Delhi District Court
State vs Ranjeet Chauhan on 16 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT KARAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-08, WEST DISTRICT, ROOM NO. 30, TIS HAZARI, DELHI.
FIR No. : 421/2013
U/s : 279/304-A IPC
P.S. : Ranhola
State Vs. Ranjeet Chauhan
JUDGMENT:
a) CNR No. : DLWT02-002431-2014 b) Sl. No. of the Case : 65219/16
c) Name & address of the complainant : Smt. Sapna W/o Sh. Raju @ Raj Kumar.
d) Name & address of accused : Ranjeet Chauhan S/o Sh. Shri Kant Chauhan, R/o Village Gulti Tand, P.S. Palki Ganj, Distt.
Patna, Bihar.
e) Date of Commission of : 23.11.2013
offence
f) Offence complained off : u/S 279/304-A IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Final Order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 16.09.2025
j) State Represented by : Ms. Priya Narang, Ld. APP.
Date of Institution : 21.04.2014
Final arguments heard on : 16.09.2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 16.09.2025
FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 1/20
JUDGEMENT
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 23.11.2013 at about 12.45 PM at Commander Road, Shani Bazar Road, in front of Maggo Supplier Shop, Uttam Nagar Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Ranhola, accused were found driving dumper bering registration no. HR38P-4018 in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life and hit against cyclist and caused death of its rider namely Julekha and thereby charged of offences U/s 279/304A IPC
2. After investigation, challan for offence 279/304-A IPC was filed. The compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was done.
3. Notice for committing the offence punishable under Section 279/304-A IPC was framed against accused on 26.09.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses.
5. PW-1 Smt. Sapna deposed that PW1 is a housewife. PW1 does not remember the exact date of the incident. It is further stated by PW1 that however, it was month of November, 2013 at about 12.45 pm PW1 was returning to her home after buying some medicine from medical store when PW1 reached near Maggo Supplier and property dealers shop PW1 noticed that the secused while driving Roari Dumper (mixture FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 2/20 dumper) from the side of Suraksha Vihar and going towards Commander Chowk in very fast speed and rash and negligent manner. It is further stated by PW1 that the accused was wearing ear lead of mobile phone. It is further stated by PW1 that at the time of incident accused was driving his vehicle on the wrong side of the road. It is further stated by PW1 that the children/students of school were returning to their respective home. It is further stated by PW1 that while driving the aforementioned dumper in aforesaid manner the accused struck his dumper to the bicycle of a school going girl aged about 14 years. It is further stated by PW1 that the girl fallen on the road and her head crushed by the front and rear wheel of aforementioned dumpet driven by the accused. It is further stated by PW1 that even that the accused did not stop his vehicle and tried to move away from the pos. It is further stated by PW1 that however, public persons gathered there and apprehended the accused alongwith his dumper. It is further stated by PW1 that police was called. It is further stated by PW1 that public persons handed over the accused to the police. It is further stated by PW1 that the aforementioned girl died at the spot. It is further stated by PW1 that police took the deceased girl to the hospital. Police recorded her statement. It is further stated by PW1 that same is Ex PWI/A. It is further stated by PW1 that since PW1 is illiterate therefore PW1 cannot tell the registration number of offending mixture dumper. It is further stated by PW1 that thereafter, PW1 correctly identified 16 photographs of dumper, registration number of dumper i.e. HR-38-P4018 bicycle, place of occurrance which is Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16.
FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 3/20
6. PW-2 Mohd. Taiyab Hussain deposed on 23.11.2013, PW2 received an information regarding the road traffic accident of his daughter namely Ms. Zulekha at Commander Road in front of shop of Maggo Supplier from one Nazim Bhai. It is further stated by PW2 that thereafter, PW2 reached at the spot. It is further stated by PW2 that PW2 came to know that his daughter/injured was taken to the SGM Hospital. It is further stated by PW2 that after that PW2 alongwith Mohd. Nazim went to the said hospital where PW2 came to know that his daughter was declared dead by the doctors. It is further stated by PW2 that PW2 went to the mortuary of SGM hospital where PW2 identified the dead body of his deceased daughter. It is further stated by PW2 that his statement was recorded by the IO which is Ex.PW2/A. It is further stated by PW2 that after postmortem the dead body of his daughter was handed over to PW2 vide memo Ex.PW2/B.
7. PW-3 Mohd. Nazim deposed that PW3 is working as electronic mechanic and on 23.11.13 at about 12.30/12.45 am PW3 was sitting outside his shop where on RMC Dumper bearing no.HR30P-4018 was coming from the side of Sainik Enclave and going towards commander chowk. It is further stated by PW3 that in the meantime near Mago property one girl namely Zulekha plying on the road on her bicycle. It is further stated by PW3 that in the meantime abovesaid offending vehicle came from the opposite side and hit the girl. It is further stated by PW3 that due to this impact the girl had fallen and her head crushed by front wheel of the offending vehicle. It is further stated by PW3 that accused was wearing a earphone when the accident had happened. It is further stated FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 4/20 by PW3 that PW3 alongwath other public persons reached at the site and the accused tried to fied away from the spot but he was apprehended by them. It is further stated by PW3 that PW3 does not know who had the PCR call but after 20 minutes PCR Van came at the spot and they handed over the custody of accused to police officials. It is further stated by PW3 that PCR van took the dead body girl to SGM hospital. It is further stated by PW3 that the speed of the vehicle was normal. It is further stated by PW3 that thereafter, Ld. APP seeks permission to ask leading questions from the witness. It is further stated by PW3 that thereafter, one dead body identification memo was shown to the witness and witness correctly identified his signature. It is further stated by PW3 that the identification menio is Ex:PW3/A. It is further stated by PW3 that PW3 admit that IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C. It is further stated by PW3 that PW3 admit that the offending vehicle driver driver had not given space so that the deceased can move towards her direction.
8. PW-4 Ct. Narender deposed that on 23.11.2013 PW4 was posted at PS Ranhola as Ct. On that day PW4 was on day emergency duty i.e. from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. It is further stated by PW4 that on that day, PW4 was asked by the IO of the present case namely ASI Ashok to join the investigation of the present case as he has received DD No.16B dt. 23.11.2013 regarding accident at the spot i.e. in front of Maggo Supplier Shop Commander Road. Shani Bazar Road, Vikas Nagar. It is further stated by PW4 that on this information alongwith IO went to the spot where they found that one girl who was FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 5/20 wearing a school uniforrn was lying below the truck/RCM bearing registration No.HR38P-4018 and she was lying unconscious. It is further stated by PW4 that one bicycle and school bag was also lying near the truck. It is further stated by PW4 that the victim/deceased girl was immediately removed to the nearby nospital. It is further stated by PW4 that the accused who was apprehended by the public persons at the spot was handed over to the IO. It is further stated by PW4 that IO recorded the statement of the eye witness and thereafter IO left the spot for hospital and gave PW4 direction to secure the spot. It is further stated by PW4 that after sometime, IO returned to the spot and handed over the rukka and original complaint to PW4 and gave PW4 direction to get the FIR lodged from the PS. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 went to PS and got the FIR lodged and thereafter returned to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to the IO. It is further stated by PW4 that thereafter IO prepared the site plan at the spot at the instance of the complainant vide Mark-4/A. It is further stated by PW4 that thereafter IO made inquiry from the accused and arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos airy Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C. It is further stated by PW4 that thereafter IO seized the offending truck and the bicycle and the school bag vide memos Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/8. Thereafter IO seized the D.L. of the accused vide Ex.PW4/C. It is further stated by PW4 that thereafter PW4 alongwith IO and accused and the case property i.e. offending truck, bicycle and the bag were brought to PS. It is further stated by PW4 that the case property was deposited in the safe custody of MHC(M). It is FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 6/20 further stated by PW4 that the accused was taker: to SGM hospital for his medical examination and thereafter PW4 alongwith accused returned to PS. It is further stated by PW4 that IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
9. PW-5 SI Ashok Kumar deposed that on 23.11.13. PW5 was posted at PS Ranhola as ASI. It is further stated by PW5 that on that day, on receiving DD No. 16B, PW5 alongwith Ct. Narender reached at the spot. It is further stated by PW5 that on reaching there, they found that one Dumper vehicle bearing no. HR 38P 4018 was present there and head of one girl was struck beneath the wheel of the said vehicle and the said girl was lying unconscious. It is further stated by PW5 that crowd was gathered at the spot. It is further stated by PW5 that spot was photographed by private photographer. It is further stated by PW5 that the said girl was in school uniform. It is further stated by PW5 that the said girl was sent to hospital in government vehicle. It is further stated by PW5 that one cycle and one school bag was also present at the spot. It is further stated by PW5 that PW5 met complainant Sapna at the spot. It is further stated by PW4 that PW5 recorded her statement which is already Ex. PW1/A. Complainant and Mohd. Nazim produced accused Ranjeet before PW5. Beat staff was also present at the spot. Custody of the accused was handed over to beat staff and Ct. Narender and PW5 went to the hospital and received the MLC of injured/deceased girl. It is further stated by PW5 No eye witness was found at the hospital. It is further stated by PW5 dead body of deceased was preserved in mortuary. It is further stated by PW5 returned back to the spot and prepared FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 7/20 rukka Ex. PW5/A and handed over the same to Ct. Narender who took same to the PS and got FIR registered and came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka. It is further stated by PW5 prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant which is Mark 4/A. It is further stated by PW5 that PW5 seized the aforesaid vehicle and cycle and school bag vide seizure memos already Ex. PW4/A and PW4/B. It is further stated by PW5 that PW5 seized the DL of the accused vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/C. It is further stated by PW5 that PW5 arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos already Ex. PW3/B and PW3/C. It is further stated by PW5 that postmortem was got conducted on the dead body of deceased and thereafter, dead body was handed over to relative of deceased. It is further stated by PW5 that dead body identification statements and dead body receipt are already Ex. PW2/A, PW3/A and PW2/B. It is further stated by PW5 that PW5 served notice U/s 133 MV Act upon the registered owner of the offending vehicle Ex. PW5/C and registered owner gave reply to the notice. It is further stated by PW5 that PW5 seized the documents of the offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. It is further stated by PW5 that both the abovesaid vehicles were mechanically inspected. It is further stated by PW5 that PW5 recorded statement of witness and prepared the chargesheet.
10. PW-6 Sh. Mohd. Hassan deposed that it was year 2013. It is further stated by PW6 that it was winter season and it was 11th month of the year. It is further stated by PW6 that however PW6 does not remember the date. It is further stated by PW5 that FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 8/20 PW6 was standing at Cammander Chowk / Road, Vikas Nagar. It is further stated by PW6 that the time was around 12.00 noon to 01.00PM PW6 saw that one driver was being beaten by public person because a girl child was crushed by his vehicle. It is further stated by PW6 that the girl was coming from her cycle and she got sliped and fell under the vehicle. It is further stated by PW6 that the vehicle was a truck. PW6 does not the remember the reregistration of vehicle number however PW6 can identified the vehicle. It is further stated by PW6 that PW6 made call 100 number by his phone number 9891151186. Police came at the spot. The DD entry to this effect is DD number 16b Dt. 23.11.2013 which is already Ex.A7. It is further stated by PW6 that PW6 correctly identified photographs of the vehicle i.e truck. It is further stated by PW6 that the photographs of the vehicle ie truck is already Ex.P1 to P16. Thereafter, ld. APP for the State re-examined the witness. It is further stated by PW6 that PW6 stated that he had a office at the place where accident took place. It is further stated by PW6 that PW6 does work of property dealing. It is further stated by PW6 that the distance between the very spot where accident took place and his office is around 10 meter and at the time of accident PW6 was taking the sun bath. It is further stated by PW6 that his office is situated on the side on which the truck was coming. It is further stated by PW6 that the girl was coming on the side where PW6 was standing. It is further stated by PW6 that PW6 denied the suggestion that PW6 was standing on the opposite side of the truck. It is further stated by PW6 that there was only 3 feet space between the truck and the cycle FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 9/20 when they both came parallel to eachother. It is further stated by PW6 that PW6 denied the suggestion that the driver did not pay attention that a girl was coming from front side and he did not care about this and run over her. It is further stated by PW6 that PW6 denied the suggestion that PW6 had seen the accident and only saw when the driver was being beaten by the public.
11. PW-7 Dr. Munish Wadhawan, HOD & specialist Forensic medicine, SGM Hospital deposed that PW7 was working in SGM Hospital as a specialist in forensic medicine since 2012. It is further stated by PW7 that today PW7 has appeared before this Hon'ble Court in pursuance of the summons to prove one post mortem report no. 1158/2013 dt. 24.11.2013. On 24.11.2013, The IO ASI Ashok Kumar brought one person before PW7 at the hospital for conducting her post mortem. It is further stated by PW7 that on that day PW7 conducted the examination and prepared the said report on each page. It is further stated by PW7 that the said Post mortem report is already exhibited as EX A-9.
12. PW-8 Sh. Bhanuj deposed that PW8 is residing at the above said address alongwith his family and at the time of incident, PW8 was residing at M-6 Commandar Chowk, Vikas Nagar, Delhi and at the ground floor of the said house at Vikas Nagar, Delhi, PW8 was running a footwear shop. It is further stated by PW8 that on 23.11.2013, PW8 was going from Shani Bazar Road Vikas Nagar and at about 12:45 PM one dumber (jismi rori badar pur ka masala banta hai) bearing number HR38 P 4018 was coming from FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 10/20 Sai Enclave and going towards Ranhola side and on that time one girl was going on her cycle from Ranhola Road and said the driver of the said dumber hit the cycle (driver ne ladki ke cycle ke agle hisse me takkar mari jis se ladki gir gayi and dumper ke tyre ke niche aa gayi) and due to this reason she lost her life and PW8 had witnessed the incident and had seen that the dumper driver had driven the said vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the said girl. It is further stated by PW8 that after the said incident, the dumper driver tried to ran away from the spot but PW8 and Nazim who was one of the shopkeeper apprehended the offender and came to know, his name as Ranjeet Chauhan and at that time, public started bearing him badly and they somehow save him and after the police came and they handed over the accused to police officer. It is further stated by PW8 that IO recorded his statement.
13. PW-9 Retd. SI Vijender Singh deposed that on 30.11.2013, PW9 was posted as a Sl at MACT, Delhi and the present matter had been marked to PW9 and during investigation PW9 collected the PM report of the deceased and placed the same on record and got the insurance, RC, Permit and DL of accused from concerned authority and same were verified. PW9 recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the chargesheet and submitted in the court.
12. The accused admitted the FIR no.421/13 is Ex. A1, Certificate U/s 65B of IE Act is Ex. A2, Photographer Vijay is Ex. A3, Statement of Noor Islam is Ex. A4, ASI Devender Technical is Ex. A5, Superdar Nitin Gupta is Ex. A6, DD no.16B dated FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 11/20 23.11.2013 is Ex. A7, MLC no.21434/13 dated 23.11.2013 is Ex. A8 and PM Report no.1158/13 dated 24.11.2013 is Ex. A9.
13. Statement of accused u/S 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded and attention of the accused was drawn towards the incriminating evidence appearing against to which the accused stated that the evidences were incorrect and the PWs were interested witnesses, who had falsely implicated him and that he was innocent. Accused did not wish to lead DE.
14. I have heard the submission of the parties and have perused the records carefully.
15. In Pramod Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2013) 6 SCC 588, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"13. This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh [1988 Supp SCC 686 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 48] , State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil [(2001) 1 SCC 652 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 248] and Ramjee Rai v. State of Bihar [(2006) 13 SCC 229 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 626] has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana [(2013) 6 SCC 595 : 2013 AIR SCW 3102] that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the Department of Police should be viewed with distrust. This FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 12/20 is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence."
16. In Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 674, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"23. ... That apart, the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely on the ground that independent witnesses have not been examined when, on the perusal of the evidence on record the Court finds that the case put forth by the prosecution is trustworthy. When the evidence of the official witnesses is trustworthy and credible, there is no reason not to rest the conviction on the basis of their evidence."
17. The testimony of police officials cannot be doubted on the sole ground that no public witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. The accident is sufficiently proved by the prosecution. The only issue that needs to decided is whether the accident fulfills the necessary ingredients of section 304A and Section 279 of IPC.
18. Indian Penal Code provides that :
Section 304A. Causing death by negligence.--Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 279. 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 FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 13/20 extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
19. The ingredient "rash or negligent" in common in both the sections. In Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1944 of 2008, decided on July 16, 2008, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"7. Section 304-A IPC applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done, in all probabilities, will cause death. This provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. Section 304-A applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304-A.
8. Section 304-A carves out a specific offence where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable homicide under Section 299 or murder under Section 300. If a person willfully drives a motor vehicle into the midst of a crowd and thereby causes death to some person, it will not be a case of mere rash and negligent driving and the act will amount to culpable homicide. Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or knowledge that doing an act was likely to cause a person's death is culpable homicide. When the intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of the act, Section 304-A has to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide. The provision of this section is not limited to rash or negligent driving. Any rash or negligent act whereby death of any person is caused becomes punishable. Two elements either of which or both of which may be proved to establish the guilt of an accused are rashness/negligence, a person may cause death by a rash or negligent act which may have nothing to do with driving at all. Negligence and rashness to be punishable in terms of Section 304-A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judgment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime as well as the life of the person who may FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 14/20 lose his life as a result of the crime. Section 304-A discloses that criminality may be that apart from any mens rea, there may be no motive or intention still a person may venture or practice such rashness or negligence which may cause the death of other. The death so caused is not the determining factor.
9. What constitutes negligence has been analysed in Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edition) Volume 34 paragraph 1 (para 3) as follows:
"Negligence is a specific tort and in any given circumstances is the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand. What amounts to negligence depends on the facts of each particular case. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to be done or in doing something which ought to be done either in a different manner or not at all. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence, where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons or property. The degree of care required in the particular case depends on the surrounding circumstances, and may vary according to the amount of the risk to be encountered and to the magnitude of the prospective injury. The duty of care is owed only to those persons who are in the area of foreseeable danger, the fact that the act of the defendant violated his duty of care to a third person does not enable the plaintiff who is also injured by the same act to claim unless he is also within the area of foreseeable danger. The same act or omission may accordingly in some circumstances involve liability as being negligent although in other circumstances it will not do so. The material considerations are the absence of care which is on the part of the defendant owed to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case and damage suffered by the plaintiff, together with a demonstrable relation of cause and effect between the two".
10. In this context the following passage from Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law, 19th Edition (1966) at page 38 may FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 15/20 be usefully noted :
"Yet a man may bring about an event without having adverted to it at all, he may not have foreseen that his actions would have this consequence and it will come to him as a surprise. The event may be harmless or harmful, if harmful, the question rises whether there is legal liability for it. In tort, (at common law) this is decided by considering whether or not a reasonable man in the same circumstances would have realised the prospect of harm and would have stopped or changed his course so as to avoid it. If a reasonable man would not, then there is no liability and the harm must lie where it falls. But if the reasonable man would have avoided the harm then there is liability and the perpetrator of the harm is said to be guilty of negligence. The word 'negligence' denotes, and should be used only to denote, such blameworthy inadvertence, and the man who through his negligence has brought harm upon another is under a legal obligation to make reparation for it to the victim of the injury who may sue him in tort for damages. But it should now be recognized that at common law there is no criminal liability for harm thus caused by inadvertence. This has been laid down authoritatively for manslaughter again and again. There are only two states of mind which constitute mens rea and they are intention and recklessness. The difference between recklessness and negligence is the difference between advertence and inadvertence they are opposed and it is a logical fallacy to suggest that recklessness is a degree of negligence The common habit of lawyers to qualify the word "negligence" with some moral epithet such as wicked' `gross' or `culpable' has been most unfortunate since it has inevitably led to great confusion of thought and of principle. It is equally misleading to speak of criminal negligence since this is merely to use an expression in order to explain itself."
11. "Negligence", says the Restatement of the law of Torts published by the American Law Institute (1934) Vol. I. Section 28 "is conduct which falls below the standard established for the protection of others against FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 16/20 unreasonable risk of harm". It is stated in Law of Torts by Fleming at page 124 (Australian Publication 1957) that this standard of conduct is ordinarily measured by what the reasonable man of ordinary prudence would do under the circumstances. In Director of Public Prosecutions v. Camplin (1978) 2 All ER 168 it was observed by Lord Diplock that "the reasonable man" was comparatively late arrival in the laws of provocation. As the law of negligence emerged in the first half of the 19th century it became the anthropomorphic embodiment of the standard of care required by law. In order to objectify the law's abstractions like "care"
"reasonableness" or "foreseeability" the man of ordinary prudence was invented as a model of the standard of conduct to which all men are required to conform.
12. In Syed Akbar v. State of Kamataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30, it was held that "where negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence, the negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment. As pointed out by Lord Atkin in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) (2) All ER 552) simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability, is not enough; for liability under the criminal law a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved. Probably, of all the epithets that can be applied 'reckless' most nearly covers the case. "
13. According to the dictionary meaning `reckless' means `careless', `regardless' or heedless of the possible harmful consequences of one's acts'. It presupposes that if thought was given to the matter by the doer before the act was done, it would have been apparent to him that there was a real risk of its having the relevant harmful consequences; but, granted this, recklessness covers a whole range of states of mind from failing to give any thought at all to whether or not there is any risk of those harmful consequences, to recognizing the existence of the risk and nevertheless deciding to ignore it. In R. v. Briggs (1977) 1 All ER 475 it was observed that a man is reckless in the sense required when he carries out a deliberate FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 17/20 act knowing that there is some risk of damage resulting from the act but nevertheless continues in the performance of that act.
14. In R. v. Caldwell (1981) 1 All ER 961, it was observed that:-
"Nevertheless, to decide whether someone has been `reckless', whether harmful consequences of a particular kind will result from his act, as distinguished from his actually intending such harmful consequences to follow, does call for some consideration of how the mind of the ordinary prudent individual would have reacted to a similar situation. If there were nothing in the circumstances that ought to have drawn the attention of an ordinary prudent individual to the possibility of that kind of harmful consequence, the accused would not be described as `reckless' in the natural meaning of that word for failing to address his mind to the possibility; nor, if the risk of the harmful consequences was so slight that the ordinary prudent individual on due consideration of the risk would not he deterred from treating it as negligible, could the accused be described as reckless in its ordinary sense, if, having considered the risk, he decided to ignore it. (In this connection the gravity of the possible harmful consequences would be an important factor. To endanger life must be one of the most grave). So, to this extent, even if one ascribes to 'reckless' only the restricted meaning adopted by the Court of Appeal in Stephenson and Briggs, of foreseeing that a particular kind of harm might happen and yet going on to take the risk of it, it involves a test that would be described in part as 'objective' in current legal jargon. Questions of criminal liability are seldom solved by simply asking whether the test is subjective or objective."
15. The decision of R. v Caldwell (Supra) has been cited with FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 18/20 approval in R v. Lawrence (1981) 1 All ER 974 and it was observed that:
"--- Recklessness on the part of the doer of an act does presuppose that there is something in the circumstances that would have drawn the attention of an ordinary prudent individual to the possibility that his act was capable of causing the kind of serious harmful consequences that the section which creates the offence was intended to prevent, and that the risk of those harmful consequences occurring was not so slight that an ordinary prudent individual would feel justified in treating them as negligible. It is only when this is so that the doer of the act is acting `recklessly' if, before doing the act, he either fails to give any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or, having recognized that there was such risk, he nevertheless goes on to do it".
20. In the present case PW1 has stated that accused was wearing lead of mobile phone while driving. PW6 has stated that accused was not wearing any lead while driving. Due to contradictory statements of public witnesses, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused that accused was not wearing any lead while driving.
21. PW1 in her examination in chief has stated that accused was driving on the wrong side of the road very fastly. In her cross examination she has stated that traffic was moving at normal speed. She has further stated that accident did not take place due to negligence or fault of truck driver. She has further stated that accused was not driving very fast in her cross examination. It is apparent that PW1 is not deposing truthfully before the court from her contradictory statement.
22. PW2 was not the eye witness to the incident. PW3 has stated that head of the deceased was crushed under front wheel of the offending vehicle. Photographs show that FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 19/20 deceased is lying between rear tyres. PW3 has not deposed regarding rash and negligent driving of the accused.
23. PW4 and PW5 are formal police witnesses.
24. PW6 was an eye witness who stated that deceased was riding her bicycle and she got slipped and fell under the offending vehicle. PW6 has also not deposed regarding rash and negligent driving of the accused. PW7 is the doctor who was part of postmortem report.
25. PW8 is again an eye witness to the incident. PW8 has stated that offending vehicle hit the bicycle. The testimony of PW8 is not in consonance with the prosecution story as PW8 has directly stated that offending vehicle hit the bicycle. Again PW8 has not stated the manner of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
26. The Site plan filed by the IO does not show that the road was only one way traffic. The site plan does not show that accused was driving illegally in the wrong side. The photographs filed by the IO show that deceased is lying between the rear tyres. It is apparent that accused stopped the vehicle and did not run away from the spot as stated by some public witnesses.
27. The ingredient of rash and negligent driving has not been sufficient proved.
28. This court is of the opinion that accused is entitled to be acquitted for offence U/s Digitally signed by ANKIT 279 and 304A of IPC. ANKIT KARAN KARAN SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.09.16 17:53:05 +0530 Dictated & Announced (Ankit Karan Singh) in Open Court JMFC-08/West/Delhi On 16.09.2025 FIR No. 421/13 State V. Ranjeet Chauhan 20/20