Delhi District Court
State vs Puspender on 9 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHUJALI, JMFC01, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Pushpender
CNR No. DLNT020132142017
Case No 6379/17
FIR No. 359/17
PS: Narela
JUDGMENT
Date of Commission of offence 03.05.2017
Date of Institution of the case 29.11.2017
Name of complainant HC Gauri Shankar, No. 2979/RD
PS Narela
Name of accused, parentage & Pushpender S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand,
address R/o VPO Kanchan Pur, Geeror,
Distt. Mainpuri, UP
Offence complained of U/s 279/338 IPC
Plea of the accused Not guilty
Date of Judgment 09.09.2025
Final Order Acquitted
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 1 / 17
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 03.05.2017 at about 03:10 pm at HBlock, JP Dharam Kanta Road, Narela the accused was driving a Eitcher Container bearing registration no. HR69C0857 rashly and negligently in such a manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so the accused hit against a motorcycle bearing registration no. HR10S1757 from behind and caused grievous injuries to rider of the motorcyclist namely Rajinder and Ram Sharan and accused thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC. Hence an FIR was registered under Section 279/338 IPC. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed in the Court. The cognizance of the offence was taken and summon was issued to the accused. The copy of the chargesheet and the documents in compliance of Section 207 CrPC was supplied to the accused.
2. The charge was framed against the accused for offence punishable under Section 279/338 IPC on 13.07.2018 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fiXed for the prosecution evidence.
3. In Prosecution evidence, the Prosecution has eXamined 04 witnesses. The accused had admitted the genuineness of following documents DD no. 74B as ExA1, Copy of FIR No. 359/17 as ExA2, MLC No. 2538/17, 2539/17 and result thereon as ExA3 and Ex.A4, Manoj Rai owner of the offending vehicle and superdar Ex.B1, MHCM along with register no. 19 as Ex.B2, Mechanical Inspection Report as Ex.B3(colly) under Section 294 CrPC, and consequently the formal witnesses in the list of witnesses were dropped vide order dated 07.03.2019 and 18.01.2023. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses in a nutshell are as below:
FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 2 / 174. The PW 01, HC Gori Shankar (who was the complainant in the present matter ), deposed that on 03.05.2017, he was posted at PS Narela as HC. On that day, he received DD No. 74B and he alongwith Ct. Raghubir reached at HBlock near J.P Dharm Kanta, DSIIDC, Narela, where they found one motorcycle bearing registration no. HR 10S1757 (make Hero Honda Splendor) of black colour and one Eicher Container (goods carrier) bearing registration no. HR 69 C0857 in accidental condition and the motorcycle was lying beneath the said container. He inquired from the public persons present at the spot that the injured has already been taken to SRHC Hospital. Thereafter, he left with Ct. Raghubir at the spot and reached at SRHC Hospital where he received MLC no. 2539/17 of one Ram Sharan and MLC no. 2538/17 of Rajender but their statement could not be recorded as they were unfit to give any statement. Injured Ram Sharan was referred for other hospital for further treatment and injured Rajender himself shifted to some other hospital at Sonipat. No eye witness could be found at hospital and the abovesaid DD entry was kept pending. On 04.05.2017 the injured again could not give their statement. Thereafter, in the evening, he got registered the FIR after preparing tehrir which was Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Raghubir went to spot and prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, he seized both the vehicles vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C & Ex. PW1/D. Thereafter, he mechanically inspected both the vehicles. On 06.05.2017 he served notice U/s 133 M.V Act upon registered owner of offending vehicle i.e. Rajat Pulses Pvt. Ltd., the said notice is Ex. PW1/E. The registered owner had produced the driver of offending vehicle and documents of offending vehicle on 08.05.2017 who disclosed his name as Pushpender and it was stated by authorized representative Manoj Rai of the owner of offending vehicle that Pushpender was driving the offending vehicle on the date & time of the accident. Thereafter, accused Pushpender was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/F. Offence being bailable, accused was released on police bail. Thereafter, he recorded the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 3 / 17 witnesses on 09.05.2017. The offending vehicle was released by the Hon'ble Court on superdari. On 22.05.2017 injured Ram Saran visited the PS to inquire about the case, he recorded Ram Saran statement wherein he stated that on 03.05.2017 he alongwith Rajender were returning from DTC Depot where they are working as Driver, when they reached at HBlock, near J.P Dharm Kanta, DSIIDC, Narela then one Eicher Container in very high speed and negligently hit their motorcycle from its left side. He also stated that our motorcycle got struck beneath the truck and the driver got down from the truck & he picked the injured persons and he disclosed his name as Pushpender and after seeing them, he fled away from the spot. He took Ram Sharan to the spot where Ram Saran identified the place where the accident occurred. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of injured Rajender U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he received the opinion on MLC no. 2538/17 of injured Rajender on which the nature of injuries was opined as grievous, therefore, Section 338 IPC was added. Thereafter, the motorcycle of injured was released on superdari by the court. Thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the court. 09 photographs of the offending vehicle and motorcycle of injured taken from the spot by the witness himself were shown to the witness from the judicial file with the permission of the court. Witness correctly identified the same to be the photographs of offending vehicle and of motorcycle. The photographs were Ex. P1 to P9.
During cross examination by the defence counsel the witness PW1 stated that he received the information vide DD no. 74B. The spot of incident was public road and there were some public persons were present there. He had checked for CCTV cameras near the spot of incident, however, none were found present, the JP Dharamkanta was at some distance from the spot of incident. No notice was served to any public persons. There was no public person present at the hospital. He denied that no such accident had happened at the spot and the victim had fallen down from his motorcycle due to his own negligence. He denied that the victim was driving his motorcycle in speed at the spot of the incident which FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 4 / 17 was a mod(turn).
5. PW02 Rajender(who is one of the injured i.e. driver ) deposed that he was working in the DTC. On 03.05.2017 he along with Ram Sharan were going to their home on motorcycle at about between 3:20 to 3.30 PM. One Tampo bearing no. HR69C0857 came from the back in a rash and negligent manner and hit his motorcycle and they fell down on the road. He was driving the motorcycle. After hitting them the driver of the offending vehicle ran over to them. They sustained injuries due to it. The driver of the offending vehicle had run away from there after leaving the vehicle at the spot. They made call at 100 number and the police came and they were taken to the hospital and their medical treatment were conducted. He had seen the driver of the offending vehicle at the spot. He also call his family members and thereafter they were referred to GB Pant hospital.
During leading questions asked by Ld. APP for State he deposed that when they reached JP Dharam Kanta then at about 3.00PM the offending vehicle Echire Canter hit them. He admitted that the offending vehicle hit them in the back from the side of conductor.
During cross examination by the defence counsel the witness stated that the accident was took place at about 3.00 PM. He used to wake up at 4.00 AM in early morning and go to Narela DTC Bus, Depot, he also made arrival and departure at Narela DTC Bus, Depot. On the date of incident, he made arrival and departure entry. On the date of incident, he left the bus depot at about 7.00 AM in moming. He came back at the depot after done his duty after 8 hours. He parked the bus at about 2.50 PM at the Narela depot and after 10 minutes, he left the depot through bike and going towards the home at about 33.25 PM. He used to drive his bike at about 3040 km per hour. On the date of incident, he was driving his bike at 2530 km per house. The accident took place at about 56 minutes when he left the Narela Bus Depot. He was wearing the helmat at the time of accident. There were Speed FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 5 / 17 breaker on the place of incident. At this stage, the site plan which was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/B was shown to the witness with the permission of the Hon'ble Court from the judicial file. After seeing the same, witness replied speed breaker was mentioned in the site plan. The said plan was not prepared in his presence. Place of incident was not mentioned in the said site plan. One of the neighbour had dialed 100 number PCR call. There was a speed breaker at the time of incident. He denied that my accident that happened due to disbalance of my motorcycle on the speed breaker. He do not know the speed of the offending vehicle at the time of accident happened. The witness stated that, the accused was driving the offending vehicle in speed when he overtook his vehicle, however, near the spot of incident when he overtook the offending vehicle from left side it was having a bit slow speed. At the spot the accused ran away after hitting his vehicle, however, he have not clearly seen accused face. He had seen the accused for the first time on the first hearing of the court. There was some public person at the spot when the accident had happened and they had also helped him at the time, one of them had called the 100 number PCR. The offending vehicle tried to take over his bike from right side. He denied that he was riding the bike in a rash and negligent manner as well as in a very high speed.
6. PW 03 Ram Saran(who is one of the injured i.e. pillion rider), deposed that he was working in the DTC. On 03.05.2017 he along with Rajender were going to his home on motorcycle at about between 3.20 to 3.30 PM one Tampo bearing no. HR69C0857 came from the back in a rash and negligent manner and hit his motorcycle and they fell down on the road. He was sitting as a pillion rider on the motorcycle. After hitting them the driver of the offending vehicle ran over to them. They sustained injuries due to it. The driver of the offending vehicle had run away from there after leaving the vehicle at the spot. They made call at 100 number and the police came and they were taken to the hospital and their medical treatment were conducted. He had seen the driver of the offending vehicle at the FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 6 / 17 spot. He also call his family members and thereafter they were referred to GB Pant hospital. At this stage, photographs of the offending vehicle are shown to the witness and the witness correctly identified the same which was already EX. P1 to P9 Colly. At this stage, photographs of the damaged vehicle which was been driven by the Rajender, was shown to the witness and witness correctly identified by the witness which was EX. P10(colly).
During leading questiones asked by Ld. APP for State he deposed that when they reached JP Dharam Kanta then at about 3.00PM the offending vehicle Echire Canter hit them. He admitted that offending vehicle hit them in the back from the side of conductor. They had also tried to save themselves but the offending vehicle was been driven so rashly and negligently that it hit them.
During cross examination by the defence counsel PW3 deposed that at the time of accident, he was sitting behind the Rajender, who was driving the motorcycle bearing registration no. HR 10S 1757, make Splendor. The place where the accident was occurred was the twoway on a single road(there was no divider on said road). At the time of accident, he was not wearing the helmat. On the accident, the said road was not busy and there was no heavy traffic on the said road. At this stage, 161 CrPC statement was shown to the witness with the permission of the Hon'ble court from the judicial file is Mark'Y' and Mark A to A1 after seeing the same witness replied that the accident was occurred at Dharam Katta, HBlock, DSIIDC, Narela, Delhi. At this stage, site plan which was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/B was shown to the witness with the permission of the Hon'ble court from the judicial file. After seeing the same, witness replied he does not know whether the JP Dharam Kata was mentioned on the site plan or not. At the site plan was not prepared in his presence. He denied that where the accident was occurred i.e at 'Dharam Katta' was not mentioned on the site plan. He do not know who dialed 100 number PCR call on the date of incident. He became unconscious when he was bleeding. Police officials took him and his friend namely Rajender to the hospital for the medical treatment.
FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 7 / 17He do not remember on which date and place, police officials recorded his statement but he remembered police officials recorded his statement after twothree days of incident. He admitted that on the date of incident, he was not fit for the statement to police officials. Incident took place on 03.05.2017. When the accident was occurred, many people were gathered but he do not know who was the eyewitness in the present case.
7. PW 04 HC Raghubir deposed that on 03.05.2017, he was posted as a Constable at PS Narela. On that day, HC Gauri Shankar received DD no. 74B thereafter he along with HC Gauri Shankar reahced at spot near JP dharam Kanta DSIIIDC, narela where they found one motorcycle bearing regisration no. HR 10S 1757 make Hero Honda splendor of Black color and one eisher container goods carrier bearing no. HR 69C 0857 in accidental condition and the motocycle was lying beneathe the said container. They enquired form the public and it was revealed that the injuried had been taken to HRSC hospital. Thereafter, HC Garui shankar left the spot and proceed to the hospital. Thereafter, HC Gauri shankar came back to the spot. No eyewitness was found at the spot. Therefore, HC Gauri shankar kept the DD entry pending. On 04.05.2017, HC Gauri Shankar prepared a rukka on DD no. 74B and got the FIR register. Thereafer, he alongwith HC Gauri Shankar reached the spot and prepared the site plan. Thereafer, the vehicles were seized vide seizure memo already exhibited as PW1/C and PW1/D. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement which was read over to him. On 06.05.2017, he joined the invesigation in present FIR on the notice u/s 133 M.V Act served to the owner of the vehicle bearing no. HR 69C 0857, the owner Govind kumar Aggarwal produced the driver of the vehicle Pushpender S/o Rameshchand at PS. Thereafter, HC Gauri Shankar conducted inquiry/ investigation from pushpender. Thereafer, IO arrested the accused at PS in his presence vide arrest memo already exhibited as PWI/F. Thereafter, IO recoreded his statement which was also read over to him. At this stage 9 photograhs of the offending vehicle and the motocycle of injuried taken at the spot FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 8 / 17 was shown to the witness and witness had correctly identfied them. The same was already exhibied as P1P9 and exhibit P10(colly). At this stage photograhs of the offending vehiele released on superdari was also shown to the witness the same had been correctly identfied by the witness. The same was exhibited as P11 (colly).
During cross examination by the defence counsel he deposed that they reached at the spot at about 3.30 pm. They finally left the spot at about 5 pm. He admitted that when they reached at the spot public persons also gathered at the spot. IO did not record the statement of any public person in his presence. Public person told them that injured had already taken to the hospital. Motorcycle was lying near the conductor side of the canter i.e. offending vehicle. When they reached at the spot no one sitting in the canter.
8. After the Prosecution evidence was closed, the statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 17.02.2025 whereby the accused stated that he was innocent . The accused did not opt to lead the defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the accused and the State. Ld. APP submitted that Prosecution has been successful in proving guilt against accused beyond reasonable doubt.
9 Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that Prosecution failed to prove guilt against accused beyond reasonable doubt as the Prosecution has not been able to prove by way of clear evidence that the accused was driving the vehicle in question in a rash or negligent manner. He further argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued that the accused deserves to be acquitted in the present case.
APPRECIATION OF LAW.
10. In the present case, the accused has been charged for the offences U/s. 279/338 FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 9 / 17 IPC. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution was required to establish the following ingredients as mentioned U/s 279/338 IPC:
Section 279 IPC:
Rash driving or riding on a public way. 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 338 IPC:
Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
11. Thus, the Prosecution, by way of clear and cogent evidences, was required to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner, and owing to the act of the accused grievous injuries were caused to PW Rajinder and PW Ram Sharan. The Prosecution is also required to prove that the alleged vehicle in question was being driven on a public way. It is also not disputed that the alleged place of incident was a public place and the same stands established.
12. Under the Indian criminal jurisprudence an accused is presumed to be an innocent FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 10 / 17 until proven guilty. It is a settled law that the Prosecution has to stand on its own legs to substantiate the allegations as set out in the FIR. The Prosecution is also required to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The charge of accusation of offence of section 279/338 IPC cannot be imposed upon the accused merely on the basis of an accident. The Prosecution must prove by way of clear and reliable evidences that alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Thus, the witnesses are required to eXpound upon the manner in which the vehicle was being driven. The element of the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused is to be proved by leading cogent evidence to that effect.
13. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to understand as to what constitute the rash and negligent act in terms of the legally settled position. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 7 SCC 72 defined the term "rash and negligent driving". It was held that:
"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 recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to eXercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury 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 caution"
14. The ApeX Court while drawing the distinction between rash and negligent act in Bhalachandra Waman Pathe Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1968 FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 11 / 17 ACJ 38, has further held as under:
"An offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code may be committed either by doing a rash act or a negligent act. There is a distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. In the case of a rash act as observed by straight, J. in Idu Beg's case the criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. 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, which 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. Negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Again as eXplained in Nidamarti Negaghushanam's case, a culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not eX ercised the caution incumbent upon him and if he had he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of the civil duty of circumspection."
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCES.
FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 12 / 1715. To prove a case u/s. 279/338 IPC against the accused, the Prosecution was required to prove the following ingredients:
1. The identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle.
2. The factum of an accident having been caused by the offending vehicle.
3. The accident to be result of the rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place;
4. Grievous injury to have resulted to PW Rajinder and PW Ram Sharan from such rash and negligent act of the accused,
16. It is to be seen whether the Prosecution has been able to prove that the accused was driving the aforesaid vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner and that while doing so he caused grievous injury to have resulted to PW Rajinder and PW Ram Sharan
17. The Prosecution had eXamined PW2 Rajender who is the public witness and was present at the time of alleged incident and was driving the motorcycle.
18. PW2/Rajender though deposed on the line of the Prosecution story however, during his examination in chief the witness merely stated that the Tampo(offending vehicle ) came from the back in a rash and negligent manner and hit his motorcycle and they fell down on the road. The said witness did not state anything about the manner in which the vehicle in question was being driven by the accused so as to label it as rash and negligent .
19. It is a settled law that Prosecution witnesses must depose the manner in which the vehi cle in question was being driven. But the PW2 , Rajender , failed to depose anything in this regard in his examination in chief. Similarly PW3 Ram Saran fasiled to depose the manner in which the vehicle in question was being driven and merely stated it to be rash and negligent. When the witness PW2 , Rajender was extensively cross examined by the Ld FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 13 / 17 Defence Cousel, did he state that ' the accused was driving the vehicle in speed when he overtook my vehicle however near the spot of incident when i overtook the offending vehicle from left side it was having a bit slow speed .' It implies that the injured party was actively overtaking the alleged offending vehicle , and crucially, that that the offending vehicle was moving at a 'bit slow speed .' and later PW2 stated that ' the offending vehicle tried to take over my bike from the right side .'
20. However, surprisingly, no such thing was deposed by the PW3 Ram Saran, who was the pillion rider and also an eyewitness. PW3 failed to depose any such thing about the offending vehicle over speeding or overtaking from the right.
21. Moreover, in the instant case PW2/Rajender failed to depose that at what speed the vehicle in question was being driven so as to justify the his stance that the offending vehi cle was speedy nor it has been shown by the Prosecution that whether the said speed was vi olative of any speed limit. Nowhere in his examination in chief , PW2/Rajender gave any indication as to an estimation and/or an indication of speed of the offending vehicle, or elucidated the manner in which the vehicle was stated to be driving 'rashly or negligently'. Which raises a doubt regarding the rash and negligent driving of the accused which other wise has also not been proved by the Prosecution as the manner in which the vehicle was being driven by the accused has not been e Xpounded by the Prosecution witnesses and hence it cannot be presumed that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate whether or not there were any skid marks, accused driving from wrong side, etc.
22. In fact, even the site map in the instant case is not of much assistance in the present case, as the same does not in any manner demonstrate rashness or negligence in the conduct of the accused. The consistent admission by both injured parties that the site plan was not FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 14 / 17 prepared in thir presence and lacks crucial details like the exact place of incident severly diminishes its evidentiary value.
23. Significant at this stage to observe that it is a settled law that merely driving a vehicle with high speed does not denote driving the vehicle, rashly and negligently. As a corollary, no culpability can be attributed to a driver of a vehicle merely for the reason that the offending was being driven in high speed, for the want of clear and unambiguous proof of rashness or negligence on behalf of/by such a person/accused. Reference, in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Satish, (1998) 8 SCC 493, wherein the Hon'ble Court while confronted with the akin issue noted 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 andcircumstances 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 the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. That report is not forthcoming from the record and the Inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case."
FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 15 / 1724. At this stage, it is further pertinent to note that the superior courts have also assiduously cautioned regarding drawing of any presumption of rashness or negligence merely for the reason of occurrence of an accident . In fact, not only is any such presumption, not envisaged under law, rather, the same cannot absolve the prosecution of proving the basic ingredients of the offences. Accordingly, it can be safely said that the Prosecution has failed to show by way of clear evidence that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The rest of the Prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 a n d PW4 are merely formal witnesses who are proving the formal part of the investi gation. Thus, it can be held that the Prosecution has failed to prove the offence of sec tion 279/338 IPC against the accused Pushpender S/o Ramesh Chand .
CONCLUSION:
25. Here, it is relevant to determine/ascertain, whether the prosecution in the instant case has been able to discharge its burden of proving the requisite mens rea on the part of the accused, without which no culpability can be attributed to the accused. In fact, it is a settled law that rashness/negligence cannot be presumed in a particular case, rather, onus is heavy upon the prosecution to prove rash and negligent driving to attribute/bring home criminal charges against an accused. Needless to mention that the onus in this regard vests primarily on the prosecution to prove the necessary culpability on an accused, 'beyond reasonable doubt' and it is only upon the prosecution establishing a foundation of its case, can an accused be expected to rebut the same by 'preponderance of probability' or by proving general defence. It is trite law, "it is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof would lie upon the accused".
FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 16 / 1726. Thus, in light of the above discussed reasoning, this Court is of the opinion that the Prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused as per the settled legal provisions and accordingly, the accused Pushpender S/o Ramesh Chand stands acquitted for the charges of the offences of Section 279/338 IPC.
File be consigned to record room as per rules.
Dictated directly into the computer and announced in an open court on 9th September 2025. Digitally signed by BHUJALI BHUJALI Date: 2025.09.09 15:17:39 +0530 (Bhujali) JMFC01/North/Rohini 09.09.2025 This judgment consists of 17 pages and all bear my signature.
Digitally signed by BHUJALI BHUJALI Date: 2025.09.09 (Bhujali) 15:17:52 +0530 JMFC01/North/Rohini 09.09.2025 FIR No. 359/17 State Vs. Pushpender PS Narela Page No. 17 / 17