Delhi District Court
State vs Sushil Kumar on 11 November, 2025
State Vs. Sushil Kumar
IN THE COURT OF MS. PAYAL SINGAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE v. Sushil Kumar
FIR No. : 481/2015
U/S : 279/338 IPC
PS : Burari
Cr. Case No. : 309045/2016
JUDGMENT
11.11.2025
1. CNR No. : DLCT02-022369-2016
2. Date of the offence : 19.04.2015
3. The name of the complainant : Sh. Prabhat Kumar
4. Name of accused : Sushil Kumar s/o Sh. Vimal
5. Date of institution of FIR : 19.04.2015
6. Plea of the accused : Not guilty.
7. Final order : CONVICTION Date of Institution : 18.11.2016 Date of Reservation : 13.10.2025 Date of Judgment : 11.11.2025 BRIEF FACTS
1) Vide this judgment, I shall decide the fate of the above- mentioned FIR which was registered on 19.04.2015 on the complaint of Sh. Prabhat Kumar.
FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 1 of 23 Digitally
signed by
PAYAL
PAYAL SINGAL
SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11
17:14:40
+0530
State Vs. Sushil Kumar
2) The brief case of the prosecution is that on 19.04.2015 at about 01:45 pm at Mata Wali Gali, Surender Colony, Part II in front of Gopal Dairy, Burari Delhi, the accused was driving a car bearing registration No. DL-4CT-0036 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable u/s 279 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). Secondly, on the above-mentioned date, time and place and while driving the said vehicle in the aforesaid manner, the accused caused simple injuries to two injured persons namely Poonam D/o Late Kehar Singh & Poonam W/o Sh. Rajbeer by hitting the said car while both the injured persons were sitting on the stairs in Mata Wali Gali and thereby, committed an offence punishable u/s 337 IPC. Thirdly, on the above mentioned date, time and place and while driving the said vehicle in the aforesaid manner, the accused caused grievous injuries to two injured persons namely Vishal S/o Ram Kumar Giri & Nirmala W/o Sh. Harveer by hitting the said car and the accused also hit against the motorcycle bearing no.DL-8S-BL-4944 belonging to the complainant Sh. Prabhat Kumar and thereby, committed an offence punishable u/s 338 of IPC. Fourthly, on the aforesaid date, time, and place, the accused was found driving the aforesaid vehicle without insurance and thereby, committed an offence punishable U/s 146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the MV Act). Thus, the accused has been charged with Digitally FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 2 of 23 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:14:52 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar having committed offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC and u/s 146/196 MV Act.
3) After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court, upon which cognizance was taken of the offence and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.), since prima facie, offence was being made out under the said sections, vide order dated 16.02.2019, notice was framed u/s 279/337/338 IPC and u/s 146/196 MV Act against the accused Sushil to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was proceeded further for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
4) Before proceeding with the prosecution evidence, it is relevant to mention here that during the course of trial, the accused had admitted copy of FIR (Ex. AD1);
Endorsement on rukka (Ex.AD2); Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act (Ex.AD3); DD NO. 18PPJ dated 19.04.2015 vide which information was received about the present accident (Ex.AD4A); DD NO. 39A dated 19.04.2015 vide which tehrir was brought to the PS and FIR was registered (Ex.AD4B); Mechanical Inspection report of offending vehicle bearing no. DL4CT0036 (Ex. AD11); Mechanical Inspection report of victim vehicle bearing no. DL8SBL4944 (Ex. AD11); MLC No.203418/15 of injured Poonam d/o Late Sh. Kehar Singh (Ex.AD5); MLC No.203419/15 of injured Vishal Digitally FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 3 of 23 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:15:25 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar (Ex.AD7); MLC No.203420/15 of injured Nirmala (Ex.AD8); MLC No.203424/15 of injured Poonam w/o Sh. Rajbeer (Ex.AD6) and testimony of Sh. Akshay Sharma, owner of the offending vehicle (Ex.AD9) without admitting the contents of the said documents. Moreover, witnesses/injured persons namely Poonam d/o Late Sh. Kehar Singh and Poonam w/o Sh. Rajbeer could not be traced despite best efforts and accordingly, vide order dated 26.06.2019, both the said witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses. Similarly, injured Vishal was also not traceable despite best efforts and was accordingly, dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 03.04.2024 Thus, the said witnesses were not summoned.
5) Accordingly, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the remaining 6 witnesses in support of its case i.e. PW-1 Prabhat Kumar i.e. the complainant; PW-2 Mohd. Adil, eye witness; PW-3 Sh. Sanjay, eye witness; PW-4 Smt. Nirmala i.e. one of the injured; PW-5 Ct Kamlajeet Singh; PW-6 Retired SI Prasadi Lal. Now, the testimonies of all these witnesses shall be discussed in detail one by one.
6) PW-1 Prabhat Kumar deposed that on 19.04.2015, an incident had taken place where there were three ladies and two children. The witness stated that his bike was standing there but thereafter, the witness stated to know nothing about the case. Accordingly, upon permission by the court, the said witness was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein the witness has admitted that on the date FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 4 of 23 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:15:34 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar of the incident, he was standing on the other side of the street at Mata Wali Gali, Surender Colony, Part-II, in front of Gopal Dairy after parking his motorcycle bearing No. DL-8S-BL-4944 and that at about 11.45 p.m. a driver of the car bearing No.DL-4CT-0036 came from the side of upper Pusta in a rash and negligent manner and hit against his motorcycle standing there. The said witness also admitted that in the cross examination by Ld. APP that the said vehicle also hit against three women and a child who were sitting on the stairs who sustained injuries resultantly. The witness also admitted that he knew the accused from before; that the accused came out of his car after the accident and fled away from the spot after seeing the injured persons. The witness then admitted that he pulled the victims from underneath the car and they were to the hospital in a TSR. The witness further correctly identified the accused and the photographs of the offending vehicle, Ex.P1 to Ex. P8; the photographs of the victim motorcycle, Ex.P1 to Ex. P2; the photographs of the place of spot, Ex.P1 to Ex. P9. The witness further admitted that the police officials prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B at his instance; that the police officials seized his motorcycle vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-1/C; that the accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-1/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/E in his presence. The witness lastly admitted that due to lapse of long time, he was unable to recall the facts earlier.
7) PW-2 Mohd. Adil deposed that on 19.08.2015, he used to Digitally FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 5 of 23 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:15:43 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar drive TSR bearing no.DL-1RH-2588 and on 19.08.2015, at about 01:45 pm, he parked his TSR on Surender Coony Main Road at the auto stand and was going to purchase household articles, when he saw that a Santro Car bearing registration no.0036 came at a high speed and it seemed that the driver had lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle suddenly came across him and hit a motorcycle and also hit three ladies and one boy who were present at the stairs and the said vehicle overturned. The witness further deposed that the driver of the vehicle fled away from the spot and that he took the injured persons to Trauma Center Hospital. The said witness correctly identified the accused as well as the photographs of the offending and victim vehicle in court.
8) PW-3 Sh. Sanjay completely turned hostile and refused to have seen the accident whereafter, he was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the state but despite being put specific questions, the witness denied having anything to do with the case and refused to have given any statement to the police officials.
9) PW-4 Smt Nirmala deposed that on 19.04.2015, she along with two ladies, both of whose name were Poonam and the child Vishal were sitting on the stairs of the temple at the spot of incident in Jharoda and at about 1.30 p.m., the accused came driving his vehicle Hyundai Santro Car bearing registration No. DL-40036 in a rash and negligent manner at a fast pace and after hitting a motorcycle, came towards them and hit them on the stairs due to which they FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 6 of 23 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:15:53 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar fell and got injured. The witness deposed that the vehicle of the accused was overturned and one of the ladies Poonam got stuck beneath the said vehicle. The witness also stated that she saw the accused who fled away from the spot whereafter, they were all taken to the hospital by a TSR and police alos visited there. The witness then stated that her statement was recorded later at the spot by the police officials. The said witness correctly identified the accused in court as well as the photographs of the place of spot and the offending vehicle. Thereafter, upon permission by the court, the Ld. APP for the State asked certain leading questions from the witness wherein she admitted that on the date of the incident, they were sitting outside the shop and that prior to hitting them, the offending vehicle hit motorcycle bearing no. DL8SBK4944 which was parked outside Gopal Dairy.
10) PW-5 Ct. Kamaljeet Singh has deposed that on 19.04.2015, upon receiving DD No. 18PPJ regarding accident, he along with the IO/ASI Prasadi Lal had visited the spot of incident, i.e. Mata Wali Gali, Surender Colony, Jharoda, Delhi and upon reaching there, they came to know that all the four injured persons had been taken to the hospital by a TSR and thereafter, the IO left him at the spot and went to the hospital and after some time IO came back there with the MLC of the injured persons and thereafter, IO prepared the Tehrir and handed over the same to him and he went to the PS and got the FIR registered.
Thereafter, the witness deposed that he came back to the Digitally FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 7 of 23 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:16:09 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and original tehrir to the IO and that they met an eye witness namely Prabhat Kumar who disclosed that he knew the accused who was standing at some distance and that the accused was then arrested at the instance of the said witness by the IO vide memo Ex.PW1/D; accused was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW1/E; IO recorded his disclosure statement; IO also seized the offending vehicle and motorcycle vide separate seizure memos Ex. PW-5/A and Ex. PW-1/C; IO seized the Driving License of the accused vide memo PW-5/B whereafter, the statement of injured persons was recorded by the IO. The said witness correctly identified the accused, the photographs of the place of incident, the offending vehicle and the victim vehicle in court.
11) PW-6 ASI Prasadi Lal has deposed that on 19.04.2015, he along with Ct. Kamaljeet went to the above said spot of the incident after receiving the DD No. 18PP and they saw a car bearing No. DL-4CT-0036 and one motorcylce bearing No. DL-8SBL-4944 in accidental condition. On enquiry from the locals, he came to know that the injured shifted to Troma Centre hospital and he found four injured persons namely Ms. Poonam, Nirmala and another Poonam and one baby Vishal and he obtained their MLC and thereafter he returned to the spot and met with the witness Prabhat Kumar and he recorded statement. Ex. PW-1/A Thereafter, the witness deposed that he prepared tehrir Ex. PW-6/A and handed over the FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 8 of 23 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:16:32 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar same to Ct Kamlajeet for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, Ct Kamlajeet returned to the spot and handed him the original tehrir and copy of FIR; The witness then deposed that he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant Ex. PW-1/B; he arrested the accused Sushil Kumar and personally searched him vide memo Ex. PW. 1/D and Ex. PW-1/E; he seized the aforesaid vehicles vide memo Ex. PW-5/A. PW-6 ASI Prasadi Lal then deposed that on 27.04.2015, he called mechanical expert Gurdeep Singh at PS Burari and asked to conduct mechanical inspection of the vehicle bearing Resignation No. DL-8SBL-4944, make Splender and Vehicle bearing No. DL-4CT-0036 make Hynai Santro and thereafter Gurdeep Singh inspected the vehicle and prepared detailed report and handed over to him. Thereafter he served a notice u/s 133 of MV. Act to the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-4CT-0036 which is Ex. PW-6/B and in reply of that notice, Akshay Sharma informed him that Akshay Sharma has already sold vehicle and thereafter, he served a notice u/s 133 Mv. Act to Rakesh who was the Manager of AAA Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. which is Ex. PW-6/C 6 informed that the said vehicle was sold to the accused and vide notice u/s 160 PC Ex. PW-6/C-1, the accused replied u/s 133 MV Act that at the time of accident, he was driving the aforesaid vehicle and the accident was caused by him which is Ex.
PW-/D. PW-6 then deposed that he deposited the MLC in the hospital vide request letter Ex. PW-6/E for the result Digitally FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 9 of 23 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:16:44 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar MLC No.203418/2015, 203424/2015 on which the doctor opined that nature of the injuries were simple and LC No. 203419/2015 and 203420/2015, the concerned doctor opined the nature of injury was grievous. Then, PW-6 deposed that he completed all the formalities, prepared the challan and filed the same in court. The said witness correctly identified the accused, the photographs of the place of incident, the offending vehicle and the victim vehicle in court.
12) All the witnesses were duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused and the relevant portions of their testimonies shall be duly discussed at the appropriate stage.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED:
13) Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 26.08.2023 wherein the accused denied the case of the prosecution and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused further chose not to lead any defence evidence and accordingly, DE was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
14) The final arguments were advanced by Sh. M. Nageshwar, Ld. counsel on behalf of the accused and Sh. Rohit Lohat, Ld. APP for the state.
15) It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the accused that the FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 10 of 23 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:16:55 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence was that the prosecution was required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt which the prosecution had miserably failed to do in the case at hand. It was argued that 3 out of the 4 injured persons never entered the witness box in which scenario, there was not sufficient material to convict the accused. It was argued that out of the 4 public witnesses as examined by the prosecution, 1 i.e. PW-3 Sh. Sanjay had turned completely hostile; PW-1 had resiled from his statement and only deposed after cross-examination by the State and that PW-2 Mhd Adil was an interested witness being employed at Gopal Dairy where the accident allegedly took place. It was then argued by the accused that the present incident was a result of negligence on the part of the injured persons who had suddenly come infront of the car of the accused after bursting of fire crackers and that the accused cannot be held guilty for their negligence. It was also argued that the non-joinder of public witnesses despite availability and material contradictions in the testimonies of PWs were fatal to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, it was argued that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case and was entitled to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
16) Per contra, it was argued by the Ld. APP for the state that there were ocular and documentary evidences on record to bring home the guilt of the accused. It was argued that the accused had failed to bring any material FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 11 of 23 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date:
SINGAL 2025.11.11 17:17:09 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar contradictions in the testimonies of PWs and the same were also corroborated by the testimony of the other police witnesses which taken together were sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it was argued that the state had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the accused who had caused injuries to as many as 4 injured persons after hitting the bike of the complainant owing to rash and negligent driving of his vehicle and thus, he was liable to be convicted of the offence u/s 279/337/338 IPC and Section 146/196 MV Act.
17) I have heard the arguments from both the sides and have carefully gone through the record.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:
18) In the case at hand, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused has committed an offence u/s 279/337/338 IPC as well as u/s 146/196 MV Act for which the essential ingredients of offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC are to be examined. Now, firstly the court will deal with the charges u/s 279/337/338 IPC. First and foremost, the essential ingredient for an offence under Section 279 IPC is driving/riding a vehicle 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. Similarly, Section 337/338 IPC is made out when simple/grievous injuries are caused to any person due to said rash and negligent act. Accordingly, Digitally FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 12 of 23 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:17:18 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar in order to prove the allegations against the accused, the prosecution was required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, the following aspects:
a. That at the time of alleged incident, it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle, and b. The offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, and c. That the accused, while so driving the offending vehicle, in the aforesaid manner, hit the motorcycle of the complainant and thereafter, hit against two three ladies and one minor boy, causing simple injuries to two of them and grievous injuries to the remaining two persons.
19) Now, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was driving the offending vehicle i.e. Santro car bearing registration no. DL 4CT-0036 in such a rash and negligent manner that he firstly against the motorcycle of the complainant while it was parked on the side of the street and thereafter, hit against three ladies namely Poonam d/o Late Sh. Kehar Singh, Poonam w/o Sh. Rajbeer, Nirmala and one child namely Vishal, thereby causing simple injuries to the former two and grievous injuries to the latter two. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that injuries were caused to as many as 4 victims owing to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the accused.
20) At the outset, it is relevant to note that it is not the case of the accused that he was not driving the offending vehicle on the date of the incident and infact, the same is an admitted fact but it is the case of the accused that the FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 13 of 23 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:17:27 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar accident did not occur due to his rashness but it occurred due to the fault of the injured persons who suddenly came infront of his car after hearing the sound of bursting of crackers. Accordingly, no suggestion whatsoever were put to any of the witnesses with respect to the non-availability of the accused at the spot and suggestions like "... It is wrong to suggest that the accused was not at fault and that's why he was let go by the crowd..." were put to PW1; suggestions like "... It is wrong to suggest that as the accused turned his vehicle at the spot of the incident, somebody at the spot burst a fire cracker and due to the said blast, the injured ladies and the boy fell down from the stairs infront of the offending vehicle driven by the accused, It is wrong to suggest that the accused did not flee from the spot and had accompanied the injured persons to the Trauma Centre..." were put to PW-2; suggestions like "... It is wrong to suggest that after the incident, the accused had not fled away from the spot but had taken the injured persons to the hospital..." were put to PW-4. Accordingly, it stands duly admitted that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the alleged offence and the prosecution was not required to prove the same, nonetheless, the testimonies of PWs 1, 2 and 4 as detailed above who have identified the accused in court as the driver of the offending vehicle along with the due identification of the said offending vehicle proves the said facts at serial no. (a).
21) Now, moving to the remaining two factors at serial
Digitally
FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 14 of 23 signed by
PAYAL
PAYAL SINGAL
SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11
17:17:36
+0530
State Vs. Sushil Kumar
no. (b) and (c). Firstly, coming to factor (c) i.e. causation of injuries to the injured persons. The MLCs of all the four injured persons have been duly admitted by the accused and again, since no suggestion whatsoever was put to any witness with respect to non-causation of injuries to the injured, instead suggestions as discussed above were put (like it was the accused who took the injured person to the hospital), the factum of causation of injuries and their nature is again not disputed and stands duly established.
Thus, the only factor that remains to be proved is whether the injuries were caused by the rash and negligent act of the accused.
22) In order to examine the merit or otherwise of contentions
(b) as aforementioned, it is necessary for the Court to first and foremost examine what is rash and negligent driving and whether it can be gathered from the attendant circumstances.
23) Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. From a catena of judgments, the meaning of the said terms is no more res integra. 'Negligence' means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would Digitally FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 15 of 23 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:17:45 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence. Thus, the preliminary conditions are that:-
(i) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven;
(ii) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and
(iii)such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life.
24) Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated under section 279 IPC is attracted. It is also settled law that in a case under Section 279/337/338 IPC, in order to impose criminal liability upon the accused, it must be determined as a fact that a collision/accident was entirely, or at least mainly, due to rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. It is not sufficient to say that the accused was driving the vehicle at a fast speed. A mere error of judgment on the part of the driver would not make him liable under section 337/338. Moreover, the injury/death must be the direct result of the rash or Digitally signed by FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 16 of 23 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:17:54 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar negligent act of the accused and the act must be sufficient cause or the causa causans.
25) Now, at this stage, as already discussed above, it stands proved that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and that injuries were caused to the 4 persons owing to the same, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the remaining third ingredient (b) as well wherein it is upon the prosecution to prove that the said vehicle was being driven in such a rash and negligent manner so as to cause the accident and consequential grievous injuries to the complainant.
26) The prosecution has essentially relied upon the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 in order to prove the said contention as well. Now, the testimonies of the said witnesses shall be discussed one by one. Firstly, coming to the testimony of PW-3 Sanjay who is stated to be the owner of Gopal Dairy i.e. the shop infront of which the complainant's motorcycle was parked when it was allegedly hit by the car of the accused. The said witness has completely turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and even after specific cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the state, the witness refused to have given any statement to the police officials or to have seen anything on the date of the alleged incident. Thus, the testimony of PW-3 does not come to the aid of the prosecution. Now, coming to the testimony of PW-1 i.e. Digitally signed by PAYAL FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 17 of 23 PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:18:03 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar the complainant, whose motorcycle was firstly hit by the accused as per the prosecution story. Although the said witness initially stated that he did not know anything about the case but during his cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, as already noted above, he admitted that on the date of the incident, he was standing on the other side of the street at Mata Wali Gali, Surender Colony, Part-II, in front of Gopal Dairy after parking his motorcycle bearing No. DL-8S-BL-4944 and that at about 11.45 p.m. a driver of the car bearing No.DL-4CT-0036 came from the side of upper Pusta in a rash and negligent manner and hit against his motorcycle standing there. The said witness also admitted in the cross examination by Ld. APP that the said vehicle also hit against three women and a child who were sitting on the stairs who sustained injuries resultantly. The witness also admitted that he knew the accused from before; that the accused came out of his car after the accident and fled away from the spot after seeing the injured persons. Thus, the testimony of the said witness, though hostile cannot be discarded in its entirety. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar v State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, wherein it was observed that, "25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The Digitally signed by FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 18 of 23 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:18:11 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
27) Thereafter, coming to the testimony of PW-4 Smt Nirmala i.e. one of the injured and PW-2 Mohd Adil. The court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of both these witnesses when read together with the testimony of PW-1 is sufficient to prove that the vehicle was being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner. PW-1 stated that his bike was parked which was hit by the vehicle of the accused and the said latter vehicle then hit three ladies and one child sitting on the stairs, he stated that the accused came out of his car and fled the spot after seeing the injured persons and that he pulled out the victims from beneath the vehicle and they were shifted to the hospital by a TSR. Then, PW-2 stated that he was a TSR driver and on 19.08.2015, he saw the offending vehicle whose driver seemed to have lost control, hit a motorcycle and then three ladies and a child who were present at the stairs, that the vehicle overturned and the driver fled away from the spot, and he took the injured to the hospital in his TSR. Thereafter, PW-4 stated that on 19.04.2015, while she was sitting on the stairs with two ladies and one child, one Santro car came at a fast pace and after hitting a motorcycle, hit them on the stairs. The testimonies of all three witnesses is corroborating each other on the specific chain of events that transpired on the Digitally signed by PAYAL FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 19 of 23 PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:18:20 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar said date and is sufficient to establish rashness on the part of the accused. The fact that the vehicle was being driven at a fast pace on a road which was around 10 Feet wide (as evident from the site plan and the cross-examination of PW-2), that it firstly hit the stationary motorcycle of the complainant and then four people who were sitting on the stairs is sufficient to establish the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused.
28) As far as the minor contradictions in the testimonies of PW-2 (with respect to the date of the incident as 19.08.2015); PW-1 (with respect to the time of the incident as 11.45 pm) are concerned, the court is of the considered opinion that the said contradictions cannot be said to be so material so as to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Essentially, the witnesses have stood the test of cross examination and all the questions/ suggestions as put to them regarding the identity of the accused, offending vehicle, the manner in which the vehicle was being driven by the accused and the circumstances in which injuries were suffered by the injured persons have been appropriately answered by the witness. Any and all questions/ suggestions put to the witnesses to the extent that they had no occasion to see the face of the accused, they were not available at the spot, the accident occurred due to bursting of crackers and not due to the negligence of the accused have been denied by the witness. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Digitally FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 20 of 23 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:18:28 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Krishna Master and Ors. (2010)12 SCC and Bhagchandr Vs. State of M.P. decided on 09.12.2021 where it was held that a true witness cannot be expected to give a parent like statement and minor discrepancies are bound to occur which shows the genuineness of the testimony and is a guarantee that witness is not a tutored one. Accordingly, the court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PWs 1, 2 and 4 are sufficient to clearly establish that on the date of incident, it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle in a negligent and rash manner and by such negligent driving, he firstly hit against the motorcycle of the complainant while it was parked on the side of the street and thereafter, hit against three ladies namely Poonam d/o Late Sh. Kehar Singh, Poonam w/o Sh. Rajbeer, Nirmala and one child namely Vishal, thereby causing simple injuries to the former two and grievous injuries to the latter two.
29) At this juncture, the court finds it relevant to note that given the witnesses as examined on behalf of the State including police witnesses and their stellar testimony, the non-examination of three injured persons is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and even without their testimony, the prosecution has successfully proved the charges against the accused person.
30) Now, once the said facts stand duly proved, the onus shifts upon the accused to show that it was the negligence of the injured persons and not his rashness that caused the accident but the court is of the considered Digitally signed by FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 21 of 23 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:18:38 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar opinion that the accused has failed to bring on record any material to establish the same. No defence evidence was led by the accused and accordingly, no witnesses were examined to show any case of firecracker bursting at the spot. All the suggestions put to the public witness regarding the injured persons having suddenly jumped infront of the vehicle of the accused due to bursting of crackers were denied by all the witnesses. In the given circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges against the accused person u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
31) Now, coming to Section 146/196 MV Act. The prosecution has examined PW-6 who stated that accused could not prove valid insurance documents when asked to do so and no suggestion whatsoever was put to the said witness with respect to the same or availability of the said documents.
Thus, the prosecution has been successful in proving the said allegations as well against the accused.
32) In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the ingredients that the prosecution was duty bound to prove to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 279/337/338 IPC and Section 146/196 MV Act have been duly proved. Accordingly, accused Sushil is convicted in the present case for offences that he is charged with i.e. 279/337/338 IPC and Section 146/196 MV Act as prosecution has successfully proved his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Digitally signed by PAYAL FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 22 of 23 PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:18:50 +0530 State Vs. Sushil Kumar
33) Dasti copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
(Announced in open Court on 11th November 2025 ) Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL (The judgment contains 23 pages SINGAL Date:
2025.11.11 17:18:55 and all the pages bear my signatures) +0530 (Payal Singal) JMFC-09/Central District Delhi/11.11.2025 FIR No. 481/2015, PS Burari Page No. 23 of 23