Delhi District Court
State vs . Raj Kumar on 31 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER KUMAR, MM07,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
STATE Vs. RAJ KUMAR
FIR No. 712/02
PS: PASCHIM VIHAR
U/S: 279/304 A IPC
Sr. no. of the case : 1946/2/04
Date of commission of offence : 12.11.2002
Date of institution of the case : 23.10.2003
Name of the complainant : Ct. Kirshan
Name of accused and address : Raj Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Lubhaya,
R/o A277, J.J. Colony,
Pankha Road, Uttam
Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 279/304 A IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
Date of judgment : 31.01.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is that on 12.11.2002 at about 07:35 PM at Outer Ring Road near Bus Stand Bhera Elclave, Delhi, accused Raj Kumar was found driving bus bearing no. DL1PB0649 in rash and negligent manner and hit the FIR No.712/02, PS Paschim Vihar Page 1/6 said bus against scooter no. DL8SG4917 and caused the death of the deceased namely Krishan Lal Arora S/o Sh. Dayanand.
2. The prima facie case U/s 279/304 A IPC was found to be made out against the accused. Accordingly notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. was served against the accused. The accusation was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution got examined 12 witnesses in support of its case, which are as follows:
(1) PW1 Sh. J.S. Pawar, who mechanically inspected the vehicles in question.
(2) PW2 Sh. Harbhagwan Arora, who identified the body of the deceased.
(3) PW3 Sh. Virender Arora, who identified the body of the deceased.
(4) PW4 Sh. Neeraj Singhal, the owner/superdar of the vehicle.
(5) PW5 HC Narender, the Duty Officer.
(6) PW6 Sh. Mohan Lal, who identified the body of the deceased.
(7) PW7 L/Ct. Santosh, who received the DD No.21.
(8) PW8 Ct. Krishan Kumar, the complainant/eye witness.
(9) PW9 Dr. Vijay Kumar Jha, who conducted the postmortem
FIR No.712/02, PS Paschim Vihar Page 2/6
over the body of the deceased.
(10) PW10 Sh. Brij Lal, the photographer.
(11) PW11 Ct. Jasbir Singh, who took the rukka to the PS. (12) PW12 ASI Om Prakash, the IO of the case.
4. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. The accused controverted and denied the allegations levelled against him. Accused stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
5. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilty of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. It is also a settled proposition that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution case in a criminal trial throughout the course of the trial rests entirely and entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefits of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reason FIR No.712/02, PS Paschim Vihar Page 3/6 doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
6. Ct. Krishan Kumar (PW8) is the complainant/eye witness in the present case. It was deposed by the witness that on 12.11.2002, he was posted at PP Mianwali and was on patrolling duty from 05:00 PM to 10:00 PM. That at about 07:35 PM, while he reached at outer ring road bus stand Behra Elclave, a private bus no. DL1PB0649 of route no. 883 coming from Vikas Puri side in fast speed and rash and negligent manner and after jumping the red light, struck against a Bajaj Chetak scooter no. DL8SG4917 from behind. It was further deposed by the witness that due to impact, the scooter driver fell down on the road and the bus crushed him. It was further deposed by the witness that the driver was apprehended at the spot. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the Court on the day of his examination. The witness was cross examined by the accused at length and nothing material came out of his cross examination in support of the defence taken by the accused.
7. It is the contention of the accused that there are material contradiction in the evidence led by the witnesses as well as the story of the prosecution i.e. regarding the distance in between the spot and the place where the offending bus got stopped. The FIR No.712/02, PS Paschim Vihar Page 4/6 complainant/eye witness fully supported the story of the prosecution.
8. PW Harbhagwan Arora (PW2), Virender Arora (PW3) and Mohan Lal (PW6) are the relatives of the deceased i.e. Krishan Lal and identified the body of deceased.
9. Dr. Viojay Kumar Jha (PW9) deposed that on 13.01.2002, he conducted the postmortem over the body of the deceased i.e. Krishan Lal sent by ASI Om Prakash. It was further deposed that the deceased was having history of RTA. It was opined by the Dr. that the cause of the death was due to multiple injuries to multiple vital organs of the body consequent to RSA (Road Side Accident). It was also deposed that all he injuries were antimortem in nature and were of the same duration.
10. Sh. Neeraj Singhal (PW4) deposed that he is the owner of the vehicle no. DL1PB0649. It was further deposed that on 12.11.2002, his driver was Raj Kumar/ the accused present in the Court on the day of his examination and also got the vehicle released on superdari. While under cross examination, it was suggested to the witness that the accused was not his driver on 12.11.2002 but the witness flatly incorrected the same. FIR No.712/02, PS Paschim Vihar Page 5/6
11. Sh. J.S. Pawar (PW1) is the person who had mechanically inspected the bus No. DL1PB0649 and the scooter no. DL8SG4917. It was deposed by the witness that on checking, both the vehicles were found fit for road test. It was further deposed by the witness that the scooter got fresh damage as mentioned in his report Ex.PW1/B.
12. In view of the above, the prosecution has proved its case that the death of the deceased namely Krishan Lal Arora was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the accused. The prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/S 279/304 A IPC. Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJINDER KUMAR)
COURT ON 31.01.2012 MM07(WEST)/DELHI
FIR No.712/02, PS Paschim Vihar Page 6/6