Delhi District Court
State vs . Shyam Sunder on 26 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 582/06
PS : Paschim Vihar
Offence complained of : 279/337 IPC
Date of commission of offence : 18.06.2006
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R0303552010
C C No. : 18/10/10
State vs. Shyam Sunder
S/o Ram Baks
R/o B46, T Huts,
Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, Delhi
............. Accused
ASI Ramphool Singh
PS Paschim Vihar
........... Complainant
Date of Institution : 11.03.2008
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Date of reserving judgment/ order : 26.02.2014
Date of pronouncement : 26.02.2014
Final Order : Acquitted
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1.Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/337 IPC.
FIR No. 582/06 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Shyam Sunder
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2006 at about 09.10 pm at Nala, Keshav Pur, Outer Ring Road, Paschim Vihar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Paschim Vihar, the accused Shyam Sunder was found driving a motorcycle bearing number DL4SAU3152 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in such a manner, the accused hit one pedestrian namely Guddu and caused simple injuries to him. Thus, accused Shyam Sunder is alleged to have committed offence punishable under section 279/337 IPC. FIR
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 582/06 under section 279/337 IPC was lodged at Police Station Paschim Vihar.
CHARGE
4. After investigation, chargesheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 11.03.2008. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On the basis of the chargesheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 279/337 IPC was framed against accused Shyam Sunder to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 24.10.2011 JUDICIAL RESOLUTION
6. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution, that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows: (1)That the accident actually took place.
(2)That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving. FIR No. 582/06 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Shyam Sunder (3)That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
7. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 7 witnesses. The prosecution has examined two witnesses of which Jawharlal is the eye witness.
8. PW1 Jawahar Lal has deposed that he has been residing at house no. 246, B Block, J. J. Colony, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, Delhi and the accused Shyam Sunder was residing in his locality. He deposed that he did not know the injured nor had he seen the accident. He deposed that the police officials knew him as there was a beat situated near his house. He deposed that he did not know how he has been made as witness in the present case. He did not know anything about the present case.
9. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP after taking permission from the court. During cross examination by Ld. APP, he denied the suggestion that on 18.06.2006 he was going to Vikaspuri on his Rehri to supply Eggs and at about 8.30 pm when he reached on road Paschim Vihar nala going from Paschim Vihar Nala to outer ring road, he saw one motorcycle bearing no. DL4SAV 3153 came at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from Khyala Village side and hit one pedestrian namely Guddu. He denied the suggestion that he had had seen the accident and the same was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Witness denied his statement given to the police. He denied the suggestion that he could identify the offending vehicle as he had seen the accident. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in order to save the accused as he has known to the witness FIR No. 582/06 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Shyam Sunder prior to the accident or any sort of compromise arrived between them or he has been won over by the accused.
10.PW2 ASI Sushila proved the FIR as Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW2/B.
11.The injured Guddu in the present case has remained unserved even through DCP concerned. Hence, name of the said witness is dropped from the list of witnesses. All the other remaining witnesses are formal witnesses and none of them is a witness to the accident, sufficient only to prove that the pedestrian Guddu had sustained injuries and that an FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged on the same day at PS Paschim Vihar vide FIR bearing No. 582/06.
12.As the PW1 who was the only eye witness other than the victim Guddu, has turned hostile, denying the entire prosecution story and has been cross examined by the Ld. APP and injured remained unserved even through DCP concerned, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. Since the eye witness has turned hostile and the injured is unserved, the prosecution can never prove that the present case was a result of an act of accused and that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing number DL4SAU3152, which was being driven by the accused Shyam Sunder in a rash and negligent manner. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/s 279/337 IPC.
13.In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 ( Coram : 7 S. P. BHARUCHA, C.J.I., S. S. M. QUADRI, R. C. FIR No. 582/06 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Shyam Sunder LAHOTI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, DORAISWAMY RAJU, Mrs. RUMA PAL, A. PASAYAT, JJ.) the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts.
14.Accordingly, in the opinion of the court, in the light of the above cited judgment, the court needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/337 IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused. The matter is at the stage of PE. PE stands closed. Since, there is nothing incriminating against the accused, SA dispensed with. The proceedings FIR No. 582/06 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Shyam Sunder are stopped.
Final Order
15.Since the eye witness Jawahar Lal has turned hostile and the injured has remained unserved even through DCP concerned and in the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under s.258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Shyam Sunder qua offences u/s 279/337 IPC and hereby releases the accused Shyam Sunder under sections 279/337 IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
16.As per section 437A Cr.P.C accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of like amount. Time sought to furnish bail bond. Granted.
ANNOUNCED ON 26.02.2014 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court /26.02.2014 Certified that this judgment contains 6 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court /26.02.2014 FIR No. 582/06 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Shyam Sunder