Delhi District Court
State vs . Sandeep Kumar. on 26 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK KUMAR-II, MM-02, SOUTH
EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
U/S 279/337/304A IPC.
State Vs. Sandeep Kumar.
Case No. 92995/16.
JUDGEMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 92995/16.
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 24.03.2015.
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 14.07.2014.
D. NAME OF THE : Raja Ram S/o Sh. Ravi Ram
COMPLAINANT R/o Village Belaw, District
Sheikhpura, Bihar.
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh.
Surender Kumar R/o Village
Goyala Kalan, PS
Bahadurgarh, District
Jhajjar, Haryana.
F. OFFENCE
COMPLAINED OF : U/s 279/337/304A IPC.
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
H. FINAL ORDER : Conviction
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 26.02.2022.
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 14.07.2014 at about FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA. Digitally signed by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR
U/S. 279/337/304A IPC
State Vs. Sandeep Kumar Date: 2022.02.26 20:10:33 1
No. 92995/16
+05'30'
10:30 pm in front of BSES Rajdhani Power Station, OIA Phase-I, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS OIA, New Delhi, accused herein was allegedly driving his offending vehicle i.e. cluster bus bearing registration number DL-1PC-6344 in rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others. It has further been alleged that while driving the offending vehicle in aforesaid manner, he hit the same against a tempo/Tata 407 bearing registration number DL-1LD-5381 on its front side and thereby caused simple injuries to its driver/ complainant Raja Ram. Further due to impact/force of the said collision one motorcycle bearing registration number DL-3SCL-4401 came under the rear tyres of the said tempo/ Tata 407 and motorcyclist Sanjeev Kumar sustained fatal injuries. After hitting the tempo accused fled the accident spot with the offending vehicle. On the basis of DD No. 31A SI Ganga Prakash along with Ct Premvir went to the spot and found vehicle/ tempo bearing number DL-1LD-5381 and one motorcycle bearing registration number DL-3SCL-4401 in accidental condition. There they were informed by ASI Madan Pal, No. 397/SE vide DD No. 56B that the injured person namely Sanjeev Kumar was taken to AIIMS, Trauma Center and that vide MLC Number 438647/14 the doctor had opined as "A/H/O RTA Brought dead". On the basis of statement of injured, MLC and inspection of the spot prima facie offences under section 279/304A/337 IPC found to have been committed. Accordingly, vide DD number 36A dated 15-07-2014 instant case FIR FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
Digitally signed by DEEPAKDEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR U/S. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sandeep Kumar 2 No. 92995/16 Date: 2022.02.26 20:10:51 +05'30' under section 279/337/304A IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, accused was apprehended, statement of witnesses were recorded, offending vehicle, accidental vehicles and their documents were seized, site plan at the instance of injured/complainant was prepared, photographs of the spot were taken and other steps were taken towards the culmination of investigation. Injured/complainant Rajaram was sent for medical examination where the vide MLC number 438684/14 the doctor opined qua nature of injuries sustained by him as simple. Thereafter, chargesheet for the offences under sections 279/337/304A IPC was filed in the court.
2. Accused was summoned by the court for facing trial for the aforesaid offences. In compliance of section 207 CrPC, copy of chargesheet and the documents annexed with it were supplied to accused. Prima facie charge for the offences punishable under section 279/337/304A IPC was made out against the accused. Accordingly, on 31.03.2016 the Ld. Predecessor of this court framed the notice against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case proceeded for recording of prosecution evidence.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as fifteen prosecution witnesses.
4. Deposition of PW1 SI Rakesh Kumar has been reproduced as follows: - "In the intervening night of 14.07.2014, I was working as DO in FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA. Digitally signed by DEEPAK U/S. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sandeep Kumar No. 92995/16 DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2022.02.26 20:11:04 +05'30' 3
PS- OIA. On that day, my duty was from 04:00 pm to 12.00 mid night. At about 10:52 pm, I received an information regarding road traffic accident. I reduced the said information in writing vide DD no.31A. Today, I have brought DD entry register and the copy of the said entry is Ex.PW1/A (OSR). The said DD entry is in my hand writing". This witness was not cross examined despite opportunity being afforded to accused.
5. Deposition of PW2 Raja Ram has been reproduced as follows: - "I am residing at the above mentioned address. I was the driver in the company M/s R.K. Associate Pvt. Ltd at F-90/11 Okhla Ph-I, N.D. On 14.07.2012, I was driving Tata 407 tempo bearing registration no.5381 and was going from Okhla to New Delhi. At about 10.30 pm when I proceeded a little distance one but orange color driver bearing registration no. 4463 came rashly and negligent manner hit my tempo at driver side. Due to hitting my tempo pushed back and one driver of motorcycle trapped under the type of my tempo and died on the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot and I sustained injuries in this accident. Accused is present in the court (correctly identified by the witness). I recorded my statement Ex.PW2/A bearing my signature at point A. IO seized tempo Tata 407, motorcycle and bus vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 2/B,C,D bearing my signature at point A respectively. At this stage photographs of the offending vehicle have been shown to be witness and the witness correctly identified the same Ex. P1 & P2". This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. His cross examination by Ld. APP for the state has been reproduced as follows: - "It is correct that site plan was prepared in my presence which is Ex. PW2/E bearing my signature at point A. It is correct that the bus no. was DL1PC-6344".
6. His cross examination on behalf of the accused has been reproduced as follows: - "I was alone in my tempo at the time of accident. I cannot say how much lane were there where the said accident took place. At the spot the road was straight and there was no turn. I was driving my tempo with the footpath. There was a divider which was under construction. I have seen the bus 5 minutes prior to the accident. I had applied the brakes after seeing the bus. The speed of my tempo was very slow. The bus struck my tempo at the driver side. The headlight of the bus was on when the accident took place. Again said light of the offending bus was off. I had seen FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
U/S. 279/337/304A IPC Digitally signed by DEEPAK State Vs. Sandeep Kumar No. 92995/16 DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2022.02.26 20:11:26 +05'30' 4 the registration no. of the bus just after the accident. Police reached the spot after 2-3 minutes of the accident. I do-not remember the time when I reached the hospital. I cannot say whether I was shifted to the hospital after 1 hour or 2 hour. I do not know the name of the police persons who accompanied me in the hospital, however, I was taken to the hospital on the motorcycle. IO recorded my statement on the spot. I had not mentioned about the description of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is incorrect to suggest that I had not seen the driver of the offending vehicle at the spot. It is further wrong to suggest that I had not told the description of the driver of the offending vehicle therefore, I had not told the same in my statement Ex. PW2/A . I had seen the driver four times after accident today I have seen in court room. I have filed a claim case in MACT court and I have seen the driver in the MACT court. The motorcycle rider was 10 step behind my tempo at the time of accident. It is further wrong to suggest that accident took place due to my rash and negligent driving. It is further wrong to suggest that I was driving my tempo in a very high speed and in zig-zag manner. It is further wrong to suggest that my tempo struck in the bus due to my rash and negligent driving due to which the motorcycle driver could not apply the brakes and struck the motorcycle at my rear wheel. I was driving the tempo since last 3-4 years. The owner of the tempo were also reached It is wrong to suggest that the accused was implicated due to the connivance of tempo owner with the IO. It is further wrong to suggest that the deceased died in the accident due to my rash and negligent driving. It is further wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely and accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. My statement was recorded at the spot and thereafter, my statement was never recorded by the IO".
7. Deposition of PW3 Dinesh Kumar has been reproduced as follows:
- "On 14.07.2014, I was posted as Duty Officer at Cluster Okhla bus depot from 10:00 pm to 06:00 am. On that day, driver namely Sandeep, who is present in the court today, (correctly identified by the witness) came to the bus depot in a bus bearing regisration no. DL-1PC-6344 at around 10:30 pm, the bus was in accidental condition. Driver Sandeep told me that his bus met with an accident with a tempo. Police came bus depot and I handed over the abovesaid bus to the police vide Ex.PW.2/D, bearing my signature at point 'B'. I can identify the abovesaid bus, if shown to me. At this stage, four photographs of bus bearing registration no. DL-1PC-6344 have been shown to the wintess, who correctly identified the photographs. The FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
U/S. 279/337/304A IPC Digitally signed by DEEPAK State Vs. Sandeep Kumar No. 92995/16 DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2022.02.26 20:11:43 +05'30' 5
photographs are already exhibited as Ex.P1 and P2". This witness was not cross examined despite opportunity being afforded to accused.
8. Deposition of PW4 ASI Mahender Singh has been reproduced as follows: - "On 15.07.2014, I was working as DO in PS-OIA, and my duty hours were from 12:00 night to 08:00 am. On that day at about 02:00 am, Ct. Premvir brought a rukka/tehrir which was sent by SI Ganga Prakash. I put my endorsement on the Tehrir vide Ex.PW4/A and registered the FIR and its copy is Ex.PW4/B, both bearing my signatures at point A (OSR). Today, I have brought the original FIR register, containing the abovesaid FIR in original. (OSR)". This witness was not cross examined despite opportunity being afforded to accused.
9. Deposition of PW5 ASI Madan Pal has been reproduced as follows: - "In the intervening night of 14/15.07.2014, I was posted as ASI at PS-OIA and was on patrolling duty from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am on government vehicle bearing no. DL-1CM-4608. At around 11:00 pm, Duty Officer informed me regarding death of a person in accident in front of ESI hospital, Dispensary, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi. On this, I alongwith driver Ct. Jitender reached in front of BSES Rajdhani Power Station, Okhla Phase-I and found two vehicles in accidental condition i.e a tempo bearing no. DL-1LD-5381 and a motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SCL-4401 lying over there. SI Ganga Prakash was also present there. A person was found beneath the rear left wheel of the tempo. That person was taken out and I took him to AIIMS Trauma Center on the instructions of SI Ganga Prakash. Father of the abovesaid injured/deceased also arrived in the hospital. A doctor opined that the injured was brought dead. I had handed over the MLC of deceased Sanjeev Kumar to IO/SI Ganga Prakash". His cross examination has been reproduced as follows: - "The record regarding my departure at the spot is mentioned in the call book. The motorcycle was lying on the left side of the tempo. I can not tell the exact position of the motorcycle whether it was near the front tyre or rear tyre of the tempo. It is wrong to suggest that I did not visit the spot. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely".
10. Deposition of PW6 Aditya Swaroop, MRT at JPNATC AIIMS has been reproduced as follows: - "Today, I came here on behalf of Dr. FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
U/S. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sandeep Kumar Digitally signed by DEEPAK 6 No. 92995/16 DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2022.02.26 20:12:00 +05'30'
Rupesh Kumar Kejriwal who has left the hospital and his whereabouts are not known to the hospital. I can identify the signature of said doctor as I have seen him signing and writing during the course of my duty in the said hospital as I have been working in the said hospital since 2007. As per record, MLCno. 438647 of injured Sanjeev Kumar dated 15.07.2014 was prepared by Dr. Rupesh Kr. Kejriwal. The said MLC is Ex.PW6/A, bearing signature of said doctor at point 'A'. Ex. PW6/B is the certified copy of joining and relieving said doctor. The certified copy of notification of death of deceased Sanjeev Kumar is Ex. PW6/C". His cross examination has been reproduced as follows: - "It is correct that I do not have any personal knowledge about the treatment or death of deceased Sanjeev Kumar. It is correct thtat the said MLC is not prepared in my presence".
11. Deposition of PW7 Ct. Jaiveer, has been reproduced as follows: -
"On 15.07.2014 I was posted as constable at PS-OIA. On that day I joined the investigation of this case alongwith IO / SI Ganga Prakash and we went to AIIMS Mortuary where IO got the body of deceased Sanjeev Kumar identified through his father and maternal uncle and got the postmortem conducted of the aforesaid deceased. After the postmortem of the deceased, his dead body was handed over to his father vide handing over memo Ex. PW7/A bearing my signatures at point-A". His cross examination has been reproduced as follows: - "It is wrong to suggest that I have not joined the investigation with IO. It is wrong to suggest that I did not visit AIIMS Mortuary. It is wrong to suggest that all the papers were prepared at PS. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing at the instance of IO".
12. Deposition of PW8 T.U. Siddiqui, has been reproduced as follows:
- "I am a qualified engineer and conducting mechanical inspection for the last 40 years independently. On 17.07.2014, on the request of SI Ganga Prakash, PS-Okhla in the FIR no. 512/14, I had inspected Tata 407 bearing registration no. DL1LD5381, motorcycle hero splendor bearing no. DL3SCL4401 and bus Tata Marcopolo bearing no. DL1PC6344 and submitted my detailed reports pertaining to the said vehicles Ex.PW8/A, PW8/B and PW8/C all bears my signature at point A respectively". His cross examination has been reproduced as follows: - "I had inspected all the vehicles at PS-Malkhana, OIA on 17.07.2014. It is wrong to suggest that I had not physically verified and inspected the abovesaid vehicles and prepared the report at the instance of IO. It is wrong to suggest that I am FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA. Digitally signed by DEEPAK U/S. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sandeep Kumar No. 92995/16 DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2022.02.26 20:12:13 +05'30' 7 deposing falsely".
13. Deposition of PW9 Sanand Kumar Singh, has been reproduced as follows: - "On 14.07.2014 I was working as a machine operator in Recon Engineering Group India Pvt. Ltd. On that day the construction work was going on at ESI Hospital and I was residing at staff quarters at ESI Hospital. On that day at about 10.30 pm after taking meal I was walking near Gate No. 2, ESI Hospital, one person came from BSES Power station side and told me that a person was died in accident and borrowed my phone to call at 100 number. Thereafter said person called at 100 number through my mobile no. 9650786747. Thereafter he left the place. I did not see the accident and spot". This witness was not cross examined despite opportunity being afforded to accused.
14. Deposition of PW10 HC Paramvir, has been reproduced as follows: - "On 14.07.2014 I was posted as constable at PS-OIA and I was having night duty alongwith SI Ganga Prakash. On that day at about 10.52 pm DO received a PCR call upon which he informed the IO regarding the accident at BSES Power Station, OIA Phase-1, New Delhi upon which I alongwith IO reached at the spot. It took us 10 minutes to reach at the spot.
At the spot we found that tempo bearing no. DL1LD5381 and a motorcycle bearing no. DL3SCL4401 were in accidental condition and driver of motorcycle was found under the left back tyre of the abovesaid tempo. Thereafter the said motorcycle driver was pulled out from under the said vehicle and was shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre through patrolling vehicle (ERV). The driver of tempo namely Raja Ram was found present at the spot. He was interrogated by the IO at the spot who informed that a cluster bus being driven in rash or negligent manner coming from the side of ESI hospital, hit on the driver side of his tempo upon which his tempo moved backwards and hit the said motorcycle. Thereafter crime team was called at the spot who took the photographs. Thereafter IO prepared tehrir and sent me to PS for registration of FIR. I returned back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR to IO. Thereafter me and IO went to cluster bus depot which was nearby and on the basis of damage of the vehicle and the entries on the gate we found the offending vehicle to be bus bearing no. DL1PC6344. Duty Manager namely Dinesh produced the document of offending vehicle as well as duty slip which was seized vide seizure memo FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
Digitally signed by DEEPAKDEEPAK KUMAR U/S. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sandeep Kumar KUMAR 8 No. 92995/16 Date: 2022.02.26 20:12:30 +05'30' Ex. PW10/B bearing my signature at point 'A'. Thereafter IO served notice u/s 133 MV Act upon the Asst. Manager of depot in reply of which he informed the name of driver of offending vehicle as Sandeep Kumar. The documents of the said vehicle were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A bearing my signature at point 'A'. Thereafter all the 3 vehicles were seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/B, PW2/C & PW2/D all bearing my signature at point 'B'' and were deposited in Malkhana. On next day in the evening accused was arrested at PS only vide arrest memo Ex. PW10/D and his personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW-10/E both bearing my signature at point 'A'. The DL of accused driver was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/C bearing my signature at point 'A'. Thereafter I got the medical conducted of the accused and accused was released on bail by IO. Accused is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness)".
15. His cross examination has been reproduced as follows: - "We reached at the spot at about 11.00 pm. It is correct that we did not find the alleged offending bus at the spot. I left the spot with tehrir at 1.40 am and returned back to the spot at about 2.15 am. We reached at the cluster bus depot at about 3.00 am in the morning. There were about 50 buses standing in the said depot at the alleged point of time. IO checked the damages upon the buses as per the entry in the entry register. It is correct that IO has not checked all the 50 buses for damages. There was no mechanical inspector available with IO at the said time of inspection. It is correct that Raja Ram had not seen the driver of offending vehicle. It is correct that the accused driver was not found at the bus depot. It is correct that I have not witnessed the alleged accident from my own eyes. I have not seen at what time the entry of the alleged offending vehicle inside the cluster bus depot was made. There was no damage on the other 8-10 buses. It is wrong to suggest that the accident was not done by offending vehicle and that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that accused was not driving the offending vehicle at the alleged point of time or that same was driven by accused in rash or negligent manner. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely".
16. Deposition of PW11 W/Ct Suman Gautam, has been reproduced as follows: - "Today, I have brought the summoned record i.e., PCR Form regarding the call received. The same is exhibited as Ex.PW11/A". This FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
DEEPAK Digitally signed by DEEPAK U/S. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sandeep Kumar KUMAR 9 No. 92995/16 KUMAR Date: 2022.02.26 20:12:57 +05'30'
witness was not cross examined despite opportunity being afforded to accused.
17. Deposition of PW12 Ct Ashwani Kumar, has been reproduced as follows: - "On 14.07.2014, I was posted as a photographer in the crime team, south east district. On that day, I alongwith incharge ASI Sajjan Kumar and finger print expert SI Chet Ram went to BSES Rajdhani Power Station. At the spot, we saw one motorcycle and one tempo in accidental condition. I took the photographs of the spot and the vehicle. Thereafter, I took the photographs of a bus standing in front of cluster bus depot. Tehkhand. After getting the photographs developed, I handed over 12 photographs with negatives to the IO through office staffs. Witness submitted that negative exhibited as Ex.P-1 and photographs exhibited as Ex.P-2, P-3, P-4 are that of taken by and got developed by him regarding this case as stated aforesaid". This witness was not cross examined despite opportunity being afforded to accused.
18. Deposition of PW13 SI Ganga Prakash, has been reproduced as follows: - "On 14.07.2014, I was posted at PS OIA as SI. On the said date, I was on emergency duty from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am. At about 10:52 pm, I received DD No.31A regarding accident upon which I alongwith Ct. Premvir reached at the spot i.e., BSE Power Station, OIA Phase I where it was found that one tempo bearing no. DL 1LD 5381 and one motorcycle bearing no. DL 3SCL 4401 in accidental condition. I further noticed that the motorcycle rider was under the left rear tyre of the tempo. PCR van and ARV were already on the spot. With the help of the officials, we took out the said person from under the tyre of the tempo. Thereafter, we sent the injured to AIIMS Trauma Centre on the ARV vehicle through ASI Madan. Thereafter, I have met the driver of the tempo Raja Ram and recorded statement Ex.PW2/A bearing my signature at point B wherein he informed that a bus bearing no. DL 1PC 6844 orange colour after committing accident went towards the cluster depot. Thereafter, we reached at cluster depot and found the offending bus and we found that the front right mirror of the said bus was in broken condition. Night duty officer Dinesh Kumar informed that the said bus was driven by accused Sandeep Kumar who parked the vehicle recently and went away. Thereafter, I called crime team at the spot and crime team took the photographs of the spot. We also took FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
U/S. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sandeep Kumar Digitally signed by DEEPAK 10 No. 92995/16 DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2022.02.26 20:13:14 +05'30'
the photographs of the offending vehicle. The photographs are already Ex.P-2 to P-4 and their negatives already Ex.A1. Thereafter, ARV rider Madan Pal came back to the spot and produced the MLC of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar. He informed that Sanjeev Kumar was declared brought dead at the hospital. The MLC is already Ex.PW6/A. Thereafter, I prepared the rukka which is now Ex.PW13/A bearing my signature at point 'A' and handed over the same to Ct. Premvir for registration of FIR. Thereafter, I prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant vide already Ex.PW2/E bearing my signature at point 'B'. Thereafter, Ct. Premvir returned back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and haded over the same to me. I seized all the accident and offending vehicle vide Ex.PW2/B to Ex.PW2/D all bearing my signature at point 'C'. Thereafter, I recorded the statement of PCR caller namely Bachchu Singh under Section 161 CrPC. Thereafter, I deposited the vehicles at malkhana. I further sent the injured Raja Ram to AIIMS Trauma Centre through Ct. Premvir. Thereafter, I went to AIIMS Trauma Centre with Ct. Jaivir where I got postmortem of the dead of Sanjeev Kumar conducted and thereafter, handed over the dead body to the LRs of the deceased vide handing over memo already Ex.PW7/A bearing my signature at point B. Thereafter, I went to PS and from there alongwith Ct. Premvir I reached at cluster bus depot, Tehkhand Village, OIA Phase-II. I issued the notice under Section 133 of the MV Act upon the manager of the depot which is Ex.PW13/B bearing my signature at point 'A' upon which reply was filed by Assistant Manager operations cluster bus depot now Ex.PW13/C stating that the accused Sandeep Kumar was driving the offending bus at the alleged point of time. Thereafter, he produced the photocopy of the duty slip of the driver and same was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW10/B bearing my signature at point 'B' and document of the offending vehicle was seized vide memo already Ex.PW10/A bearing my signature at point B. The accused driver was informed telephonically by the Assistant Manager. When we reached at PS, accused driver was already present there and he was interrogated. Thereafter, he was arrested and his personal search was got conducted vide memo already Ex.PW10/D and Ex.PW10/E bearing my signature at point 'B'. Further DL of the accused was seized vide seizure memo alrady Ex.PW10/C bearing my signature at point 'B'. DD No.31A was marked to me which was in respect of accident vide Ex.PW/F. DD No.56B was marked to me which was in respect of admission of Sanjeev Kumar as he was brought dead. DD No.56B is Ex.PW13/G. DD No.39B was placed by me with the file vide Ex.PW13/H. I had also collected PCR FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
Digitally signed by DEEPAKDEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR U/S. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sandeep Kumar 11 No. 92995/16 Date: 2022.02.26 20:13:32 +05'30' call form vide application Ex.PW13/I bearing my signature at point 'A'. PCR call form is Ex.PCR1. Thereafter, vehicle spender was released on superdari vide supardarinama Ex.PW13/D bearing my signature at point 'A'. Thereafter, TIP proceeding of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/E wherein accused denied to participate in the same. I got the mechanical inspection of all the vehicle conducted vide document already Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/C bearing my signature at ponit B respectively, obtained the photographs, collected the MLC of the injured and postmortem report of the deceased and recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. Dead body was also got identified by the LRs of the deceased vide Ex.PW13/J and Ex.PW13/K bearing my signature at point 'A' respectively. After completion of investigation, I filed the chargesheet in the court. Witness correctly identified the accused present in the court today. Further 20 photographs of the spot, offending vehicle and accidental vehicle are shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the same and same are already Ex.P-2 and P-3 respectively".
19. His cross examination has been reproduced as follows: - "I reached at the spot at about 11:10pm. When I reached at the spot both the vehicles were in accidental condition. Traffic was moving on the road by the side. Firstly, I removed the injured and was sent to hospital. Thereafter, crime team photographer was called at the spot and he clicked the photos and thereafter, vehicle was parked by the side. When I reached at the spot some public persons were also gathered at the spot. I recorded the statement of above stated public persons. I searched the CCTV cameras installed near the spot but it was not found. I got mechanical inspection conducted of both the vehicles. The colour of Tata 407 was brown and colour of bus was orange. I did not notices any colour of both the vehicles on each other. I remained at the spot till 04-05am. I recorded the statement of eye witness at the spot itself at about 12:00am. Eyewitness remained with us at the spot till 03:30am. Thereafter, he went for his medical treatment and returned back to the spot 04:45am. I could not notice any skid marks of tyre at the spot as many vehicles were moving on the road. It is wrong to suggest that eyewitness is a planted witness and he was not present at the spot at the time of accident. It is wrong to suggest that accused has been falsely implicated in this case. It is wrong to suggest that accident occurred due to the negligance of Tata 407 tempo but I have released him and I have falsely implicated the accused in present case. It is wrong to suggest that I am FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
Digitally signed by DEEPAKDEEPAK KUMAR U/S. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sandeep Kumar KUMAR 12 No. 92995/16 Date: 2022.02.26 20:13:46 +05'30' deposing falsely".
20. Deposition of PW14 Keshav Upneja, has been reproduced as follows: - "On 15.07.2014, a notice under Section 133 MV Act was served upon me by IO SI Ganga Prakash vide already Ex.PW13/B. Thereafter, I had replied that cluster bus bearing no. DL 1PC 6344 was being driven by driver Sandeep Kumar on 14.07.2014 on route no.717A/14A. The route was from Badarpur Border to Kapas Heda and Kapas Heda to Badarpur Border. I had replied that at the time of incident, the bus was being driven by driver Sandeep Kumar having ID No.71023. My reply is already Ex.PW13/C bearing my signature at point B. I had handed over the photocopy of documents and duty slip of accused driver to police and the same were taken into police possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B both bearing my signature at point 'C' respectively. At this stage, duty memo of route no. 717A-14A dated 14.07.2014 is shown to the witness. Witness states that this document was prepared by Duty Officer Rajender Bagga. The document is Ex.PW14/A bearing signature of Rajender Bagga at point 'A'. I have identified the signature of Rajender Bagga as he had worked with me and I had seen him many times while signing and writing. Witness also states that firstly the duty on said bus was assigned to driver Sushil Kumar, however, subsequently, the duty on said bus was assigned to Sandeep Kumar due to non-availability of Sushil Kumar. I had also got released the said bus on superdari vide Ex.PW14/B bearing my signature at point A. I can identify the abovesaid bus is shown to me. At this stage, photographs Ex.P-4 is shown to the witness and witness correctly identified three photographs of the said bus. Accused Sandeep Kumar is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness)". His cross examination has been reproduced as follows: - "It is correct that I have no personal knowledge of the present case".
21. Deposition of PW15 HC Devender, has been reproduced as follows: - "On 14.07.2014, I was posted at PCR Van K-70 at Okhla and my duty hours were 08:00pm to 08:00am. On that day, a call was received in respect of accident at ESI hospital, Okhla. I along with PCR Van staff reached at the spot at about 11:00pm. I saw that one Tata 407 and one motorcycle were in accidental condition. I further noticed that the FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA. Digitally signed by DEEPAK U/S. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sandeep Kumar No. 92995/16 DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2022.02.26 20:14:14 +05'30' 13
motorcycle rider was under the left rear tyre of temp. IO along with PS staff reached at the spot at about 11:05pm. The motorcycle rider was sent to AIIMS Trauma centre via ERV. Some public persons informed to IO in my presence that the offending vehicle i.e. Tata 407 was hit by a bus due to which the said accident occurred. The said information was conveyed to control room. Thereafter, we left the spot."
22. His cross examination has been reproduced as follows: - "The call was received at about 10:50pm. I was IC-incharge PCR Van and one gunman and driver were with me at that time. When we reached at the spot we notice that vehicle of the injured were parked by the side but offending vehicle i.e. Tata 407 was standing in accidental condition. The above stated bus, due to which this accident was occurred had ran away from the spot. The public persons informed to IO that above stated bus had gone towards DTC Depot, Tehkhand. I remained at the spot for about 15-20 minutes but I do not remember the exact time when I left the spot. It is wrong to suggest that injured was not under the rear tyre of the offending vehicle when I reached at the spot. It is further wrong to suggest that this fact have been stated by me on the instance of IO. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely".
23. In his statement recorded under Section 294 CrPC, accused Sandeep Kumar admitted the genuineness of certain documents. And PE was closed. Thereafter, statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC r/w section 281 CrPC was recorded and all the incriminating evidence were put to him for his explanation. He stated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of tempo and that he was not at fault. He further stated that the prosecution witnesses have falsely deposed against him and that tempo driver was driving the vehicle in zig zag manner and on the wrong side. Accused opted not to lead any evidence in her defence, thereafter DE was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
U/S. 279/337/304A IPC Digitally signed by DEEPAK State Vs. Sandeep Kumar No. 92995/16 DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2022.02.26 20:14:29 14 +05'30' were heard accordingly.
24. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused.
I have also carefully perused the case file.
25. The cardinal principle of criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt of the accused exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
26. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients as mentioned under section 279/337/304A IPC and section 3 read with 181 of the MV Act that: -
(i) accused was driving his vehicle on a public way;
(ii) death of any person or injury to any person must have been caused;
(iii) it must have been caused by rash or negligent act/driving of the accused;
(iv) such death must not amount to culpable homicide.
27. To impose criminal liability under this section it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash or negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. Culpable FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
Digitally signed by DEEPAKDEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR U/S. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sandeep Kumar 15 No. 92995/16 Date: 2022.02.26 20:15:01 +05'30' rashness is acting with consciousness that the mischievous and the illegal consequence 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. 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 required of him, and that if he had he would have had the consciousness. Rash or negligent act is an act done not intentionally or designedly. A rash act is primarily an over-hasty act, and is thus opposed to a deliberate act, but it also includes an act which, though it may be said to be deliberate is yet done without due deliberation and caution. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is the genus of which rashness is a species. In order that rashness or negligence may be criminal it must be of such a degree as to amount to taking hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely to be caused thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk or doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences.
28. In the case in hand, the accused has been duly identified by PW2/ complainant/ injured Raja Ram, who was present at the spot as he was Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
U/S. 279/337/304A IPC KUMAR State Vs. Sandeep Kumar Date: 2022.02.26 20:15:17 +05'30' 16 No. 92995/16 driving the accidental tempo/Tata 407 bearing registration no. DL- 1LD-5381 and by PW14 Keshav Upneja, Assistant Manager, Operations, Cluster Bust Depot, Okhla, Tehkhand, Central Work Shop-2, New Delhi as the person who was on duty and was driving the offending bus bearing registration no. DL-1PC-6344. In view of the aforesaid, there is no doubt regarding the identity of accused. The caller who had made the PCR call had clearly mentioned the registration number of the offending vehicle as DL-1PC-6344 and from the mechanical inspection report in respect of offending bus which is Ex.PW8/C, the identity of the offending vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration no. DL-1PC-6344 has also been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Besides that, the MLC of the injured (Ex.PW6/A) and certified copy of notification of death of deceased Sanjeev Kumar (Ex.PW6/C) have been duly proved by PW6 Aditya Swaroop, MRT, JPNATC. Furthermore, PM report of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar and MLC dated 15.07.2021 of injured Raja Ram have been admitted by the accused as Ex. A2 and Ex. A1 respectively in his statement recorded under section 294 CrPC. Hence, it is convincingly established from the testimony of PW6 and the medical documents that the deceased Sanjeev Kumar died in the accident which was committed by the accused and PW2/ injured Raja Ram sustained simple injuries in the said accident. The fact that Sanjeev Kumar died due to fatal injuries sustained by him in the present road traffic accident is proved by the ocular testimony of the PW2 which gets FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
U/S. 279/337/304A IPC Digitally signed by DEEPAK State Vs. Sandeep Kumar No. 92995/16 DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2022.02.26 20:15:38 17 +05'30'
corroborated by the MLC, postmortem report and death summary. Moreover, the death of the deceased in the alleged accident and his presence at the spot have not been denied by the accused himself. In view of the above discussion, not only the identity of the accused and identity of the offending vehicle but also the fact that the deceased Sanjeev Kumar suffered fatal injuries and PW2/ injured Raja Ram sustained simple injuries in the accident as alleged by the prosecution, have been duly established beyond any shadow of doubt. Further, the accident took place in front of BSES Rajdhani Power Station, OIA, Phase-I, New Delhi which is admittedly a public way.
29. Thus, the only point of contention in the instant case is whether the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash or negligent manner or not. PW2/ injured Raja Ram has categorically deposed that at the time of accident the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which it hit the tempo which was being driven by PW2 Raja Ram and due to the impact, the tempo was pushed back and driver of the motorcycle got trapped under the tyre of his tempo and he died on the spot. From perusal of the site plan, it is clear that the offending vehicle which was being driven by accused had hit the vehicle which was being driven by PW2/ injured, from the front side on the opposite direction of the road. Deceased who was riding his motorcycle was also on the other side of the road behind the ill-fated tempo. The fact that the offending bus had hit the vehicles on DEEPAK KUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
U/S. 279/337/304A IPC Date: 2022.02.26 20:15:56 +05'30' State Vs. Sandeep Kumar 18 No. 92995/16 the opposite direction itself implies that it was being driven by accused in a rash and negligent manner. Though, during the course of arguments it was argued on behalf of accused that in his testimony PW2/ injured Raja Ram had deposed that the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner, whereas in his complaint given to the police which is Ex.PW2/A, it has been mentioned that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner as well as in zig zag manner. In the opinion of this court the absence of phrase zig zag in the testimony of PW2 does not make any material change as the PW2 has consistently deposed that the offending vehicle has been driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner. A reasonable man ought to have been more circumspect and cautious in driving his vehicle while driving the same. However, in the present case, the accused culpably omitted to take the aforesaid requisite precaution and drove his vehicle in haphazard and in rash and negligent manner. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 regarding the rash and negligent act of the accused. The death of deceased Sanjeev Kumar and simple injuries sustained by PW2 Raja Ram in the accident clearly manifests that the accused failed to take due deliberation and caution. The manner in which the accident took place and the harrowing consequences that followed it, can lead to only one inescapable inference that the accused was culpably rash and negligent. Moreover, the legal maxim "res ipsa loquitor" i.e. the things speaks for FIR No. 512/14.
DEEPAK Digitally signed by DEEPAK PS: OIA. U/S. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sandeep Kumar KUMAR 19 KUMAR Date: 2022.02.26 20:16:14 No. 92995/16 +05'30'
themselves further fortifies the allegations of the prosecution regarding the rash and negligent act of the accused. The accident could not have resulted in unfortunate death of the victim and injury to the injured, had the accused would have taken sufficient precautions that were expected and required from him as a reasonable and prudent man confronted with the same situation. Hence, his act of driving is duly established to be criminally rash and negligent.
30. Though the accused has taken the defence that in his statement recorded under section 313 r/w 281 CrPC that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo driver and that he was not at fault. He also stated that the tempo was being driven in a zig zag manner and on the wrong side of the road. Pertinently, it seems that the accused has concocted a story in order to create a false defence as it is clear from the testimony of PW2, site plan and the mechanical inspection reports that it was the offending bus which had hit the tempo coming from other side of the road. It appears that the defence of accused is mere sham. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the accused was at fault as he was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
31. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has proved all the essential ingredients of offences punishable under sections 279/337/304A IPC beyond any reasonable doubt by leading FIR No. 512/14. DEEPAK Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR PS: OIA.
U/S. 279/337/304A IPC Date: 2022.02.26 20:16:29 State Vs. Sandeep Kumar +05'30' 20 No. 92995/16 convincing and clinching evidence against the accused. Hence, the accused Sandeep Kumar is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under sections 279/337/304A IPC.
Let convict be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR
Date: 2022.02.26 20:16:46 +05'30'
Announced in open court (DEEPAK KUMAR - II)
today i.e. on. 26.02.2022. MM-02/South-East/Saket/ND FIR No. 512/14.
PS: OIA.
U/S. 279/337/304A IPC State Vs. Sandeep Kumar 21 No. 92995/16