Delhi District Court
State vs . Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan on 6 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan
FIR No. : 673/2016
PS : Hauz Khas
U/s : 279/337 IPC
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. No. of the Case 4383/2017
B. Date of Commission of offence 15.09.2016
C. Date of FIR 27.09.2016
D. Date of charge-sheet 24.10.2017
E. Name of the complainant Sh. Natu Dass S/o Sh. Mahadev
F. Name of the accused persons, their Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan, S/o Sh.
parentage and residence Baldev Ray, R/o Village Mahmudpur Balami,
Distt. Mujjafarpur, Bihar
G. Offence complained of or proved 279/337 IPC
H. Date of framing of charges 13.03.2018
I. Date of commencement of evidence 13.08.2018
J. Plea of the accused Not guilty
K. Date on which judgment is reserved 28.02.2023
L. Final Order Acquitted
M. Date of Judgment 06.03.2023.
State Vs. Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan FIR No. : 673/2016 PS Hauz Khas
CIS No. 4383/2017
U/s 279/337 IPC Page no.1 of 11
Brief facts of the present case
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.09.2016 SI Vijender Kumar received a DD number 15A. On receiving the same, he alongwith Ct. Arjun, No. 2291/SD reached at spot where they came to know that injured is taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre and at the same time after receiving DD No. 10B, SI Vijender alongwith Constable reached at AIIMS Trauma Centre where Natu Das was found admitted on MLC No. 584126/16. Injured was found fit for statement by doctor but he refused to give his statement as he had pain in his leg. On contacting him he informed that settlement talks are going with the person running tempo and in case he fails to give money as per settlement terms he will get the FIR registered. On 27.09.2016 injured Natu Das got FIR registered. During investigation statement of witnesses were recorded. In his statement injured stated that on15.09.2016 at around 4.30 pm a red colour tempo in which loud music being played had hit him by driving in rash and negligent manner due to which he had received injuries. Notice u/s 161 CrPC was also given to owner of offending vehicle Sunil Kumar who disclosed that offending vehicle number HR55F3471 was being run by Natu Das. Mechanical inspection of the vehicle was conducted. MLC was collected after completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused. Cognizance of the same was taken.
Framing of charge
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 13.03.2018 notice was framed against accused for the offence u/s 279/337 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan FIR No. : 673/2016 PS Hauz Khas
CIS No. 4383/2017
U/s 279/337 IPC Page no.2 of 11
Prosecution Evidence
3. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined five witnesses. PW1 is Natu Das, PW2 is Sunil Kumar, PW3 is SI Vijender Kumar, PW4 is HC Arjun, and PW5 is ASI Pawan. In a separate proceeding u/s 294 CrPC accused had admitted the genuineness of MLC number 5A4126/16, mechanical inspection report dated 15.06.2017 and FIR and on the basis of the same, examination of concerned witnesses were dispensed with.
4. PW-1 Natu Das had deposed that on 15.09.2016 at about 4.30 to 4.45 PM, he was working as a guard at SBI ATM, Hauz Khas Main Market. At that time a red colour tempo bearing registration no. HR55F3471 hit him from the front side due to which he sustained injury in his right side leg. He had further deposed that he shouted, thereafter some public persons came at the spot. He had further deposed that some unknown person called at 100 number from his mobile phone. Thereafter within 15 minutes, a PCR van came at the spot and took him to AIIMS Trauma Centre and he was medically treated there. He had further deposed that he discharged on the same day. At the AIIMS Trauma Centre, two policemen came and inquired from him regarding the incident and he told him that the accident but he did not give his statement because at that time he was not fit for statement. After two three hours, he was shifted to the Safdarjung Hospital. He had further deposed that he remained at the hospital and his treatment was going on two three hours at the S.J. Hospital. On the same day, he got discharged. Thereafter he came to his home at PTU-88, Laxmi Bai Nagar Market, New Delhi. He had further deposed that after seven days, he came to PS Hauz Khas and gave his statement to the police official. His statement is State Vs. Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan FIR No. : 673/2016 PS Hauz Khas CIS No. 4383/2017 U/s 279/337 IPC Page no.3 of 11 Ex.PW1/A which bears his signature at point A. He had further deposed that he had given his statement to the IO which is Ex.PW1/B which bears his signature at point A. Two photographs of the injured foot is show to the witness and he correctly identified and the same is Ex.P1 (colly). Four photographs of the offending vehicle bearing no. HR55F3471 is shown to the witness to which he correctly identified which is Ex.P2 (colly). Witness has also correctly identified the accused present in the court.
5. PW2 Sunil Kumar had deposed that on about one year ago, (exact date he does not remember) there was an accident near his shop situated at E-12, Glass Villa, Hauz Khas, Main Market. He had further deposed that he was not an eye witness to the accident but he had only received the information in the next morning that driver of vehicle belonging to Mico Tuffon Company who used to supply the material to our neighbour has caused accident of guard of State Bank of Patiala i.e. victim of the present case.
6. PW3 SI Vijender Kumar had deposed that on 15.09.2016 he was posted as SI at PS Hauz Khas. On that day he was on emergency duty from 08.00 PM to 08.00 AM. At about 07.15 AM he received the DD No. 7A regarding an accident. Thereafter he alongwith Ct. Arjun went to the spot i.e. Hauz Khas Market opposite State Bank of India where he came to know that the offending vehicle ran away from the spot and he also came to know that injured had been shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre. He had further deposed that he received DD no. 10B regarding admission of injured in AIIMS Trauma Centre where he collected the MLC report of the injured from the concerned doctor. He further deposed that he met complainant namely Natu State Vs. Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan FIR No. : 673/2016 PS Hauz Khas CIS No. 4383/2017 U/s 279/337 IPC Page no.4 of 11 Dass @ Latu Dass and he told him that he was not able to give the statement due to pain because he sustained the injury on his legs. He further deposed that on 27.09.2016 he contacted complainant over mobile phone then he lodged the FIR on the basis of the DD number 7A. Complainant came at PS on 30.09.2016 and he told him that he could not come to the PS because he was unable to walk due to injury. He recorded his statement. He had further deposed that he went to the spot and one person namely Sunil Kumar, owner of Shop No. E-5 Hauz Khas, situated near the spot and he told him about the registration number of offending vehicle i.e. Tata 407 bearing no. HR 55F 3471. He had further deposed that Afterward he was transferred to another PS and he handed over the file to MHC(R ).
7. PW4 HC Arjun had deposed that on 15.09.2016 he was posted as Constable at PS Hauz Khas. On that day he was on emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am. At about 7.15 am IO received a DD No. 7A regarding the accident which is Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter he went to the spot i.e. Hauz Khas market opposite State Bank of India where we came to know that offending vehicle ran away from the spot and we also came to know that the injured had shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre. He had further deposed that we went to AIIMS Trauma Centre where IO met the injured / victim Nathu Ram at the hospital and he denied for giving the statement due to pain in his leg.
8. PW5 ASI Pawan had deposed that on 15.05.2017 he was posted as HC at PS Hauz Khas. On that day the further investigation was marked to him by the order of concerned SHO. Thereafter he received the file from the MHC(R ). He perused the file and he came to know about the offending vehicle i.e. Eicher Canter State Vs. Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan FIR No. : 673/2016 PS Hauz Khas CIS No. 4383/2017 U/s 279/337 IPC Page no.5 of 11 bearing no. HR55F3471. He further deposed that he got verified from Authority Gurugram and he came to know that the registered owner of offending vehicle was Micco Glass Industrial pvt. Ltd., Village Begampur, Gurugram. He had further deposed that he went there and he met the Manager Suresh Dubey and he gave the notice u/s 133 MV Act which is Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B both bearing his signature at point A and he replied. He further deposed that on 04.06.2017 Manager Suresh Dubey came at the PS with offending vehicle I.e Eicher Canter bearing no. HR55F3471 and the same was seized by him through seizure memo Ex.PW5/C bearing his signature at point A. He also seized the RC, permit and insurance vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/D bearing his signature at point A. He Seized the DL of the accused which is Ex.PW5/E bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that on 05.06.2017 Manager Suresh Dubey with accused came at PS and he produced the accused before him. Thereafter he interrogate him and arrested him vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW5/F bearing his signature at point A and released him when he furnished the surety. He had further deposed that he got conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle. One sheet of 4 photographs of offending vehicle i.e. Eicher Canter bearing no. HR55F3471 were shown to the witness and the witness correctly identified by the same as Ex.P1.
Statement of accused
9. The examination of accused u/s 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which accused had stated that on the day of incident he was not driving the offending vehicle and the same was driven by Ravi Bhushan and he fled from the spot and later on under the compelling circumstances his name was given as driver.
State Vs. Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan FIR No. : 673/2016 PS Hauz Khas
CIS No. 4383/2017
U/s 279/337 IPC Page no.6 of 11
10. Accused did not lead defence evidence in his favour. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused were heard and case file was perused.
11. It is argued on behalf of Ld. APP for the State that prosecution has discharged his burden. It is clear from the record that accused was driving the offending vehicle and had hit the victim It is further argued that all the prosecutions witnesses are supporting the version of the complainant, thus the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
12. It is argued on behalf of accused that it is not proved in the case that accused was driving vehicle is rash or negligent manner at the alleged date of incident. It is further argued that not even a single witness had deposed that accused was driving the offending vehicle rashly or negligently at the alleged date of incident.
13. It is the case of the prosecution that on15.09.2016 at around 4.30 pm a accused was driving red colour tempo bearing no. HR55F3471 in which loud music was being played and had hit the victim Natu Singh by driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner due to which he had received injuries. Admittedly victim Natu Singh had sustained injury in the accident on the alleged date. His MLC Ex, A3 is also on record which was admitted by accused u/s 294 CrPC. Thus, the fact of injury is undisputed. The question to be determined in the present case is whether it was the accused who was driving vehicle no. HR55F3471 and had hit the victim Natu Singh. Also whether the accused had caused the accident of victim Natu Singh by driving State Vs. Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan FIR No. : 673/2016 PS Hauz Khas CIS No. 4383/2017 U/s 279/337 IPC Page no.7 of 11 aforesaid vehicle in rash or negligent manner.
14. Rashness or negligence are two different terms. In the case of 1953 All LJ 689 : (AIR 1954 All 186) it was held:
"Rashness and negligence are not the same things. Mere negligence cannot be construed to mean rashness. There are degrees of negligence and rashness, and, In order to amount to criminal rashness or criminal negligence, one must find that the rashness has been of such a degree as to amount to taking hazard knowingly that the hazard was of such a degree that Injury was most likely to be occasioned thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk or doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences, criminal negligence is a gross and culpable neglect, that is to say, a failure to exercise that care and failure to take that precaution which, having regard to the circumstances. It was the imperative duty of the individual to take. Culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that mischievous consequences are likely to follow although the individual hopes, even though he hopes sincerely, that such consequences may not follow. The criminality lies in not taking the precautions to prevent the happening of the consequences in the hope that they may not happen. The law does not permit a man to be uncautious on a hope however earnest or honest that hope may be."
15. In this regard, PW1 Natu Das who is also the victim in the case had correctly identified the accused before the court. He further deposed that on 15.09.2016 a red coloured tempo bearing registration no. HR55F3471 had hit him from the front side due to which he sustained injury in the right side of the leg. In his cross examination, the witness had admitted that the two applications Ex. PW1/A and State Vs. Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan FIR No. : 673/2016 PS Hauz Khas CIS No. 4383/2017 U/s 279/337 IPC Page no.8 of 11 Ex. PW1/B which were moved by him before police officials, he did not mention the vehicle number of offending vehicle. He had further admitted that offending vehicle was in reverse mode when he was injured. In his complaint Ex PW1/A he had merely stated to the police that on a red colour tempo in which loud music being played had hit him by driving in rash and negligent manner due to which he had received injuries. Though the witness had identified the accused before the court, but it appears from the record that he must not have seen the accused driving the offending vehicle at the time of alleged incident. Further in the applications Ex. PW1/A and PW1/B, he did not mention the name of the accused and even the number of offending vehicle. According to IO PW5 ASI Pawan , he firstly got verified the offending vehicle Either Canter bearing no. HR55F3471 from the authority at Gurugram and got to know that the registered owner of offending vehicle was Micco Glass Industrial pvt. Ltd., Village Begampur, Gurugram. He then served notice u/s 133 MV Act The Manager Suresh Dubey disclosed in his reply the the vehicle was being run by accused Virender at the time of alleged incident. Thus, there ia a possibility that identity of accused was disclosed only after the service of notice u/s 133 MV Act. Since the victim Natu Das was hit while the accused was reversing the vehicle, there is a possibility that he must not have seen the accused and had merely noted the vehicle no and on the basis of same he was having compromise talk initially. Though in his examination, PW Natu Das had identified the panchnama/photographs of the offending vehicle but mere fact the complainant/ victim had identified the offending vehicle is not sufficient to discharge the burden that it was accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of alleged incident.
16. The alleged eye witness to the incident PW2 Sunil Kumar had denied State Vs. Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan FIR No. : 673/2016 PS Hauz Khas CIS No. 4383/2017 U/s 279/337 IPC Page no.9 of 11 witnessing the incident. According to him on the next morning he received the information that vehicle belonging to Mico Tuffon Company who used to supply the material to their neighbor had caused the accident. On seeking permission to cross examine the witness, he had denied making statement Ex PW2/DX1 to the police. In his cross examination has stated that shopkeepers of the market had told him about the incident. There is no testimony of any other eye witness on record who had seen the incident happening. According to PW1 complainant when he shouted public persons gathered at the spot. This version of the complainant itself shows that there was presence of other persons as well at or near the spot. None of them had also been examined by the IO.
17. It is further pertinent to mention that notice under section 133 MV Act is also not proved by the prosecution in the case. The owner or Manager of Mico Tuffon Company Suresh Dubey is also not examined in the case to prove that it was the accused himself who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of alleged incident. Thus, considering the above discussion, there is a doubt whether accused was driving offending vehicle at the time of incident. The prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proving identity of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
18. Even assuming that accused had hit the victim Natu Das by driving alleged offending vehicle red coloured temp Either bearing no. HR55F3471, but there is nothing to show that accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner. In his testimony PW1 Natu Das had not deposed anything regarding how and in what manner the vehicle was being run negligently or rashly by accused that had caused the accident. No testimony of any other eye witness is on record who had State Vs. Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan FIR No. : 673/2016 PS Hauz Khas CIS No. 4383/2017 U/s 279/337 IPC Page no.10 of 11 seen the accident happening or had deposed the regarding the rash or negligent act of the accused. . Thus, in the absence of any such specific evidence of 'rashness or negligence', it cannot be proved that accused had caused the accident by driving offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner.
19. It is well settled that in a criminal trial the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Any contradiction or iota of proof in favour of accused can completely dismantle the case of prosecution. In the present case there are no cogent material available on record to suggest that accused had caused the accident of victim Natu Singh and had caused injury to him by driving the offending vehicle HR55F3471 in a rash or negligent manner.
Conclusion & Decision
20. In these circumstances and in view of the aforementioned discussion, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Virender Singh beyond reasonable doubts. Accused Virender Singh is accordingly acquitted for offence u/s 279/337 IPC.
Announced in the open court (VIJAYSHREE RATHORE) In Delhi on 06.03.2023 MM-06, SOUTH/SAKET DELHI State Vs. Virendra Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan FIR No. : 673/2016 PS Hauz Khas CIS No. 4383/2017 U/s 279/337 IPC Page no.11 of 11