Delhi District Court
State vs . Krishan on 3 December, 2012
Page 1 of 10
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI BAGHA: MM, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. KRISHAN
FIR NO. : 324/2001
P.S. : Tilak Marg
U/Sec. : 279/337/338 IPC
JUDGMENT :
a) Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution : 636/1 & 06.06.2002
b) Date of commission of offence : 11.08.2001
c) Name of the complainant : State through Mohd. Tahir
d) Name of the accused : Krishan S/o Banwari Lal R/o Village Atail, P.S. Sampla, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana.
e) Nature of offence complained of : U/Sec.279/337/338 IPC f) Plea of the accused person : Accused pleaded not guilty g) Date reserved for order : 20.11.2012 h) Final Order : Convicted i) Date of order : 03.12.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. In brief the accused Krishan is facing trial for offences punishable U/Sec.
279/337/338 IPC on the allegations that on 11.08.2001 at about 7.15 a.m. at C Hexagon, Tilak Marg in front of Patiala House Court, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Tilak Marg, he was driving a bus bearing no. DL1PA5037 so State Vs. Krishan FIR No. 324/01 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 2 of 10 rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so, he hit the bus against a tree and caused simple injuries to passengers namely Satish, Shibu Mathur, Mohd. Tahir, Krishanan and A.S. Bist and caused grievous injuries to Mahesh Rana.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. After supplying the copies to the accused U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., a notice U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused on 30.07.2002 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279/337/338 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution had cited 16 witnesses, out of which 13 witnesses were examined.
4. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 14.02.2012 in which he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. He said that it is a false case and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He said that he was driving the vehicle in normal speed and in order to save a pedestrian who suddenly came in front of the vehicle, he took sharp turn which resulted into accident. However, he opted for not leading any evidence in his defence.
5. I have heard the final arguments from Ld. APP Sh. Honey Goel and perused the record. Since the defence counsel did not appear to address arguments, so, liberty was granted to him to address final arguments on or before the date of order, but despite that no arguments are addressed till today.
6. Let us first examine the evidence led by the prosecution. The first witness of the State Vs. Krishan FIR No. 324/01 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 3 of 10 prosecution i.e. PW1 is A.S.I. Chandu Lal who deposed that on 11.08.2001 he was posted as Duty Officer at P.S. tilak Marg from 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and at about 9.25 a.m. Ct. Rajesh came with rukka, sent by A.S.I. Pratap Singh, on the basis of which he recorded FIR No.324/2001 i.e. Ex.PW1/A.
7. PW2 is Dr. U.S. Yadav, Sr. Resident Ortho Department, RML Hospital who deposed that on 11.08.2001 he was working as Sr. Resident in Ortho Department of RML Hospital and had given opinion on MLCs i.e. Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B of injured Mahesh Rana and Krishan as grievous and simple injuries respectively.
8. PW3 is T.U. Siddiqui, a Mechanical Inspector, who deposed that on 11.08.2001, at the request of the I.O., he mechanically examined the vehicle bearing no. DL1PA5037 and gave his report Ex.PW3/A.
9. PW4 is Ct. Rajesh who deposed that on 11.08.2001 he was posted at P.S Tilak Marg and on the same day on receipt of DD No. 2A at about 7.15 a.m., he alongwith A.S.I. Pratap Singh went to the spot i.e. outside the Patiala House Court and found that one bus bearing no. DL1PA5037 had struck against one tree. He further deposed that the injured persons including the driver were already removed to the RML Hospital and while leaving him at the spot, the I.O. went to the hospital and came back to the spot after some time with driver i.e. the accused and handed over him one rukka and he went to police station and got the FIR registered and came back on the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and rukka. He further deposed that the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/C and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/D and his driving licence was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B and State Vs. Krishan FIR No. 324/01 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 4 of 10 the offending bus was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A
10. PW5 is injured A.S. Bisht who deposed that on 11.08.2001 he was working in RRC Ghtornie and on that day he had boarded a bus bearing no. DL1PA5037 which was being driven by accused Krishan in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed which met with an accident at CHexagon, Tilak Marg near India Gate Outer Circle. He further deposed that he had compromised the case with the accused and therefore did not want to say anything else. He was cross examined by the Ld. APP on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement recorded U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. In his crossexamination by the Ld. APP he denied the suggestion that he was not telling about the injuries sustained by him deliberately because he had compromised with the accused. The witness was not crossexamined by or on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity for the same.
11. PW6 is Satish Kumar who deposed that on 11.08.2001 at about 7.15 a.m. he boarded a bus of route no. 502 from Adichini for going to Purani Delhi Railway Station and when the bus reached in front of Patiala House Court, two persons came on a cycle and to save them, the bus hit with the tree. He deposed that the accused was not responsible for causing accident. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. APP on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement. During his crossexamination by the Ld. APP, he denied the whole statement Ex.PW6/A and also denied the suggestion of the Ld. APP that the accused was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and that when he overtook another bus, his bus hit with a tree. He denied the suggestion that he State Vs. Krishan FIR No. 324/01 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 5 of 10 was deposing falsely because he had compromised with the accused.
12. PW7 is Mahesh Rana who deposed that on 11.08.2001 at about 7.15 a.m. he boarded a bus of route no. 502 from J.K. House for going to Purani Delhi Railway Station and when the bus reached in front of Patiala House Court, two persons came on a cycle and to save them, the bus hit with the tree. He deposed that the accused was not responsible for causing accident. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. APP on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement. During his crossexamination by the Ld. APP, he denied the whole statement Ex.PW7/A and also denied the suggestion of the Ld. APP that the accused was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and that when he overtook another bus, the bus hit with a tree. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely because he had compromised with the accused.
13. PW8 is Surender Singh, Record Clerk from RML Hospital who deposed that opinion on the MLC Ex.PW8/A of injured Satish Kumar was given by Dr. Rahul Sharma who had left the services of the hospital and his whereabouts were not known. He further deposed that he could identify the signatures of Dr. Rahul Sharma as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duty and accordingly he identified the signature of Dr. Rahul Sharma at point A on Ex.PW8/A. He further deposed that he had seen the report of Dr. V.K. Srivastava, (Radiologist) i.e. Ex.PW8/B who had opined that there was no bone injury as per record. He further deposed that Dr. V.K. Srivastava had retired from the services but he could identify his signature and writing as he had seen him writing and signing during his official duty and accordingly he identified signature State Vs. Krishan FIR No. 324/01 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 6 of 10 of Dr. V.K. Srivastava at point A on Ex.PW8/B.
14. PW9 is H.Ct Sant Lal who deposed that on 11.08.2001 he was posted as Photographer at Photo Section, P.S. Parliament Street and on that day he was called by the I.O. at India Gate Chambery in front of Patiala House Court where he took several photographs from different angles which are Ex.PW9/A8 to Ex.PW9/A14, the negatives of which are Ex.PW9/A1 to Ex.PW9/A7. During his crossexamination by the Defence Counsel, he said that he had reached the spot at about 10.3011.00 a.m. He denied the suggestion that neither he visited the spot nor taken any photograph.
15. PW10 is Nafe Singh who deposed that in the year 2001 Tara Chand was the registered owner of Bus bearing no. DL1PA5037 and he authorized him (PW10) to look after his bus which met with an accident in front of Patiala House Court in the month of August, 2001. He further deposed that a notice U/Sec.133 M.V. Act was served upon him by the I.O. and he gave reply in writing i.e. Ex.PW10/A to the I.O. that accused Krishan was driving the abovesaid bus at the time of accident. He further deposed that he obtained the bus on superdari vide superdaginama Ex.PW10/B. During his crossexamination by the defence counsel, he admitted it correct that he was not present in the bus at the time of accident.
16. PW11 is Deen Dayal, Record Clerk from RML Hospital who deposed that the MLCs Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C were prepared by Dr. Shyam Gopal and the opinions regarding nature of injuries on these MLCs were given by Dr. Punit as per which the nature of injury regarding MLC Ex.PW11/A is grievous State Vs. Krishan FIR No. 324/01 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 7 of 10 and the nature of injury is simple pertaining to MLCs Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C. He further deposed that both the doctors had left the services of the hospital and their whereabouts were not available with the hospital. However he deposed that he could identify the signatures of Dr. Shyam Gopal and Dr. Punit as he had seen them writing and signing during the course of his official duty and accordingly he identified the handwriting and signature of these doctors on the MLCs.
17. PW12 is injured Mohd.Tahir who deposed that on 11.08.2001 at about 7.50 a.m. he was travelling in a bus of route no. 502 bearing registration no. DL1PA5037 which was being driven by the accused Krishan rashly and negligently and while driving so, he hit against the tree near CHexagon, Tilak Marg near Patiala House Court, due to the impact of which many passengers received injuries including himself. He further deposed that he received injuries on his lips as the same were ruptured. However, he deposed that he had compromised the offence U/Sec.337 IPC with the accused.
18. PW13 is S.I. Pratap Singh who deposed that on 11.08.2001 he was posted as A.S.I. at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day on receipt of DD No.2A, he alongwith Ct. Rajesh went to the spot of occurrence where they found one bus bearing no. DL1PA5037 in accidental condition. He deposed that the driver and the injured were reportedly shifted to RML Hospital and while deputing Ct. Rajesh at the spot, he left for hospital where many injured were found and he recorded their statements. He further deposed that he got the FIR registered vide his endorsement Ex.PW13/A and prepared the site plan Ex.PW13/B at the instance of injured Mohd. Tahir. He further deposed that he seized the bus vide seizure State Vs. Krishan FIR No. 324/01 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 8 of 10 memo Ex.PW4/A and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW4/D. He further deposed that he collected the MLCs and got the mechanical inspection conducted and on completion of investigation, filed the chargesheet.
19. Ld. APP has argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused and he be punished U/Sec.279/337/338 IPC.
20. The accused has been booked in this case U/Sec.279/337/338 IPC. In order to prove offences U/Sec.279/337/338 IPC, there must be rash or negligent driving by the accused and the simple and grievous hurt must have been caused by the rash or negligent act of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle i.e. the bus bearing no. DL1PA5037 in rash or negligent manner and while driving so, when the bus reached near CHexagon, India Gate near Patiala House Court, for taking turn towards Tilak Marg, he hit the bus against one tree and caused simple injuries to passengers namely Satish, Shibu Mathur, Mohd. Tahir, Krishanan and A.S. Bist and caused grievous injuries to Mahesh Rana. For proving its case, the prosecution has examined four eyewitnesses i.e. the injured persons PW5, PW6, PW7, and PW12. Out of these eyewitnesses, PW6 and PW7 deposed that the accused was not responsible for the accident as the same had occurred because two persons came on a cycle and the accused tried to save them. But their testimony does not inspire confidence as their story seems to be concocted one because same is contradictory to the statement of accused given before the Court under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. wherein he had stated that he had took sharp turn in State Vs. Krishan FIR No. 324/01 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 9 of 10 order to save a pedestrian. The other two eyewitnesses i.e. PW5 and PW12 had categorically deposed that the driver of the offending bus i.e. the accused was driving rashly and negligently and in high speed and while driving so he hit the bus against a tree at CHexagon, Tilak Marg in front of Patiala House Court. They had correctly identified the accused in the Court. Though the PW5 and PW12 had categorically deposed that the accused was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and caused accident but none of these eye witnesses was crossexamined despite grant of opportunity for the same. It is settled law that if the opposite party fails to crossexamine or put any suggestion during crossexamination to the witness on a certain point, then the said party is deemed to have accepted the same as true. It is held by Hon. Supreme Court of India in Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3652, "It is a rule of essential justice that whenever opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his case in crossexamination, it must follow that evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted."
It is also held by Hon. High Court of Delhi in Satyendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Jitender Kudsia, 2005 DLT 498, "Sec.137 & 138 of Evidence Act - Crossexamination - If a witness is not crossexamined on a particular point, the opposite party must be deemed to have accepted truth of the statement."
Since in the present case, the accused has failed to crossexamine the eye State Vs. Krishan FIR No. 324/01 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 10 of 10 witnesses PW5 and PW12, so their testimony is deemed to be admitted by him. Thus it stands proved that the accused was driving rashly and negligently and in high speed the offending bus bearing no. DL1PA5037 at the time of accident and due to such rash and negligent driving he hit the bus against the tree and caused injuries to the passengers of the bus. As per the MLCs of injured persons i.e. Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW9/A the injuries caused were of simple and grievous nature. As per the report of the mechanical inspector i.e. Ex.PW5/A, both the front glasses and front head light panel of the offending bus were broken and there was fresh radiator damager, fresh bumper damage, fresh front body damage and the bus was not fit for road test after accident. Thus it is clear from the abovesaid analysis that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused. The accused has failed to lead any evidence in his defence. As the prosecution has proved its case, accordingly the accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 279/337/338 IPC.
(Announced in open
Court on 03.12.2012) (Navita Kumari)
MM, New Delhi
State Vs. Krishan
FIR No. 324/01
P.S. Tilak Marg
Page 11 of 10
FIR No. 324/01
U/Sec. 279/337/338 IPC
P.S. Tilak Marg
03.12.2012
Present : APP for state.
Accused in person.
Vide separate judgment the accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec.279/337/338 IPC.
Put up on 04.12.12 for arguments on sentence.
(Navita Kumari) MM/ND/03.12.12 State Vs. Krishan FIR No. 324/01 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 12 of 10 STATE VS. KRISHAN FIR No. 324/01 U/Sec. 279/337/338 IPC P.S. Tilak Marg 04.12.2012 Present: APP for State.
Accused in person.
Arguments heard on the point of sentence.
Ld. APP has prayed for maximum punishment to the convict. The convict, on the other hand, has prayed for taking lenient view by stating that he is not a previous convict and that he is the sole bread earner of his family and has responsibility of his family consisting of his old aged mother and father, wife and three children. The convict has further submitted that he had compromised the matter with the two injured persons and paid them compensation of Rs.1500/. The convict has undertaken not to repeat such offence in future. So, in view of these facts and circumstances, the convict is sentenced U/Sec.279 IPC to TRC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ in default simple imprisonment for 10 days and is sentenced U/Sec.337 IPC to pay fine of Rs.500/ in default simple imprisonment for 5 days and U/Sec.338 IPC to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ in default simple imprisonment for 10 days. Fine deposited vide receipt no. 0636803.
Fresh bail bond of accused U/Sec.437A Cr.P.C. is furnished and same is accepted. It will remain in force till six months from today.
File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of judgment and order be given to convict free of cost immediately.
(Navita Kumari) MM(ND)/04.12.2012 State Vs. Krishan FIR No. 324/01 P.S. Tilak Marg