Delhi District Court
State vs Irshad on 12 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS- 05
(SOUTH-WEST), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : SH. NITESH GOEL
State Vs. IRSHAD **
FIR No. 487/16
Police Station: Vikas Puri
Under Section: 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act.
CNR NO. DLSW-02 023087 2017
Date of institution : 19.08.2017
Date of reserving : 08.08.2024
Date of pronouncement : 12.08.2024
JUDGMENT
a) CIS number of the case 6688/17
b) Date of commission of offence 14.07.2016
c) Name of the complainant Sagar Rana Sahib.
d) Name, parentage and address Irshad Wahid s/o Sh. Abdul
of the accused. Wahid r/o 202 Sabdal Pur PS
Heempur Deepa Distt Bijnaur
UP.
e) Offence complained of Section 279/338 IPC and
3/181 MV Act.
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Convicted
h) Date of final order 12.08.2024
State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 1 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 14.07.2016 at about 3.00 pm, Near Keshavpur Depot, Outer Ring Road, Vikaspuri, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Vikaspuri, accused was found driving vehicle (Champion Tempo) bearing no. DL-1LU-4332 without valid DL in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. Further, on the said date, time and place, while driving the aforesaid Champion Tempo in the aforesaid manner, accused hit against one motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-9ST-1214 and thereby caused grievous injuries on the person of Sagar N. Yadav. It is alleged that accused had committed the offence u/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act.
2. Charge was framed against the accused on 07.03.2018 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. PW1 Sh. Sagar Yadav has deposed that on 14.07.2016, he was coming to his house from Pitam Pura to Uttam Nagar on his mo- torcycle bearing no. DL-9ST-1214. He was chemical engineer by profession. At about 3:00 pm. he reached at Keshav Pur Mandi. In the meanwhile Mahindra Champion Tempo which have bearing four State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 2 last digit 4332 came from its wrong side as there was cut on the road where turn was not allowed, driver of the Mahindra Champion Tempo took turn there and came in his direction. Speed of the said Tempo was around 70-80 kilometer per hour and the said Mahindra Cham- pion Tempo hit his motorcycle from front side. He fell down on the road, due to hitting by the Mahindra Champion Tempo. Mahindra Champion Tempo stopped at the spot after hitting him and its driver got down from its and started running away from the spot. But he was apprehended by the crowd available at the spot. The name of the driver of the Mahindra Champion Tempo was revealed as Irshad. Witness correctly identified the accused. He sustained injury on his head and left hand elbow. His motorcycle was also got damaged. Some one called to the police. Police came at the spot and took him Park Hospital, Kahayala. His statement was recorded by police in the hospital which is Ex. PW 1/A. Due to the incident, he became permanent disabled. The present incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of accused as he took turn from a cut where turn was not allowed and also drive his vehicle at wrong side. Photo- graphs of the Mahindra Champion Tempo vehicle bearing no. DL1- LU-4332 is Ex. P-1 (Colly.). Witness also correctly identified his mo- torcycle from the photographs and same are Ex. P-2 (Colly.).
During cross examination he stated that at the time of in- cident he was doing job at J. K. Polymers Industries, Pitam Pura as Chemical Engineer. There he had worked there for two months and State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 3 third month was continuing when the incident occurred. He was also working one his own startup Tactile Center Pvt. Ltd. at that time. He is the director of that company. He denied that he was terminated from his job on the day of incident. He denied that due to termination from the job, he consume liquor on the day of incident and was driv- ing his motorcycle under influence of liquor. He denied that speed of his motorcycle at the time of incident was around 120-130 per hour and his direction was wrong side and he also hit to the Tempo of ac- cused which was standing at the red light. He denied that he told about the Offending vehicle after seeing the file. Colour of the offend- ing vehicle was green and was model of Mahindera Champion. He denied that he was driving his motorcycle rash and negligently and hit to vehicle of the accused. He denied that incident was caused due to his own fault. His duty hours were 10 am to 5 pm and some times he went to his house to take lunch at the after noon time. Lunch time was 2:30 to 3:30 pm. It was not his daily routine to go house for lunch at the lunch time.
4. PW-2 HC Budh Ram has deposed that on 14.07.2016 he was posted at PCR West Zone as Ct. On that day he was on duty at PCR Van P-100 as Incharge from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm at base point on Kesho Pur Mandi. At about 3:20 pm, he received PCR Call re- garding accident at Kesho Pur Red light. They reached there, where they found accident between a delivery van no. DL-1LU-4332 and State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 4 motorcycle no. DL9ST-1214. At the spot they found injured Sagar Nana Saheb Yadav, who was driver of the motorcycle. The driver of the delivery van was also apprehended by the public person. His name was revealed as Irshad. Witness correctly identified the ac- cused in the court. Thereafter, they along with injured Sagar Nana Saheb Yadav and accused Irshad went to Park Hospital Meera En- clave Chokhandi, near Keshopur Mandi. They got admitted the in- jured and returned at the spot along with accused where HC Ram Lal of Vikas Puri met them and they handed over the accused to him. He was arrested vide memo Ex. PW 2/A. Witness correctly identified eight photographs of delivery van already Ex. P1 Colly, 3 photo- graphs of motorcycle already Ex. P-2 Colly.
During cross examination he stated that at the time of accident he was not present at the spot. He cannot tell the exact manner of collision of the vehicle as he was not present there. He denied that incident was not caused by the delivery van bearing no. DL1LU 4332. He cannot tell whether police had obtained his signa- tures on seizure memo of delivery van. He denied that police had not obtained his signatures on seizure memo of delivery of van as no such incident caused by delivery van.
5. PW 3 ASI Satyavir has proved the copy of FIR vide Ex. PW 3/A OSR and endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW 3/B. He also State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 5 proved the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW 3/C.
6. PW-4 Ct. Harish has deposed that on 14.07.2016 he was posted at PS Vikas Puri as Constable. On that day he was on emergency duty with HC Ram Lal. On that day IO had received telephonic information from DO to reach at the Keshopur red light for investigation of the accident case. He alongwith him reached at the Keshopur DTC depot near pillar no. 47 and 48 Elevator Fly Over where they found that a motorcycle bearing no. DL-9ST-1214 was lying in accidental condition at road going towards Peera Garhi to Janak Puri. A tempo bearing no. DL-1LU-4332 was also stationed near the footpath of the said road. No eye witness met them there. In the meanwhile IO received telephonic call from DO who informed him regarding admission of injured vide MLC no. 262/16 of Park Hospital. IO left him at the spot and went to Park Hospital, Meera Enclave. IO came at the spot from the Hospital and informed him that injured had shifted to DDU Hospital from Park Hospital where he went and recorded statement of injured. In the meanwhile PCR P- 100 came at the spot. Ct. Budh Ram produced one apprehended person whose name was revealed as Irshad. He told them that Irshad was the person who was driver of the offending vehicle i.e. tempo. Thereafter IO had prepared a rukka Ex. PW-4/A and handed over to him for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and got State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 6 registered the FIR. He came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over same to IO. IO had seized motorcycle and tempo lying at the spot vide seizure memos Ex. PW- 4/B and Ex. PW-4/C respectively. IO had prepared site plan. IO had arrested the accused vide arrest memo already Ex. PW- 2/A. Personal search of accused was also made vide memo Ex. PW-4/D. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court. IO also seized DL of the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-4/E. Insurance of offending vehicle was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/F. Owner of the vehicle namely Shabana Khatoon came in the PS and revealed the fact that Irshad was driver of her vehicle. IO recorded his statement. Photographs are already Ex. P-1 (colly). Photographs of motorcycle no. DL 9ST 1214 is also shown to the witnesses and same is correctly identified by the witness vide Ex. P-2 (colly).
During cross examination he stated that prior to reach at the spot he alongwith IO was attending another call in area of PS Vikas Puri. He do not remember the DD No. of the said call. The information of present case was received to IO at about 3.30 PM. He do not remember the registration no. of the motorcycle of the IO on which he had reached at the spot. No person was standing near the spot when they reached there. He denied that he never visited at the spot and all documents were prepared by the IO at PS without verifying the fact of the case. He is not eye witness of the accident.
State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 7
7. PW 5 Sh Braham Prakash has proved the authority letter vide Ex. PW 5/A. He also proved the document relating to the vehicle no. DL 1LU4332 vide Ex. PW 5/B.
8. PW 6 Sh Bhanu Pratap Mishra from ARTO Office Bijnaur has proved the authority letter vide Ex. PW 6/A and the DL of accused Irshad vide Ex. PW 6/B.
9. Inadvertently, after PW 6 Bhanu Pratap, Ram Lal was called as a prosecution witness, however, he had also been given an identity as PW 6, however, the same should have been given the identity as PW 7.
10. PW 6 SI Ram Lal has deposed that on 14.07.2016 he was posted at PS Vikas Puri as HC. On that day he received DD no. 32 A . Thereafter he along with Ct. Harish reached at Keshopur Depot outer ring road Vikas Puri where he saw one motorcycle no. DL 9ST 1214 and Tampo DL 1LU 4332 in accidental condition. In the meantime he came to know about DD no. 36A about the admission of injured in Park Hospital. He instructed to Ct. Harish to remain present at the place of occurrence and he left for the said hospital. He came to know from the hospital that injured was taken to DDU Hospital. He went to DDU Hospital where he came to know vide MLC no. 262 Park Hospital ( in emergency). He collected copy of State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 8 CR no. 42182 of DDU Hospital was prepared and same already exhibited as Ex. A5. He moved an application for the statement of injured vide Ex. PW 6/A. Dr. given his statement at point X on Ex. PW 6/A that patient was fit for statement. Thereafter he recorded the statement of complainant vide Ex. PW 1/A. He came back to the spot. PCR Staff Power 100 was there. Accused was apprehended by the public persons who was handed over to PCR Staff after his arrival they handed over him the accused. He seized tempo and motorcycle vide memo already Ex. PW 4/B and Ex. PW 4/C. He handed over rukka to Ct. Harish for registration of FIR and came back to spot along with copy of FIR and rukka and handed over the same to him. Accused was arrested vide formal arrest memo already Ex. PW2/A. Personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo already Ex. PW 4/D. During investigation he got mechanical inspection of both the vehicles by Arvinder Shah vide Ex. PW 6/B and Ex. PW 6/C. Witness correctly identified the photographs already Ex. P1 and P-2 Colly. During investigation he verified the RC, Insurance certificate, permit for commercial activity of the offending vehicle and DL of the accused. Thereafter same were found to genuine. DL and RC are Ex. PW 6/A Colly. Insurance and Permit are Ex. PW 6/B Colly. Thereafter the vehicles were released on superdari. On 19.08.2016 he went to DDU Hospital and collected the MLC result. Thereafter he prepared the Kalandara u/s 5/180 MV Act which is Ex. PW 6/C. He also sent to the information State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 9 of the said Kalandara vide DD no. 35 A dated 15.08.2016 vide Ex. PW 6/D Thereafter he prepared the charge sheet and filed it before the concerned court. Witness correctly identified accused in the court.
During cross-examination he stated that the accident occurred on 14.07.2016. Information was received by him at about 3:30 pm. He reached at the spot within 5 -7 minutes. He had not seen the occurrence of accident. He was informed about the accident by duty officer vide DD no. 32A. He denied that Kalandara u/s 5/180 MV Act has been wrongly registered against the accused. He denied that accident had not occurred from the offending vehicle. He admitted that injured was mechanical engineer by profession Volt. It was informed by the injured himself. He verbally told him that his office hours were 10:00 to 6:00 pm at J. K. Polymer, Vardhman Plaza, Pitam Pura. He denied that the injured was dismissed from his service and he was coming in drunken state. The distance between place of occurrence and Keshopur Subzi Mandi is about 50 meter. He denied that accused was not driving the vehicle from the wrong side or that accused was waiting for the vegetables. He denied that due to no public persons were cited as witness. He denied that site plan made by the IO is false and manipulated.
11. Ld APP had moved an application u/s 311 Cr. PC for calling PW 6 again and in testimony, he stated that he prepared the site State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 10 plan Ex. PW 6/E. He seized RC, fitness certificate of the offending vehicle vide Ex. PW 6/F. The documents are Ex. PW 6/P1 Colly. The punchnama of offending vehicle and motorcycle was got conducted after the order of the Hon'ble Court to release the vehicle on superdari vide Ex. PW 6/G and Ex. PW 6/H. He gave notice u/s 91 Cr PC to the victim vide Ex. PW 6/I. The documents produced by the complainant are Ex. PW 6/P2 Colly. Notice u/s 133 MV Act was given to the owner of the offending vehicle vide Ex. PW 6/J. During cross-examination he denied the suggestion that documents were prepared while sitting in the PS. He denied that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
12. PW 7 HC Devender has proved entry no. 2126 dated 14.07.2016 vide Ex. PW 7/A OSR.
13. PW 8 Sh. Pradeep has proved the policy no. 2013-200102-15- 1003592-00-000 vide Ex. PW 8/A.
14. PW 9 Sh. Arvinder Singh deposed that he was called by the IO on 17.07.2016 for conducting mechanical inspection of one Mahindra Champion and Hero Honda Motorcycle, the same were inspected by him. His report is already Ex. PW 6/B and PW 6/C. He identify his signatures on both the reports at point A and after inspection it is reported that in Mahindra Champion there was fresh State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 11 damage in front left lower side body dented and scratches and in motorcycle there was fresh damages with front mud guard broken, front wheel bended, broken headlight, front both shocker broken, speedometer broken and petrol tank dented and scratched. The Mahindra Champion was fit for road test and motorcycle was not fit.
During cross examination he denied that no such dent or scratch on Mahindra Champion when he inspected the same.
15. PW 10 Sh. Ashish Kumar has proved the fitness of vehicle no. DL 1LU 4332 vide Ex. PW 10/A.
16. Accused admitted the DD no. 32A, DD no. 36A, MLC no. 262, Treatment details dated 14.07.2016 of Park hospital for patient Sagar and Ortho discharge summary bearing CR no. 42182 of pa- tient Sagar u/s 294 Cr. PC as Ex. A1 to A5.
17. After the completion of prosecution evidence, PE was closed and statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. PC was recorded wherein he claimed that he is innocent and he has been falsely impli- cated. Accused opted to lead defence evidence and and accused himself produced as a witness.
State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 12
18. DW 1 Sh. Irshad has deposed that his Mahindra Champion Tempo was stationed at Subzi Mandi at Keshopur. His tempo was not involved in the accident. Police came and asked for the RC and DL and took him to the PS and told him that the accident has been caused by his tempo. His Mahindra Champion Tempo registration number is DL 1LU 4332.
During cross-examination by ld. APP for the State the witness was confronted with mechanical inspection report of offending vehi- cle Ex. PW 6/B wherein the fresh damages were recorded on the body of the offending vehicle, on which the witness stated that he is not aware of the manner in which the damages had been sustained. He stated that he did not file any complaint against the IO for filing false case against him. Police had taken him to the PS after 2:00 pm. He do not remember the date. He denied that he had not filed com- plaint against the IO for filing the false case as he was involved in the accident. Witness was confronted with document Ex. PW 6/B wherein it has been mentioned that breaks were not working to which witness has stated that his tempo was in a working condition. He denied all the suggestion made by the ld. APP for the State. Thereafter matter was listed for final arguments.
19. I have heard the submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and ld. Counsel for accused and perused the record carefully.
State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 13
20. During the course of arguments, Ld. APP submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts. He further submitted that accused be convicted as per law.
21. Ld. Defence counsel for accused submitted that prosecution has not proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that prosecution has not proved the negligence or rashness on the part of the accused and that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter as no incriminating ma- terial has come on record against him. Therefore, accused is enti- tled to be acquitted.
22. I have heard submissions of ld. APP for the State and Ld. De- fence counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully.
23. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Since, there is a strong presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and rebuttal of the same always lies upon the prosecution. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 14 legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
24. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kaliram vs State of Himanchal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 and held that accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
25. In another case titled as Mousam Singh Roy & ors. vs. State of West Bengal (2003) 12 SCC 377, it was held that burden of proof in criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence.
Observation
26. For the purpose of guilty under section 279/337/338 IPC the prosecution has to prove three ingredients:-
a that the accident had taken place,
b that the accused was driving the vehicle.
c. that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent
driving of the accused.
State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 15
27. Let us first discuss the first and foremost ingredient i.e. whether that the accident had taken place or not.
28. From the evidence available on record i.e. mechanical inspection of both the vehicles Ex. PW 6/B and Ex. PW 6/C wherein it has been recorded that fresh damage has been caused upon the Tempo bearing registration no. DL-1LU-4332 and further fresh damages had been recorded upon the victims vehicle i.e. Motorcycle bearing no. DL-9ST-1214.
29. The prosecution witnesses had identified the photographs Ex. P1 Colly. of offending vehicle Tempo and Ex. P2 Colly i.e victim's motorcycle.
30. Further from the testimony of PW 1 and the testimony of other prosecution witnesses, the court is convinced that the accident had caused between the motorcycle bearing no. DL-9ST-1214 and offending vehicle Tempo bearing registration no. DL-1LU-4332.
31. Now let us come to the other ingredient for deciding the culpability of the accused i.e. whether the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 16
32. All the prosecution witnesses have identified the accused in the court. The court is convinced that the accident had been caused by the accused.
33. Now let us come to most important ingredient for deciding the culpability of accused that whether the accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
34. PW 1 has deposed that the accused was driving the vehicle from the wrong side and accused was driving the vehicle in a very high speed. The victim has further deposed that he was going from the road Peeragarhi to Janak Puri towards his home at Uttam Nagar. Further Ex. PW 6/E i.e. site plan shows that there is wrong cut from the road coming towards Janak Puri to Peeragarhi in between pillar no. 48 and 47 for a short cut towards Keshopur Subzi Mandi. Seizure memo of offending vehicle Ex. PW 4/B has been proved and same shows that the offending vehicle Tempo had got seized from the Keshopur Bus Depot and further the DW 1 i.e. accused had himself deposed that he had gone to Keshopur Subzi Mandi for unloading the truck. Ld. Counsel for accused had cross examined the complainant PW 1 at length but has not been able to bring material contradiction on record. In the cross-examination of the complainant ld. Counsel is giving suggestion to the complainant that on the day of the accident, he had consumed the liquor due to State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 17 termination of the job and due to the frustration and influence of liquor he was driving at high speed. The complainant denied all such suggestions. Further, perusal of the MLC Ex. A3, nowhere finds the mention that complainant was BAC Positive. Further the complainant had not shown any documentary proof in order to substantiate his allegation that the complainant was terminated from the service on the day of incident. Therefore, this court believes on to the testimony of PW 1 up to the extent that accused wanted to go to the Keshopur Subzi Mandi.
35. The accused in his defence has produced himself as a witness, wherein he deposed that he had just stationed his tempo at Subzi Mandi and the police had arrested him without any reason however, he was not able to give any reply to the question put up the ld. APP in cross examination that why his tempo is showing the fresh damages on his body in the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW 6/B. Further, the mechanical inspection report of victim's vehicle Ex. PW 6/C shows that the damages had been caused on the victim's vehicle from the front side. The mechanical inspection report of the victim's vehicle corroborate the testimony of PW 1 to the extent that the accident had been caused from the front side of victim's motorcycle.
36. Further the court is of the view that as per DW 1, he had stated State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 18 that his vehicle has been seized by the police for no reason then why he had not taken any legal recourse against the police official for falsely implicating him in the accident. Further the court is of the view that the accident had occurred on 14.07.2016 at around 3 pm and the FIR had been registered on the Tehrir of the victim Ex. PW 1/A at 6:15 pm on the said day. The FIR has got registered just three hours after the accident, therefore, the court feels that there are very least chances for concocting of the story by the complainant.
37. Further ld. Counsel for accused had cross examined the prosecution witnesses at length but is not able to bring any material contradiction on the record. The court finds no reason for disbelieving the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the same seems to be trustworthy.
38. From the facts discussed above, the court is convinced that the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on a wrong side and at a very high speed and thereby caused accident.
39. Now the court wants to discuss whether the manner of driving of the accused falls under the category of rash and negligent driving.
40. Let us come to the meaning of Rash and negligent driving by State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 19 considering the law laid down in the judgment of apex court.
41. Regarding the rash and negligent driving it is to be seen that what is rash / negligence varies from case to case and there cannot be any fixed parameters for judging rashness/negligence. At the same time, there cannot be any assumption/presumption of the same. Rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand is the gross and culpable or proper case 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. Thus, the main criterion for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard to the obligation of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a risk indifferent to the harmful consequences resulting from it. Niranjan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (Delhi) 1997(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 320.
42. Reliance has been placed in the law laid down in the case State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 20 titled Prabhakaran v State of Kerla wherein it was said that rashness means. Rashness means doing an act with consciousness of a risk that evil consequence will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is breach of duty imposed by law.
43. The court is of the view that the accused was driving the vehicle on the wrong side and was driving at a high speed, the accused must be having knowledge that by driving the offending vehicle in a high speed from the wrong side might lead to an accident. Taking the risk, the accused had took a wrong turn and had caused the accident. In view of the definition of rash and negligent driving as discussed above, the court is of the view that accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
44. Further, the accused has admitted the MLC bearing no. 262/16 and treatment details of the Park Hospital for patient Sagar as Ex. A3 to A5 however there is no find mention of the type of the injury which had been sustained by the victim, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the kind of injury sustained by the victim. The court believes that the least injury which could had been sustained by the victim is simple one, therefore, the court in the absence of the opinion of the doctor is presuming that the victim had sustained simple injury from the accident.
State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 21
45. The DL of the accused had been proved vide Ex. PW 6/B Colly. wherein he had no license to drive the heavy or medium goods vehicle, therefore, he is not having a valid license to drive the HGV and MGV.
46. In view of the above discussion the prosecution has been able to prove beyond the reasonable doubts that accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner without valid license. Therefore, accused stands convicted for the offense u/s 279/337 IPC and u/s 3/181 MV Act.
47. Copy of this order be given dasti to the accused free of cost.
Announced in open Court on 12.08.2024.
(Nitesh Goel) Digitally signed Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 Nitesh by Nitesh Goel Date:
(South-West)/Dwarka 12.08.2024 Goel 2024.08.12 16:10:40 +0530 State Vs.IRSHAD FIR No. 487/16 PS Vikas Puri U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act. 22