Delhi District Court
State vs . : Jagbir Singh on 29 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER JIT SINGH : MM: ROHINI : DELHI
State Vs. : Jagbir Singh
FIR No. : 434/96
U/s : 279/338/304-A IPC
PS : S P Badli
JUDGEMENT
A. Sl. No. of the case 104/3
B. Offence complained of
or proved U/s 279/338/304-A IPC
C. Date of Offence 06.06.1996
D. Name of the complainant Sh. Munna Lal
S/o Late Sh. Ram Charan Sahu
R/o Jhuggi No. D-372, Suraj Park,
Samay Pur Badli, Delhi.
E. Name of the accused Jagbir Singh
S/o Sh. Jagdish Singh
R/o House No.82,
Village - Auchandi, PS - Narela,
Delhi.
F. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
G. Final order Acquitted
H. Date of Order 29.08.2011
Brief reasons for the decision:
1. The accused has been forwarded by the police to face trial under FIR No. 434/96 State Vs Jagbir Singh 1 of 7 Section 279/338/304-A IPC on the allegations of the complainant that on 06.06.1996 at about 11:00 AM, his two daughters aged about 9 years and 7 years asked to buy them toffees. He gave them money to buy toffees and when they were standing at a shop nearby his shop to purchase toffee, one tempo bearing registration no. DL-1L-B-1830 being driven in rash and negligent manner came from the side of Bawana and hit his daughters amongst other persons standing at Kamal Cycle Works shop. All the victims were standing on side of road. The tempo was stopped there. All the persons hit were injured and his two daughters expired on the spot only. Information was given to police at no.100. HC Ramesh Chand came to the spot. All the injured persons were removed to Hindu Rao hospital. On receiving this information, ASI Pratap Singh reached the spot but he could not meet any of the witness. Leaving behind Ct. Shiv Kumar on spot, he went to Hindu Rao hospital where the injured persons were treated upon. All the injured persons were declared unfit for statement. Munna Lal met ASI Pratap Singh in hospital and claim to be witness to accident. His statement was recorded. Offence under Section 279/337/304-A IPC was found to be committed. Rukka was sent for registration of FIR and investigation was assigned to SI V.N. Mishra. Photographs of the spot were collected, site plan was prepared, vehicle was seized and statements of FIR No. 434/96 State Vs Jagbir Singh 2 of 7 witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested and his Driving Licence was also seized. After collecting the post mortem report and completion of investigation, the present chargesheet was filed.
2. After procuring the presence of the accused and supplying him the copies of chargesheet alongwith annexing documents, notice under Section 279/338/304-A IPC was served upon him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thus, the prosecution led evidence.
3. The prosecution has examined 8 witnesses to bring home the guilt of accused. Naveen Kumar was examined as PW-1 who has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 06.06.1996 when they parked their cycles at cycle repairing shop, one tempo bearing registration no. DL-1L-B-1830 came in a very high speed and hit him, Mandeep, Rakesh and 2 small girls. He was duly cross examined on 19.02.1999 and 08.07.2011 after application moved under Section 311 Cr.PC was allowed. In his cross examination, he stated that he became unconscious after accident does not know which vehicle hit them. He also stated that he did not see the accused driving the vehicle in question. He also admitted that he was told by police that accused was driving the vehicle. Rakesh was examined as PW-2. He FIR No. 434/96 State Vs Jagbir Singh 3 of 7 has also deposed on same lines in examination-in-chief and in cross examination. Similarly, Mandeep was examined as PW-3 and he has also alleged rashness/negligence of accused stating that he was driving the vehicle at a very high speed. In his cross examination, he has also stated that he did not see the accused driving the alleged vehicle. Retired SI Jai Singh was examined as PW-4 who proved the fact of registration of FIR and also proved the copy of same as Ex.PW-4/A. Munna Lal was examined as PW-5. He has re-iterated the allegations made in the complaint stating that accused was driving the vehicle in question rashly and negligently and struck against his daughters. He also stated that he ramped left front wheel on his daughters. He also stated that the statement was recorded by IO which is Ex.PW-5/A. Seizure memo is Ex.PW-5/B vide which vehicle was seized and seizure memo vide which damaged cycles were seized is Ex.PW-5/C. Documents of vehicle were seized vide memo Ex.PW-5/D. He also identified dead bodies of his daughters vide memo Ex.PW-5/E and received dead bodies of his daughters vide memo Ex.PW-5/F. He also prove arrest memo and personal search memo as Ex.PW-5/G. He was not cross examined despite opportunity. HC Sat Pal was examined as PW-6 who has proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW-6/A. He was also not cross examined despite opportunity. Dr.C.B.Dabas was examined as PW-7. He proved the post FIR No. 434/96 State Vs Jagbir Singh 4 of 7
-mortem report bearing no. 185/96 and 186/96 as Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-/B respectively. He was also not cross examined despite opportunity. Retired ASI Pratap Singh who conducted investigation was examined as PW-8. He has re-iterated on the proceedings carried out during investigation by him. He was also not cross examined despite opportunity.
5. After conclusion of evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC wherein accused pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case but chose not to lead any DE.
6. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and carefully perused the record. To prove guilt under Section 279/338/304-A IPC, one of the common ingredient under all these offences is the rashness/negligence on the part of accused in driving vehicle or doing any other act. In the present case, allegations have been made against the accused by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 that he was driving the vehicle at a very high speed. In his complaint PW-5 have stated that he was coming from the wrong side but nothing of this sort has come on record in his testimony before the Court. In Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, FIR No. 434/96 State Vs Jagbir Singh 5 of 7 2000 AIR (SC) 2511 2000 it has been 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 precaution". It is a settled law that simple fact of driving a vehicle at high speed does not implies rashness/negligence on part of accused. The density of vehicles, the fact of the area i.e. highway or residential area are other factors which account for rashness/negligence on the part of accused. In the cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, after permission granted to him under Section 311 Cr.PC, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have stated that accused persons were shown by the police to them and they have not seen the accused driving the vehicle. However, since the accused was allegedly arrested on the spot only, thus the statement of witnesses is not of much consequence. However, the essential part of rashness/negligence remains wanting as except the allegations of high speed nothing has been brought on record. Site plan has not been FIR No. 434/96 State Vs Jagbir Singh 6 of 7 proved but a reference to it shows it to a road and not any street or a passage going through any residential area. Therefore, the allegations of high speed is not sufficient to prove the rashness/negligence on the part of accused. In view of the above said discussion, prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, extending the benefit of doubt, accused Ram Dev is acquitted of the offence under Section 279/338/304-A IPC.
Announced in open Court (Chander Jit Singh)
on this day of 29th August, 2011 Metropolitan Magistrate
Rohini Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 434/96 State Vs Jagbir Singh 7 of 7