Delhi District Court
State vs Pawan Kumar on 1 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Pawan Kumar
FIR No : 231/2022
U/s : 279/337/338 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020201262023
2. Date of commission of offence : 28.11.2022
3. Date of institution of the case : 18.04.2023
4. Name of the complainant : Surat Singh
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Pawan Kumar
address S/o Satya Parkash
R/o H. no.880,
Mehram Road, Village
Madina, District
Rohtak, Haryana
6. Offence complained of : 279/337/338 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Convicted u/S 279 IPC
9. Date of final order : 01.05.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Jay Aditya, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Brijesh Vats, Ld. LAC for accused.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 1 of 23 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.01
15:30:38
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 28.11.2022 at about 04:10 PM, at Bus Stand, Village Dariyapur Khurd, Delhi, accused was driving DTC bus bearing registration no.DL-1PD-
6035 (hereinafter, "offending vehicle") in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and caused simple injuries to Surat Singh and grievous injuries to Rajender and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 of IPC, for which FIR no.231/2022 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSON
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. The court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, notice under Sections 279/337/338 of IPC was served upon the accused on 26.05.2023. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 2 of 23 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 15:30:43 +0530
3. Notably, the matter was settled between the complainant/injured persons and accused and resultantly, the offence u/S 337/338 IPC was compounded. In view thereof, the accused was acquitted of Section 337/338 IPC vide order dated 23.01.2024 and the trial was proceeded qua the offence u/S 279 IPC only.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Rajender Singh PW-2 Surat Singh PW-3 ASI Ram Avtar PW-4 Amit DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW2/A Statement of complainant Ex.PW2/B Photographs of offending vehicle Ex.PW3/A DD no.87A Ex.PW3/B DD no.89B Ex.PW3/C Tehrir Ex.PW3/D Site plan Ex.PW3/E Seizure memo que offending vehicle Ex.PW3/F Notice u/S 133 of MV Act Ex.PW3/G Reply to notice u/S 133 of MV Act Ex.PW3/I Arrest memo Ex.PW3/J Mechanical inspection report qua offending bus ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.231/2022 alongwith Certificate under Section 65B IEA Ex.A2 DD no.087A dated 28.11.2022 Ex.A3 Entry in register no.19 Ex.A4 Verification report of DL of accused Ex.A5 Verification report of RC of offending bus Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 3 of 23 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 15:30:47 +0530 Ex.A6 Verification report of insurance policy of offending bus Ex.A7 Superdar of offending bus Ex.A8 Duty register of offending bus dated 28.11.2022 Ex.A9 Notice u/S 133 of MV Act served upon Sandeep
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows:
PW1 Rajender Singh deposed that on 28.11.2022 at about 04:15 pm, he and his friend Surat Singh were sitting on a bench at a bus stand at a safe area and at that time, one DTC bus came from Ghumenhera and hit them and due to impact, Surat Singh sustained severe injury on his left leg. He stated that in a sudden move, he stood up and the offending vehicle hit him on his chest and throw him at some distance and he fell unconscious. He stated that he could not identify the accused as he became unconscious after the accident.
6. PW2 Surat Singh deposed that on 28.11.2022 at about 04:00 pm, he and his friend Rajender Singh were sitting on a bench at a bus stand at a safe area and at that time, one DTC bus came from Ghumenhera side in a fast speed and hit at the corner of the bench on which they were sitting and then hit them. Due to the impact, he sustained severe injury on his left leg and right ear. He stated that his friend Rajender suddenly got up but the bus also hit him on his chest and threw him away at some distance. He further stated that bus was in fast speed and hence, he could not get the time to save himself and he was in conscious state but his friend was unconscious. He stated that the offending bus got Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 4 of 23 2025.05.01 15:30:53 +0530 stopped after it hit a tree and after that one another bus which was passing-by and he alongwith Rajender Singh and the driver of offending bus went to the RTRM Hospital in the said bus. He stated that the driver of the offending bus at that time was unconscious and he only regained consciousness when they reached at hospital. He stated that police recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. The witness correctly identified the driver of the offending bus present in the court and offending bus through photographs Ex.PW2/B (colly). In the cross-examination, he stated that the bench on which they were sitting was about 10 feet away from the road on which the traffic was plying and the same was installed near the boundary wall of primary school of Dariyapur Village. He stated that he was talking on his phone while sitting on bench and even after sustaining injuries after the impact with the bus he remained conscious and he saw the driver of offending bus i.e. accused after the incident and even when he was being taken out by public person for taking to the hospital. He stated that he was not aware whether any passengers were present in the offending bus at the time of accident but after the accident no one apart from the accused was in the offending bus. He stated that the bench on which they were sitting was about 15- 20 feet away from Malikpur Dariyapur Bus Stand.
7. PW3 ASI Ram Avtar deposed that on 28.11.2022, he received DD no.87A Ex.PW3/A regarding the accident and thereafter, he alongwith HC Virender reached at the spot where they found bus bearing registration no.DL-1PD-6035 in accidental condition. He stated that he came to know that injured already shifted to RTRM Hospital and he also received DD no.089A for the same Ex.PW3/B. He stated that thereafter, he left the spot and reached Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 5 of 23 ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.01 15:30:58 +0530 at hospital and after reaching the hospital, he came to know that Suraj and Rajender admitted in the hospital vide MLC no.7136/22 and 7137/22. He stated that he came to know that the driver of the bus also admitted in the hospital who also sustained injuries during the above said accident vide MLC no.7138/22. He stated that he recorded statement of injured Suraj Singh and on the basis of which he prepared the tehrir Ex.PW3/C and got the FIR registered through HC Virender. He stated that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/D and seized the offending bus bearing registration no.DL-1PD-6035 vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/E. He stated that meanwhile, ADM Sandeep from Depot no.2 also came at the spot and he served notice u/S 133 MV Act upon him Ex.PW3/F and he gave reply to the said notice Ex.PW3/G. Thereafter, they left the spot and after reaching the PS, he deposited the offending bus in malkhana and he arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/H. He stated that during investigation, he obtained DL of accused and RC of the abovesaid offending bus and copy of insurance of the said bus and the same were verified from concerned authority. He stated that he handed over the said bus for mechanical inspection and obtained mechanical inspection report of the said bus from Dharmender Sehrawat Ex.PW3/I and he also recorded statement of injured Rajender and obtained final opinion of MLCs of Rajender and Suraj Singh and it was found that injured Rajender sustained grievous injuries and thereafter, he added Section 338 of IPC. He stated that during the investigation, he also recorded statements of witnesses u/S 161 Cr. P. C. and after completion of investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned court. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the court and photographs of the offending bus. In the cross-examination, he stated that no eye-Digitally signed by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 6 of 23 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.01 15:31:04 +0530 witness was found at the spot when he reached there. He stated that no CCTV camera was installed at the spot and he did not record statement of any public person except the injured persons which shows that accused was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner and the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of accused.
8. PW4 Amit deposed that on 28.11.2022, he was on duty as a conductor on bus bearing registration no.DL-1PD-6035 which was driven by Pawan Kumar. He stated that on that day at about 04:10 pm, when their bus reached near Bus Stand VPO Dariyapur Khurd, suddenly some cattles came in front of their bus and the driver of the bus applied brakes to save the cattles and due to which their bus hit the wall of school. He stated that later he came to know that two persons sustained some minor injuries. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the court. In the cross-examination, he stated that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in normal speed. He stated that the driver of the bus did not drive the bus in rash and negligent manner.
9. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining witnesses in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined. Hence, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
10. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 7 of 23 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.01 15:31:09 +0530 circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 09.12.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case and that there was no fault on his part as one dog came in front of his bus all of a sudden and to save the dog he had to apply sudden brakes due to which his bus became imbalanced and hit a tree near the school. He further stated that he did not want to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
12. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offence.
13. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle is not established and Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV Date: FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 8 of 23 AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 15:31:14 +0530 prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
14. Section 279 IPC proscribes the driving of vehicle on a public way in such a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
15. The allegations pertaining to above mentioned offence is that on the given date, time and place, the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and due to his rash and negligent driving, the accident was caused and complainant sustained injuries.
16. The position of law with respect to offence u/s 279 IPC is discussed in the case of case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133(2006) DLT 562, wherein it was held that;
"In Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under Section 279 or Section 304A, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved".
Further, what would constitute rash and negligent act has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:-
Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWATABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 9 of 23 2025.05.01 15:31:19 +0530 "A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with reckless- ness and with indifference as to the consequences.
Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against in- jury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
17. Besides, the ingredients mentioned above, the identity of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle must also be established separately by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused.
It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
18. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution was under the obligation to prove the following for establishing the case against the accused person:
a. Identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle.Digitally signed by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 10 of 23 15:31:24 +0530 b. That the alleged accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place which caused the injuries to the injured persons.
RE: IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED;
19. Material witness with regard to identity of accused are PW1 Rajender Singh, PW2 Surat Singh and PW4 Amit, as other witnesses examined by prosecution are not witness to the incident rather only to the facts which happened after the accident. PW1 stated that he could not identify the accused as he became unconscious after the accident. PW2 stated in his cross- examination that after the accident, he remained conscious and he saw the driver of offending bus i.e. accused after the incident and even when he was being taken out by public person for taking to the hospital. PW4 also identified the accused as driver of the bus as he was conductor on the said bus.
20. In the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC, there is no denial by the accused that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Thus, it stands proved that accused was the driver of the offending vehicle.
RE: ALLEGED ACCIDENT BEING THE RESULT OF RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING OF THE ACCUSED.
21. Where the fact that accused was driving the offending vehicle is established, it has to be seen whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
22. For establishing the rash and negligent act of driving the offending vehicle by the accused, the main testimony is again of Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 11 of 23 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 15:31:29 +0530 eye-witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW4 only as the other witnesses are not the witnesses of the incident rather being part of the investigation or who came at the spot after the incident. It has come in the statement of PW1 Rajender Singh that on the date of incident, he along with his friend PW2 Surat Singh were sitting on a bench at a bus stand when one DTC bus from Ghumanhera side came and hit them. PW1 further stated that due to the impact PW2 Surat Singh sustained severe injury on his left leg and that he was hit on his chest by the bus due to which he was thrown for some distance whereafter he became unconscious. PW1 failed to identify the accused as he stated that he became unconscious after the incident.
23. It may be mentioned that it is a settled legal position that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him hostile and cross examine him. The evidence of such a witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on careful scrutiny thereof (vide Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Haryana (1976) 1 SCC 389, Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa (1976) 4 SCC 233 and Khujji vs. State of MP (1991) 3 SCC 627).
24. Further, the other injured person i.e. PW2 Surat Singh also deposed on the lines of PW1 stating that he alongwith PW1 were sitting on a bench in a safe area at a bus stand when one DTC bus from Ghumanhera side at a fast speed hit the corner of the bench on which they were sitting due to which he sustained severe injuries. PW2 further stated that he was conscious but his friend PW1 became unconscious. PW2 further stated that the offending Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 12 of 23 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 15:31:34 +0530 bus came to stop after it hit a tree and that one another bus which was passing-by stopped and he alongwith PW1 and driver of the offending bus went to RTRM hospital in the said bus. PW2 further identified the accused as driver of offending bus and also stated that after the incident, driver of offending bus became unconscious who only regained consciousness when they reached the hospital.
25. At this stage, it is relevant to mention the matter as decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Balu Sudamkhalde and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra Crl. Appeal No. 1910 of 2010 decided on 29.03.2023, laid down the principles for the evaluation of the testimony of injured eye witness, where it was observed as under: -
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind.
The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 13 of 23 15:31:40 +0530 The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eye witnesses, two principal considerations are whether in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence."
26. The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness/ eye witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
27. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of PW2 who had sustained severe injuries in his left leg in the incident in question. Further, the photocopies of photographs showcasing the offending bus being collided with the tree and having two benches on the right front side of the vehicle (though the said photographs are not tendered in the testimony of any PWs) shows Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 14 of 23 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 15:31:45 +0530 the state of affairs which are corroborating the version of PW1 and PW2. The other photograph Ex.PW2/B are the photographs taken of the offending vehicle at the time of superdari proceedings.
28. Further, prosecution examined PW4 who deposed that on the date of incident he was on duty as a conductor in the offending vehicle driven by accused person and he specifically stated that when their bus reached near bus stand VPO Dariyapur suddenly some cattle came in front of their bus and driver of the bus applied brakes to save said cattle and due to which their bus hit wall of the school.
29. Here it is pertinent to mention that PW4 was one of the occupants of the offending bus at the time of incident as he was working on duty conductor. Further, at the time of recording of statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C. accused gave different version for application of sudden brakes stating that one dog had come in front of his bus all of a sudden due to which he had to apply sudden brakes which made the bus imbalanced due to which they hit a tree situated near the school.
The said different version as stated by PW4 being the conductor of the offending bus and the accused being driver of offending bus makes the testimony of PW4 doubtful as he was working as a conductor in the offending bus at the time of incident in question.
30. Keeping in view the said point and the fact that both the injured PW1 and PW2 have stated the same version regarding they being hit by the offending bus when they were sitting on a bench near Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 15 of 23 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 15:31:49 +0530 the bus stand. There is no reason to doubt to the testimony of both injured PW1 and PW2, although PW1 was unable to identify the accused person. Furthermore, as per PW3 ASI Ram Avtar who alongwith HC Virender reached at the spot after receiving DD entry no.87A Ex.PW3/A where they found the offending bus in accidental condition. Perusal of DD entry no.87A Ex.PW3/A reveals that the call was made by conductor of the bus wherein he stated that driver of the bus became unconscious due to which the bus hit one bike or tree. Interestingly the conductor who was examined as PW4 did not depose the same reason stating that the driver of the offending bus becaming unconscious leading to the incident in question.
31. For establishing the rash and negligent act of driving the offending vehicle by the accused, the main testimony is again of witnesses PW1 and PW2 only. Both PW1 and PW2 have stated that they both were sitting on a bench at a safe area near the bus stand thereby it is relevant to peruse the state of affair as recorded in the site plan. The site plan Ex.PW3/D as preapred by IO ASI Ram Avtar. First and foremost, the site plan seems to have been prepared by the IO in a very perfunctory manner, without disclosing the actual state of affairs as seen by him at the accidental spot. Nowhere does the site plan Ex.PW3/D shows the directions from where the offending vehicle was coming. Instead, Mark A on the site plan has been depicted as the place where the offending vehicle was found.
32. At this stage it is further pertinent to state in here that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan vs State (NCT of Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562 had laid down guidelines with regard to the investigation to be conducted in the offence of accident:
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 16 of 23 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.01 15:31:54 +0530 13.1. In most cases I find that the site plans are not produced. Even the site plan that is produced is of a very unsatisfactory nature. It is, therefore, imperative that the investigating officer should be provided with maps of the roads drawn to scale so that accurate site plans can be produced in evidence for the appreciation of courts. The exact point of impact as well as tyre skid marks and the point at which the vehicles come to rest after the collision should be demarcated clearly. The observations with regard to the length of the tyre skid marks of the vehicles involved in the impact go a long way in indicating the speeds at which the vehicles were traveling. This would enable the courts to examine the evidence in a much more objective manner and the courts would not be faced with vague and subjective expressions such as high speed". 13.2. The mechanical inspection reports that are prepared are also, I find, in a majority of cases, of a very superficial and cursory nature. The inspection ought to be carried out by qualified personnel who are able to indicate in their reports the exact physical conditions of the vehicles. They should be able to point out with exactitude the damage suffered by the vehicles as a result of the impact. The mechanical inspection report should indicate all the telltale signs of the collision such as the paint of one vehicle rubbing off on the other. It should also indicate as to whether the vehicles were mechanically sound or not prior to the impact so as to enable the court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the collision took place due to human rashness or negligence or mechanical failure beyond human control. 13.3. As a rule, photographs ought to be taken not only of the vehicles involved in the collision but also of the site and surrounding areas so that the exact topography can be easily discerned by courts.
13.4. The prevalent weather conditions must be noted by the investigating officer. This would go to establish as to whether the road was slippery due to rain; whether there was poor visibility due to fog or mist etc. 13.5. Furthermore, the path of movement of the vehicles must be sought to be established in the course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt as in the present case. 13.6. The drivers of the vehicle involved must also be subjected to tests to reveal whether they had consumed any intoxicants. 13.7. Proper investigation of such accidents would go a long way in aiding the criminal justice system in convicting those who are guilty and acquitting those who are innocent. A shoddy investigation will only point in one direction and that is in the acquittal of all whether they are guilty or whether they are innocent. Because, no criminal court would (and ought not to) convict any person merely on the basis of conjectures, assumptions, probabilities. All elements of subjectivity need to be eliminated and the investigation should be such that, when a charge sheet is filed, the court is presented with a case which when Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 17 of 23 15:31:59 +0530 taken objectively would lead to the inescapable conclusion that a conviction is maintainable.
19. The site plan so placed on record is neither scaled site plan nor is proved by the prosecution. Furthermore, no photographs of the surrounding sites has been taken and placed on record by IO. As such the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that alleged accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of accused."
33. Therefore, it is clear that the site plan is not prepared as per the guidelines and it is nowhere highlighting the correct state of affairs of the accident in question. Neither the site plan was inspected for any skid marks nor the same mentions the exact location of the bench and the tree where the offending vehicle was found after the incident. Although the copy of photographs showcasing the offending bus with its registration number found in damages condition near the tree and the benches was filed alongwith charge-sheet. However, the said photographs were not tendered in evidence. The site plan further does not mention the distance of those benches from the bus stand as mentioned by the injured persons.
34. The shortcomings in the investigation conducted by the IOs cannot jeopardize the testimony of the injured person if found credible. After careful perusal of the testimonies as mentioned above, it is crystal clear that accused was driving his vehicle in a manner which would clearly amount to rash driving. Rashness has been established against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is also established that the accused was negligent for not taking the reasonable care towards his surroundings. The fact the accused was driving the offending bus in such a manner that the bus end up hitting two benches kept on the side of the road makes it evident that the same was not being driven in a careful way. The fact that accused was driving a public bus imposes a Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 18 of 23 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.01 15:32:04 +0530 higher responsibility upon him to exercise exceptional care, vigilance and adherence to traffic rules. The driver of such public transport vehicles owes a higher responsibility and obligations to public safety than that of ordinary private vehicle drivers as even minor negligence can endanger multiple lives who are occupants of such public vehicles.
35. Negligent act means failure to take proper care and precautions jeopardizing the lives of other persons. It means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affair would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one, it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the Court.
36. It is amply clear from the above, that the rash or negligent driving has to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of the given case. In fact, it is incapable of being construed or seen in isolation, it must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result.
Likewise in the instant case, keeping in view the testimony of PW1 and PW2, who are independent public persons being injured in the incident in question, it is crystal clear that the Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 19 of 23 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.01 15:32:10 +0530 accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Singh Versus The State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2015, wherein it was held that, "As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eye witness provided, he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise."
37. In these circumstances, based on the testimony of PW1 and PW2, which are not only reliable but also inspires confidence, rash and negligent act of driving of the offending vehicle by the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
38. The ocular testimony of the prime witnesses PW1 and PW2 finds corroboration from the photographs of the spot showcasing the exact state in which the offending vehicle was found.
39. Although PW1 and PW2 have compounded the matter with the accused qua offences u/S 337/338 IPC. However, one fact which cannot be lost sight of is that Section 279 IPC is non-
compoundable and such an Act is criminal for the reason that is affects all the users of the road.
40. Ld. defence counsel submits that there are major contradictions and discrepancies in the investigation and thereby the testimony of injured witness cannot be relied upon as accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. As far as the contention of Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 20 of 23 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 15:32:15 +0530 the counsel for accused that there are certain discrepancies in the testimony of PWs, here it needs to be highlighted that that minor discrepancies on trivial matter not touching the core of the matter cannot bring discredit to the story of the prosecution. Giving undue importance to them would amount to adopting a hyper- technical approach. It has been held in Thoti Manoher Vs. State of A.P. (2012) 7, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, while appreciating the evidence, Court should not attach much significance to minor discrepancies, for the discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case are to be ignored. Giving undue importance to them would amount to adopting a hyper-technical approach.
41. Based upon the above discussion, it is clear that ocular evidence of eye witness finds corroboration from mechanical inspection report and the site plan. There are no reasons to doubt the testimony of PW1 and PW2. Accused is not alleging any enemy ill will or grudge against complainant. And for the same reason, the testimony of PW1 and PW2 cannot be doubted irrespective of the fact that they compounded the matter with accused person. The court does not countenance with the counsel for accused as not every defect in conducting investigation by IO is necessarily fatal to prosecution case if such irregularity is not material in light of there being other cogent evidence on record. Else, criminal trial would be relegated to IO ruling the roost. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnel Singh Vs. State of M.P. 1995(5) SCC 518 :
"5. Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the nature of investigation, we have to consider whether the evidence on record, even on strict scrutiny, establishes the guilt. In cases of defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 21 of 23 15:32:20 +0530 evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. Any investigating officer, in fairness to the prosecutrix as well as the accused, would have recorded the statements the statements of the two witnesses and would have drawn up a proper seizure memo in regard to the `Chaddi'. That is the reason why we have said that the investigation was slip shod and defective.
We must admit that the defective investigation gave us some anxious moments and we were at first blush inclined to think that the accused was prejudiced. But on closer scrutiny we have reason to think that the loopholes in the investigation were left to help the accused at the cost of the poor prosecutrix, a labourer. To acquit solely on that ground would be adding insult to injury."
42. Also as held in Nirmal Singh and Another vs. State of Bihar AIR 2005 SC 1265: 2004 AIR SCW 6717: 2005 Crl. L.J. 672: 2005 (9) SCC725: 2005 SCC(Cri) 1461, cogent evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected on account of the failure of the investigating officer to send blood-stained cloth (wrapped around the wound) for chemical examination. Also as held in Paramjit Singh alias Mithu Singh vs. State of Punjab Through Secretary (Home) AIR 2008 SC 441: 2007 (13) SCC530: Mere defective investigation cannot vitiate the trial.
43. In the present case, lapses in investigation should not help the accused when otherwise the facts are well-established by the witnesses to the incident. The conduct of the accused can irresistibly be called as rash and negligent, and of such form as to attract penalty in criminal law. The loopholes pointed out by accused are not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case. Accordingly, offences under section 279 IPC stands proved.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 22 of 23 15:32:24 +0530 CONCLUSION
44. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution evidence, both oral and documentary, including the surrounding circumstances leads to only conclusion that the incident could not have happened but for the fault of the accused only. The prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubts all the basic ingredients of the offence of Section 279 IPC
45. Thus, it is held that that accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life and resultantly, the Accused Pawan Kumar is thus, convicted of the offence u/s 279 IPC.
46. Let the convict be heard separately on the quantum of sentence. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
ABHINAV
on 01.05.2025 in the presence AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.05.01
15:32:30
of the accused. +0530
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/01.05.2025
Note:- This judgment contains 23 pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.01 15:32:36 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/01.05.2025 FIR No.231/2022, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Pawan Kumar Page 23 of 23