wheels of the truck driven by the accused. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted due to the fault on the part of the scooterist.
Ld Defence Counsel has also argued that cause of death of State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 9 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 deceased Parvez cannot be attributed to the accused as the deceased died due to septicemia.
22. Per contra, the learned APP has very vehemently argued that the accident in the matter took place because of fault of the accused, who was admittedly driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. He has taken me through the documentary evidence i.e site plan Ex.PW13/A; Mechanical Inspection Report of the vehicle Ex.PW10/A; and postmortem report of the deceased Ex.PW12/A and on the basis of aforesaid documents has argued that the spot of accident was the New Rohtak Road, Near Liberty Cinema. Ld. APP further relied upon the testimonies of PW2 HC Gurmail Singh and PW3 Rajesh Sharma who are the eye witnesses of the case. Both these witnesses have categorically deposed that on 12.11.2002, near Liberty Cinema, one truck no. RNQ5486 which came at a very fast speed from behind hit scooter no. DL6 SF4481 as a result of which, two persons i.e the complainant PW3 Rajesh and deceased Parvez Hasan on the scooter fell down. Ld. APP has also referred to the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased. He has further argued that negligence is apparent considering the circumstances which led to the accident. He has also argued that no evidence was led by accused in his defence.
23. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar. As accused is charged for the offences u/s 279/304A IPC, the State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 10 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 prosecution is under duty to prove the following issues to prove the guilt of the accused.
1) Whether the accident was caused by the truck bearing registration no. RNQ5486?
2) Whether the accused was driving the truck bearing registration no. RNQ5486 at the time of accident?
3) Whether accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of accused?
24. To prove the first issue i.e whether the accident was caused by the truck bearing registration no. RNQ5486, prosecution has examined PW2 HC Gurmail Singh and PW3 Rajesh (complainant) who have categorically stated in their examination in chief that accident was caused by the vehicle in question which was being driven by the accused. Even during the cross examination, the testimony of this witness on this point remained intact. The another corroborative evidence is the IO i.e PW who has seized the offending vehicle from the spot and the mechanical inspection report also proved the fact that the accident was caused by the vehicle in question. Therefore, in view of the various pieces of evidence led by prosecution, I have no hesitation to hold that accident was caused by truck bearing registration no. RNQ5486.
25. To prove the second issue i.e whether the accused was driving State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 11 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 the truck bearing registration no. RNQ5486 at the time of accident. This issue has been admitted by the accused himself. At the time of serving notice upon the accused on 24.01.04, accused in his own handwriting has admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, there is no denial of the fact that accused Dunger Singh that at the time of accident, accused was driving the offending vehicle.
26. Now, I come to the third issue i.e whether accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of accused.
To prove this issue, prosecution has examined PW2 and PW3 as they have witnessed the accident.
PW2 HC Gurmail Singh is the eye witness of the case who has categorically stated that on 12.11.2002, while he was posted at PCR on Oskar 37 Liberty Cinema at about 2.20 pm, he saw one truck no. RNQ5486 came at a very fast speed from Anand Parbat side and hit one scooter no. DL6 SF4481 as a result of which, two persons on the scooter fell down. He further categorically stated that the truck was chased by them and it was stopped and the truck was brought back at the spot.
This piece of testimony of the witness remained intact and was not impeached even during cross examination of the witness who is the eye witness and therefore, I find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness as he has given in his testimony all the account of the sequence of the accident occurred. Not only he had witnessed the accident, he had also seen State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 12 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 the accused running away after causing the accident.
27. PW3 Rajesh Sharma is the complainant who was riding the scooter which was hit by the offending vehicle. He has categorically stated that the vehicle was being driven at a very high speed and hit his scooter from behind due to which he along with his helper Parvez Hasan (since deceased) fell down and Parvez Hasan suffered serious injuries.
Testimonies of both the aforementioned witnesses have also remained unimpeached.
28. Further, the negligence on the part of the driver/accused can be inferred from the circumstances of the case which clearly indicate the manner in which accident was caused due to which deceased Parvez Hasan suffered serious injuries and later on died at the hospital. 29 It is the settled principle of law that the vehicle should be driven in such a manner so as not to endanger human life or which can likely to cause hurt or death to any other person. In the instant case, the offending vehicle i.e truck being driven by accused struck the scooter from behind was coming at a high speed and could not apply brakes in time as a result of which accident was caused and this act is rash and negligence on the part of the accused and he cannot escape from the same.
30. I am fortified with the judgment of High Court of Delhi passed State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 13 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 in Paras Nath Vs. State CRLR 715/2002 wherein it is held as under :
"I am not in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Merely because the witnesses did not use the words rashness or negligent in his testimony and instead used the words highspeed, cannot be taken that the appellant was not driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, what is important is to find out if the driver of the offending vehicle was driving in public place rashly and in negligent manner so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or death to any other person. In the case in hand the appellant hit the scooterist from behind."
31. In Jeet Lal Vs. State also, Ho'nble High Court of Delhi has also held as under:
"Every motor vehicle driver is supposed to drive the vehicle in accordance with road conditions, traffic density and presence of pedestrians on the road. Where the traffic density is more and pedestrians are also walking on the road, the motor vehicle driver is supposed to drive in such a manner that he does not hit the pedestrian and the motor vehicle would stop immediately on application of brakes. If this caution of driving a vehicle in a proper manner is not taken, this would amount to negligence and if the motor vehicle hits somebody from behind, due to such driving or non application of brake, this is criminal negligence. "
32. In view of the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 14 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 judgments cited above, I have no hesitation to hold that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of accused.
33. Further, the argument of Ld Defence Counsel that deceased Parvez died due to septicemia is not sustainable in view of testimony of PW12 Dr. Mukta Rani, Associate Professor, LHMC, New Delhi who has conducted postmortem on the dead body of one Parvez and prepared the report Ex.PW12/A. She has opined the cause of death a combined effect of septicemia consequent upon multiple infected wounds and cranicerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact on head. She has further opined that all the injuries were antemortem and about 10 days in duration and could be possible in a vehicular accident.
34. The accident took place on 12.11.02 and deceased Parvez died on 23.11.02 i.e 11 days after the accident. PW12 has opined the all the injuries were ante mortem and about 10 days in duration which clearly indicates that date of accident i.e 12.11.02. Accordingly, this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the cause of death of deceased was ultimately due to the accident took place on 12.11.02.
35. In view of the reasoning and above said discussion and the arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution, it can be safely held that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as it was State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 15 of 16 FIR NO. 384/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:27.08.2015 the accused who was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and as such, Parvez suffered serious injuries and later on died in the hospital. Accused Dunger Singh is accordingly convicted for offences punishable U/s 279/304 A IPC. Let he be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open court (Pooran Chand)
on 27.08.2015 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
State V/s Dunger Singh ("convicted") Page 16 of 16