Delhi District Court
State vs Prem Pal on 1 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS.AMBIKA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
FIR No. 255/05
State V/s Prem Pal
U/S 279/304 A IPC.
PS Civil Lines
CC No. 637/2C
U. ID No.0240IR1214342005
Date of Institution : 24.12.2005
Date of commission of offence : 14.08.2005
Name of the complainant : Const. Chetan Kumar
Name and address of accused : Prempal, S/o Sh. Moolchand, R/o
RZ/D3180, Gali No.9, Mahavir
Enclave, Delhi.
Offence charged with : 279/304 A IPC.
Plea of guilt : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Convicted
Date on which order has been reserved : 01.12.2015
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 01.12.2015
JUDGMENT
1 The Prosecution has filed the charge sheet against the accused Prem Pal, S/o Sh. Moolchand for the offences punishable u/s 279/304-A IPC. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 1/17 That on 14.08.2005 at about 2.30 PM, at Red Light Point, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines , Delhi the accused was driving the Bus No. DL1P B-5278 in a manner so rash or negligent, so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving in the said manner, suddenly applied brakes, due to which one lady namely Mumtaz Begam, who was standing at rear gate, fell down and sustained injuries and died and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 279/304-A IPC.
2 After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences u/s 279/304 A IPC. Notice u/s 279/304 A IPC was served upon the accused on 21.05.2007, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 Prosecution examined the following witnesses in support of its case:-
4 PW-1 HC Braham Pal Singh deposed that on 14.08.2005 he was working as duty officer. On that day, at about 7.50 PM he had received a rukka from Const. Devender Kumar, sent by ASI Kishan Chand, for registration of the case, on the basis of which he had recorded the FIR of the present case and proved the carbon copy of the same as Exh. PW1/A. He also made an endorsement on the rukka which is Exh. PW1/B. 5 PW-2 Sh. Tara Chand deposed that he was posted as Post Mortem Attendant at Subzi Mandi Mortuary and on 14.08.2005 police had brought a dead body of a lady, whose name was not known and had kept the same at Mortuary under the supervision and care of Const. Devender. The belongings of the dead body including two currency notes of 500/- of Bangladesh and one currency note of Rs. 100/- and one currency note of USA alongwith two bangles, one nose pin and other articles were sealed in a cloth pullanda by the IO with the seal of KS.
FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 2/17 6 PW-3 Dr. Akash Jhanjee deposed that on 21.08.2005 he was posted as
Jr. Specialist, Forensic Medicine at Subzi Mandi, Mortuary, Delhi. On that day at about 11.30 AM he had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Mumtaz Begum, w/o Hazi Qubir Ahmed, aged about 40 years, brought by ASI Kishan Singh, P.S. Civil Lines and after completing the postmortem examination, he gave cause of death as "Craniocerebral damage"
consequent to blunt force impact to the head. All injuries were ante mortem in nature and fresh in duration. He proved his detailed postmortem report No. 1234/05 as Exh. PW3/A. 7 PW-4 Const. Chetan Kumar deposed that on 14.08.2005 he was posted as Constable at PS Civil Lines, Delhi. On that day, he was on duty at Boulvard Road and at about 2.30 PM he reached at Red Light Point, Tis Hazari Court and saw that one bus bearing registration no. DL1P B-5278 of route no. 721, which was being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner, came there from the side of ISBT and as the bus reached near Red Light, the accused suddenly applied the brake of the bus, due to which one lady who was traveling in the said bus, fell down from the rear gate. The lady sustained injuries and she was shifted to hospital by conductor of the bus. The name of the driver of the bus was revealed later on as Prempal. He correctly identified the accused as present in the Court that day. The accident had taken place due to the negligent driving of the accused. Const. Devender and ASI Kishan Singh came at the spot from police station. The accused was apprehended by him at the spot itself and was handed over to the IO ASI Kishan Singh. IO also recorded his detailed statement regarding the accident which is Exh. PW4/A and prepared the rukka at his instance and got the case registered through Const. Devender. After registration of the case, Const. Devender Kumar came back to the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to the IO. IO prepared the FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 3/17 site plan and seized the offending bus vide memo Exh. PW4/B. The accused was arrested in his presence vide memo Exh. PW4/C and his personal search was got conducted vide memo Exh. PW4/D. The photocopy of the DL of accused was seized vide seizure memo Exh. PW4/E while the seizure memo of the photocopy of RC and insurance of the Bus is Exh. PW4/F. 8 PW-5 Sh. Yogesh deposed that on 14.08.2005 he was working as Conductor on bus No. DL1P B-5278 and the accused present in the Court that day, namely Prem Pal was the driver. On that day, after boarding the passengers from the Bus Terminal ISBT, they were going to Mangla Puri. When the bus started moving from ISBT, the accused was driving the vehicle in a normal way and when the bus reached at Tis Hazari, due to red light, the driver stopped the bus. In the meanwhile, some passengers tried to board at the red light including the deceased of this case and when there was a green light, the accused drove the bus and in this process the passenger namely Mumtaz Begum, who was boarding the bus, fell down and sustained injuries. The injured was shifted by him to St. Stephen's Hospital. Later on, his statement was recorded by the IO in this respect. He could not say as to whose negligence the accident had occurred.
9 PW-6 Retd. ASI/Tech. Devender Kumar deposed that on 15.08.2005 he was posted as ASI/Technical at MT Workshop, North-West District. On that day, on the request of IO of this case, he had mechanically inspected the Bus No. DL1P B-5278 in the police station Sadar Bazar and proved his detailed report in this respect as Exh. PW6/A. The vehicle was found fit for road test.
10 PW-7 SI Kishan Singh deposed that on 14.08.2005 he was posted as ASI at PS. Civil Lines. On that day, he was performing emergency duty from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM. On receipt of DD No. 23-A which is Exh. PW7/D, regarding an FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 4/17 accident, he alongwith Const. Devender reached at St. Stephen Hospital and collected MLC No. 381/05 of an unknown, on which doctor had opined as "brought dead". Thereafter, they went to the spot i.e in front of Tis Hazari Court Red Light, Delhi where they met with Const. Chetan and the offending bus bearing no. DL1P B-5278 was also there. The accused Prempal was also present at the spot. He recorded the statement of Const. Chetan Exh. PW4/A and prepared a rukka and sent the same to PS for registration of FIR through Const. Devender. His endorsement on the rukka is Exh. PW7/A. At the instance of the complainant, he had prepared the site plan Exh PW7/B. After registration of FIR Const. Devender came back to the spot with the original rukka and copy of FIR. Thereafter, he seized the offending bus vide seizure memo Exh. PW 4/B. The spot was photographed by a private photographer. He proved three negatives, two passport size photographs and 10 photographs of the offending bus and the deceased as Exh. P-X (collectively). He also seized the color copy of DL of the accused, RC and insurance certificate (both photocopies) vide memo Exh PW4/E and Ex. PW4/F. Accused was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Exh. PW4/C. Personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo Exh. PW4/D. Thereafter, he had deposited the dead body in the Mortuary, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. In the mortuary some papers and some currency notes of Rs.500/- of Bangladesh country, two bangles and one nose pin etc. were handed over to him by Sweeper of Mortuary, which were seized vide memo Exh. PW7/E. As the deceased was the citizen of Bangladesh, information regarding this was sent to concerned Embassy. Case property was deposited with Maalkhana. Accused was released on bail. Next day, he got the offending bus mechanically examined vide memo Exh. PW6/A. On 20.08.2005 the deceased was identified as Mumtaz Begum by the relatives. On 21.08.2005 he got the postmortem done vide PM report Exh. PW3/A. The dead body was handed over to her relatives. He also proved the departure DD entry No. 20B dated 14.08.2005 of Const. Chetan as Exh PW7/C. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 5/17 sheet in the Court.
11 PW-8 Dr. Vijay Kataria deposed that on 14.08.2005 MLC bearing No. 381/5 with hospital No. 825094 of patient unknown brought by Yogesh, R/o 173, PartII, Mahavir Enclave, Delhi and proved the MLC as Exh. PW8/A, which was prepared by Dr. Sanjay Kalra, which bears the signatures of Dr. Sanjay Kalra at point A. Dr. Sanjay Kalra had left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known. He identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Sanjay Kalra as he had worked under his supervision.
12 After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused u/s 313 was recorded by the court. The accused claimed false implication in the case. However, he chose not to lead any defence evidence.
13 I have heard the Ld.APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully. For ready reference the relevant sections are reproduced herein below:-
Section 279 IPC reads as under:-
" Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Section 304 A IPC reads as under:-
"Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 6/17 homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both."
14 To secure the conviction in a vehicular accident case, the prosecution has to prove all the following ingredients beyond reasonable doubt:-
A)That an accident was caused with a particular vehicle.
B)That accused was driving that particular vehicle
which caused the accident.
C) That accident had taken place due to rash or
negligent driving of accused facing trial in the
Court.
D) The injury suffered by an injured or death of
deceased was the direct result and consequence of
that accident.
15 On the facts and circumstances of the case, all the above mentioned
ingredients are inter connected and inter related and hence, they are being taken up together and are being disposed off jointly.
16 As far as ingredients no. A and B as mentioned in the paragraph no. 14 of the judgment is concerned, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the case accident was caused by the offending Bus bearing no. DL-1PB-5278 and that the accused was driving the said bus at the time of accident. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C the accused has taken the stand that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. PW-4 Chetan Kumar and PW-5 Yogesh are the main eye-witness to the present case.
FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 7/17 PW-4 Ct. Chetan has deposed that on 14.08.2005, he was present on duty at Boulevard Road and at about 2.30 pm, near Red light Tis Hazari Court, he saw one bus bearing registration no. DL-1PB-5278 of route no. 721 which was driven by the accused and also deposed that the driver of the bus was present in the court that day, whose name was revealed later on as Prem Pal. It is further deposed by PW-4 Ct. Chetan that accused was apprehended by him at the spot and handed over the accused to ASI Kishan Singh. PW-5 Yogesh has deposed that he was working as conductor of bus bearing no. DL-1PB-5278 and the accused who is present in the court that day, was the driver of the offending bus. PW-7 SI Krishan Singh has also corroborated that when he met with PW-4 Ct. Chetan, accused Prempal was also present.
17. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved ingredient no. A and B as mentioned in paragraph no. 14 to the effect that the accused was driving the offending bus bearing registration no. DL-1PB-5278 at the time of accident.
18. As far as ingredient "D" is concerned, the prosecution has to prove that the death of deceased Mumtaz Begum was the direct result and consequence of the case accident. PW-3 Dr. Akash Jhanjee has proved the postmortem report no. 1234/05 of the deceased as Exh. PW3/A and deposed that the cause of death was Craiocerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact. and all the injuries were ante mortem and fresh in duration. Post mortem report consistent with road traffic accident. In view thereof, the prosecution has proved ingredient no. D to the effect that death of deceased Mumtaz Begum was the direct result and consequence of the case accident.
19. The prosecution has also to prove the ingredient no. C that the death of the deceased Mumtaz was direct result and consequence of rash or negligent FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 8/17 driving of the offending vehicle by the accused.
20. PW-4 Ct. Chetan and PW-5 Yogesh are main eye-witnesses to the present case. PW-4 Ct. Chetan has deposed that the accused was driving the bus bearing no. DL-1PB-5278 in rash and negligent manner and he came from the ISBT side and he suddenly applied break due to which one lady who was travelling in the bus, fell down from the rear gate. He further deposed that accident had taken place due to the negligent driving of the accused. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he did not see woman falling from the bus. He further denied the suggestion that accused has falsely implicated in the present case.
21. PW-5 Yogesh has deposed that accused Prempal was driving bus bearing no. DL-1PB-5278 on the date of incident and after boarding the passengers from the ISBT, they were going to Manglapuri and accused was driving the bus in normal way and when they reached at the red light, Tis Hazari Court, driver had stopped the bus due to red light and in the meanwhile, some passengers tried to board at the red light including the deceased of this case and when there was green light, accused drove the bus and in this process the passenger namely Mumtaz who was boarding the bus, fell down and sustained injuries. Further he deposed that he can not say due to whose negligence, the accident had occurred. He was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the state and denied the suggestion that in his statement to the police, he stated that accused was driving the offending bus in rash and negligent and at fast speed.
22. Let us first examine as to what amounts to rashness or negligence. In the case titled Ram Avtar V. State of Rajasthan, it was held in para 6 and 8 "6. Thus the essential ingredient for offence under Section 279 IPC is that the vehicle should be driven in "rash and negligent manner". The concept of FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 9/17 rashness and negligence is borrowed from the law of tort into the criminal law. But in criminal law for rashness the criminality lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness or indifference to consequences. On the other hand , criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted (Ref. To AIR 1944 Lah. 163) . Hence, the prosecution has to prove the existence of these two elements to bring home the offence under Section 279 IPC. However, the mere fact that accused was driving vehicle at high speed may not attract provision of Section 279 IPC. For speed of a vehicle is not always determinative of the question whether vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. One has to consider the surrounding circumstance of the case to conclude whether the driving was done in rash and negligent manner or not?
"8 In the case of Badri Prasad Tiwari Vs The State (1984) ACC 476: 1994 Cri LJ 389 (Ori), the Hon'ble Orissa High Court has held that " in order to constitute an offence under Section 279 IPC, it must be established that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or to likely cause hurt or injury to any other person". The Hon'ble High Court further held, " in the case, I find that except a bare statement made by PW 2 that the vehicle was being driven in a high speed, no attempt has been made to establish that there was any rash and /or negligent act on the part of the driver." Therefore, the Hon'ble Orissa High Court was pleased to acquit the accused person. Similarly, in the case of Bbeda Kanta Phukan Vs The State of Assam, 1992 Cri. LJ 1197 (Gau) the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has held that merely because the accused was driving the vehicle at a high speed may not attract provisions of Section 279."
Also in Keshav V State of Haryana, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 10/17 Court, held:
"............In support of the first arguments, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon State of Karnataka V Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493. Para 4 of the Cri. Revision No 922 of 1998 (4) judgment reads as under:-
"4 Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High Speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur:"............
23. Now reverting back to the facts of the present case. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused acted in rash or negligent manner and in fast speed and caused the death of Mumtaz Begum. PW-4 Ct. Chetan has deposed emphatically on oath that the accused was driving the bus bearing no. DL-1PB-5278 in rash and negligent manner and accident has happened because of that. Further, accused had suddenly applied break due to which one lady who was traveling in the bus, fell down from the rear gate.
24. Ld. Counsel of defense has argued that the version of PW-5 Yogesh is FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 11/17 correct and PW-4 Ct. Chetan being the police official, is planted witness. There are number of judgment in which it has been held that the testimony of police witness is equal footing with the testimony of any other public witness, if testimony is clear, coherent and reliable. To substantiate my view, I would like to refer to the following judgment of the Supreme Court of India. In State Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and another (2001) 1 SCC 652, it has been observed:
"In this context we may point out that there is no requirement either under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to obtain signature of independent witnesses on the record in which statement of an accused is written. The legal obligation to call independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the exercise made by the police is cast on the police officer when searches are made under Chapter VII of the Code. Section 100(5) of the Code requires that such search shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found, shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses. It must be remembered that search is made to find outa thing or document which the searching officer has no prior idea where the thing or document is kept. He prowls for it either on reasonable suspicion or on some guess work that it could possibly be ferreted out in such prowling. It is a stark reality that during searches the team which conducts search would have to meddle with lots of other articles and documents also and in such process many such articles or documents are likely to be displaced or even strewn helter- skelter. The legislative idea in insisting on such searches to be made in the presence of two independent inhabitants of the locality is to ensure the safety of all such articles meddled with and to protect the rights of the persons entitled thereto. But, recovery of an object pursuant to the FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 12/17 information supplied by an accused in custody is different from the searching endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code. This Court has indicated the difference between the two processes in the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & anr. Vs. S. Sardar Ali & Ors. (1983 SC 1225). Following observations of Chinnappa Reddy J. can be used to support the said legal proposition: Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which reference was made by the counsel deals with searches and not seizures. In the very nature of things when property is seized and not recovered during a search, it is not possible to comply with the provisions of sub-section (4) and (5) of section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of a seizure [under the Motor Vehicles Act], there is no provision for preparing a list of the things seized in the course of the seizure for the obvious reason that all those things are seized not separately but as part of vehicle itself. Hence, it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the investigating officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be attested by independent witnesses. Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any articles it is open to the investigating officer to take the signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But, if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, if is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The Court has to consider the evidence of the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth.
We fell that it is in archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 13/17 notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the legislature. Hence, when a police officer gives evidence in Court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the Court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the Court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the Court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But, it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions."
It is abundantly clear from the abovesaid judgment that there is no rule of law which enjoins upon the Court not to rely upon the testimony of the police officials in the absence of any independent/public witness. The only concern is to be more cautious and circumspect before placing any reliance on their testimonies. In other words, their testimony is to be subjected to careful scrutinization and assessment as compared to the testimony of any other public person. On the touchstone of these principles, I am of the considered opinion FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 14/17 that in the instant case, there is no ground not to believe the testimonies of all the police personnels.
25. The testimony of PW-4 Ct. Chetan is clear and inspires the confidence of the court as PW-7 SI Krishan Singh has also deposed that when he reached at the spot, he found the PW-4 Ct. Chetan and the accused at the spot itself. Had PW-4 Ct. Chetan been the planted witness then, PW-7 SI Krishan Chand would not have found him at the spot. PW-4 Ct. Chetan has deposed empathetically on oath that accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent and accident has occurred because accused had suddenly applied break resultantly the deceased fell off from the rear gate. His testimony is clear, coherent and reliable. Therefore, reliance can be based upon his testimony.
26. As I have discussed earlier, Ld. Defence counsel has argued that it is the deceased herself who is at fault as she off from the rear gate. It has also been argued that the version of PW-5 is correct. PW-5 Yogesh has deposed that accused was driving the offending vehicle in normal way and due to red light, driver had stopped the bus and in the meanwhile some passengers tried to board at the red light including the deceased and when there was green light, the accused drove the bus and in this process deceased Mumtaz who was boarding the bus, fell down and sustained injuries.
27. PW-5 Yogesh is the conductor of the bus and possibility of him being won over by the accused can not be ruled out. Even if, we take into consideration the fact that the deceased was boarding the bus from the red light and the accused started the bus due to which the deceased fell on road. Then, also it points at the rash or negligence driving of the accused as he being the driver of the public transport vehicle, he should have been more careful of the passengers who were boarding the bus or who were standing at the gate of the bus. Side mirrors in FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 15/17 the bus are for this purpose only. It is of common knowledge that in India, people board/deboard buses on red light as PW-4 Ct. Chetan has deposed empathetically on oath that the accused has suddenly applied the break of the bus due to which lady who was travelling in the bus has fallen down from the rear gate.
28. 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. In a given case, even not doing that one ought to do can constitute negligence.
29. It is amply clear from the above that rash or negligent driving has to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. If fact 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 PW-4 Ct. Chetan Kumar, it is crystal clear that the accused was driving the offending truck in a rash manner as he suddenly applied break due to which the deceased Mumtaz fell down from the rear gate of the bus. His act was also negligent towards the passenger/deceased who was standing on the gate as he ought to have taken FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 16/17 care of the passengers who was standing on the rear gate.
30. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has taken the stand that all the PWs are interested witnesses and their testimony cannot be believed. However, no motive has been brought on record as to why the PWs would falsely implicated the accused. Absolutely nothing has been brought on record to discredit the testimony of the PWs. Therefore, reliance can be placed upon their testimonies.
31. Hence, in view of the above said discussion, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that all four ingredients as mentioned in paragraph No 14 of the judgment to the effect that the accused while driving the offending vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration no. DL-1PB-5278 in rash or negligent manner and he suddenly applied break due to which the deceased Mumtaz fell down from the rear gate of the bus, causing her death, which is direct result and consequence of the case accident, making the accused liable for conviction u/s 279/304 A IPC. Consequently, accused Prem Pal is convicted for the offences punishable u/s 279/304 A IPC.
Announced in the open court Today on 1st December, 2015 (Ambika Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate-06 Central District : Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 17/17 FIR No.: 255/05 P.S.: Civil Lines 01.12.2015 Present: Ld APP for the state.
Accused with counsel.
Vide separate judgment of even date, accused Prem Pal is convicted for the offence u/s 279/304-A IPC.
Put up for arguments on point of sentence on 15.12.2015.
(AMBIKA SINGH)
MM-06(C)/THC/Delhi
01.12.2015
FIR No. 255/05 State Vs Prem Pal 18/17