Delhi District Court
State vs Amin Ali on 10 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF Ms POOJA AGGARWAL:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No.73/2005
PS Keshav Puram
State Vs Amin Ali
Date of Institution: 09.05.2006
Date of Judgment: 10.02.2020
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 531299/16
(b) Date of commission of offence : 12.02.2005
(c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Goverdhan
(d) Name of Accused, his : Amin Ali,
parentage & residence S/o Abdul Rashid
R/O G-299, Shakarpur, Delhi
(e) Offence complained of : Under Section 279/337/338 IPC
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order : Conviction for the offences under
Section 279/337 IPC
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. In brief, the accused Amin Ali has been sent to face trial for the commission of offences under Sections 279/337/338 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') upon the allegations that on 12.02.2005, at about 8:00 pm at bus stand near Wazirpur Depot, Delhi, he was driving one Tata Sumo car bearing no. DL-9CA-3531 FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 1 of 24 in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving he hit two passengers who were waiting for bus causing simple injuries to Mann Singh Rawat and grievous injuries to Omveer.
2. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in Court upon which cognizance of the offences was taken by the Ld Predecessor and the copy of chargesheet and the documents were supplied to the accused after he entered appearance in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused was also admitted to bail.
3. Notice was then served upon the accused for the commission of offences under Section 279/337/338 of Indian Penal Code by the Ld Predecessor to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses.
5. PW-1 ASI Manju Bala being the then Duty Officer proved the factum of registration of the present FIR ie Ex. PW1/A on 12.02.2005, at about 11:00 am upon receipt of a rukka from Ct. Sri Niwas sent by SI Sewa Singh and also proved the endorsement Ex.PW-1/B on the rukka. She was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
FIR No. 73/2005PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 2 of 24
6. PW-2 Maan Singh Rawat being one of the injured testified that on 12.02.2005 at about 8.30 am, he was standing at the bus stand Wazirpur Depot waiting for a bus when suddenly one Tata Sumo bearing no. DL9CA-3531, being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed, came and hit against the public persons standing at the bus stop over the Patri after which the car stopped after hitting a pole. PW-2 further testified that he found himself under the car upon which he shouted for help and public persons took him out. He further testified that he sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and that public persons apprehended the accused and called the police and when the police reached at the spot, the accused was handed over to them.
7. PW2 further testified that he sustained injuries in that accident alongwith Goverdhan and Omveer who were also present at the bus stop and that they were shifted to BJRM Hospital by the police where they were medically examined and his statement was recorded by the police. He correctly identified the accused in the Court and also testified that he could identify the offending vehicle Ex. P-1 but the accused did not dispute the identity of the offending vehicle. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
8. PW-3/Omveer being another injured testified that on 12.02.2005 at FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 3 of 24 about 8.00-8.30 am, he and his elder brother Yashvir were standing at the bus stand Wazirpur Depot waiting for a bus for going to C- Block, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram where his father used to sell the vegetables when suddenly, one Tata Sumo bearing no. DL-9-CA- 3531, being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed, hit against him and other public persons standing at the bus stop over the Patri causing the accident due to which he sustained injuries and fell unconscious. He further testified that Goverdhan and Man Singh Rawat were also injured and that when he regained consciousness, he found himself in the Hindu Rao Hospital where he was treated and his statement was recorded by the police officials. He correctly identified the accused in the Court and the accused did not dispute the identity of the car Ex P1. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
9. PW4 Yashvir being the brother of injured Om veer testified that on 12.02.2005, he was walking to Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram with his brother Omveer and when they reached at Wazirpur Depot Bus Stand, at about 8.00 am one Tata Sumo car bearing no. DL-9CA- 3531 was coming from Azadpur side in high speed and in rash and negligent manner which hit against his brother Omveer, and also against two other persons who were standing at the Bus stand who were also injured, whereafter the PCR came at the spot, the accused was apprehended by the public persons, police officials took his brother and other two injured to BJRM Hospital and after first aid FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 4 of 24 his brother was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital with others by Ambulance and that his brother was admitted in ICU and was operated upon. He correctly identified the accused in the Court and the accused did not dispute the identity of the car Ex P1. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
10.PW5 HC Sri Niwas (Ct Sriniwas as he then was) testified that on 12.02.2005, on receiving DD no. 4-A, he went to the spot i.e. Wazirpur Depot Bus Stand with SI Sewa Singh where they found one Tata Sumo car bearing no. DL9CA-3531 in an accident condition and on inquiry they came to know that the injured was shifted to BJRM Hospital whereafter, IO went to the hospital leaving him at the spot and after sometime, the IO returned to the spot, prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered through him after which he returned to the spot and gave the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. He further testified that the IO seized the Tata Sumo car vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A and the accused was also present at the spot. He further testified that they brought the accused and the case property to PS, IO seized the photocopy of NCR and Insurance vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C and the accused was arrested and personally searched by the IO vide memos Ex.PW5/D and Ex.PW5/E. He correctly identified the accused in the Court, identified his signatures on the documents and also identified the Tata Sumo car bearing no. DL9CA-3531 through photographs Ex.P- 1 to Ex.P-4. He was duly cross examined by the Ld Counsel for the FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 5 of 24 accused.
11.PW6 ASI Tuka Ram being the then IC Van in PCR North testified that on 12.02.2005, at about 8.15 am, he received a call regarding accident near Wazirpur Depot upon which he reached at the spot with his staff and they shifted the injured to BJRM Hospital and then returned to their base. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld APP for the State wherein he testified that the offending vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo car bearing no. DL9CA-3531 and the accused were handed over to him, and that they shifted the injured ie Omveer, Goverdhan and Maan Singh to the hospital and they took the accused to PS Keshav Puram and handed the accused over to the Duty Officer. PW6 correctly identified the accused in the Court and also identified the Tata Sumo car bearing no. DL9CA-3531 through photographs Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
12.Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, CMO BJRM Hospital was examined by the prosecution as PW7 as well as PW9 and during his testimony he identified the signatures of Dr Ashfaq on the ME no. 6676 of Man Singh ie Ex.PW-7/A who had been brought in on 12.02.2005 with alleged history of RTA and on which Dr Ashfaq had opined the injury to be simple testifying that Dr Ashfaq had left the hospital and his present whereabouts were unknown but he could identify his signatures and handwriting having worked with him. As PW9, he FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 6 of 24 identified the signatures of Dr Dina Nath as well as opinion given by him on the MLC of Omveer ie Ex PW9/A who had referred the patient to SR Ortho and SR Surgery for management and treatment and also identified the signatures of Dr Vinay and Dr Nitin Puri as well as observations made by them on Ex PW9/A. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
13.PW8 Dr. J.K. Ujjainia, CMO (SAG) Hindu Rao Hospital identified the signature of Dr. Prakash Borah on the injury sheet no. 17362 and MRD no. 45333 ie Ex.PW8/A in respect of patient Omveer testifying that the concerned doctor had left the hospital and his present whereabouts were unknown. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
14.PW-10 Rtd ASI/Tech. Devender Kumar being the mechanical inspector testified that on 12.02.2005, he had conducted mechanical inspection of one Tata Sumo car bearing no. DL9CA-3531 at the request of IO SI Sewa Singh and he proved his detailed report Ex.PW-10/A in this regard testifying that upon inspection it was found that front number plate, bonnet was damaged and dislocated from right side and front side and the vehicle was not fit for road test. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
15.PW11 Rtd. Inspector Sewa Singh, being the Investigating Officer testified that on 12.02.2005, upon receipt of DD no. 4-A ie FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 7 of 24 Ex.PW11/A regarding accident at Bus Stand in front of Wazirpur Depot, he went to the spot with Ct. Sriniwas where they came to know that the injured has already been taken to the BJRM Hospital by the PCR van staff and one Tata 407 bearing no. DL-9CA-3531 was lying in accidental condition, whereafter, he went to BJRM Hospital while leaving behind PW4/Ct. Sri Niwas at the spot. He further testified that at the hospital he met injured Goverdhan, one other injured and one child of aged about 10 years was also injured in the said accident, however he was declared unfit for statement by the doctor.
16.PW11 further testified that he then recorded the statement of injured Goverdhan ie Ex.PW-11/B, prepared the tehrir ie Ex.PW-11/C on the basis of the same, returned to the spot and sent Ct. Sri Niwas for registration of FIR. He further testified that in the meantime, the PCR staff came to the spot with the accused and handed the accused over to him after which Ct Sriniwas returned to the spot with original tehrir and copy of FIR which he gave to him and in the meantime complainant Goverdhan also reached at the spot upon which he prepared the site plan ie Ex.PW-11/D at the instance of Goverdhan, seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo ie Ex.PW-5/A, seized the photocopy of insurance of offending vehicle and NCR in respect of the DL of accused vide seizure memo ie Ex.PW-5/C with copy of insurance being Mark Z1 and copy of NCR being Mark Z2. He further testified that he also seized the RC of the FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 8 of 24 offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/B with RC being Mark Z3 and that the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW-5/D and Ex.PW-5/E by him whereafter the accused was released on bail and case property was deposited in malkhana.
17.PW11 further testified that he got the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle conducted vide request Ex.PW-11/E on which the report of mechanical inspector ie Ex.PW-10/A was taken. He further testified that he also obtained the result on the MLC of the injured persons, recorded the statement of witnesses including that of the child and also recorded the statement, seized the DL of the accused vide Ex PW11/X and upon his transfer, PW11 handed over the file to MHC(R). He correctly identified the accused in the Court during his cross-examination by the Ld APP and also identified the offending vehicle through photographs Ex P1 to P4. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. counsel for accused.
18.After the prosecution evidence was closed, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused who maintained his innocence denying having caused any accident stating that his vehicle had met with an accident prior to this incident as a truck had hit his vehicle. He further stated that he was bringing his vehicle to a stop slowly against the footpath but FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 9 of 24 people were crossing on the zebra crossing in his front and to avoid hitting them, he turned his vehicle to the left and the injured suddenly came in front and as the brakes of his vehicle did not work properly, the injured were hit and public caught him.
19.The accused chose to lead defence evidence and examined one Mukesh in his defence as DW1 who testified that he was a mechanic and that he had gone to the PS from where the TATA Sumo no 3531 was brought to his workshop near Shakurpur petrol pump which vehicle he repaired including the front wind screen, bonnet and brakes which were not working. He was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he admitted that he did not have any documentary proof of having repaired the above-mentioned vehicle.
20.Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed vide separate statement of the accused after which final arguments were advanced on behalf of both the parties which have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
21.It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 10 of 24 benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
22. To establish the guilt of the accused, it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt:
1. the factum of an accident having been caused by the offending vehicle;
2. the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle
3. the accident to be result of the rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place and
4. factum of simple/grievous injuries to have resulted to the victim(s) from such rash and negligent act of the accused.
Factum of accident having been caused by offending vehicle
23.It has come on record in the testimony of PW2 Maan Singh that on 12.02.2005 at about 8.30 am when he was standing at the bus stand Wazirpur Depot waiting for a bus, one Tata Sumo bearing no. DL9CA-3531 had come and hit against the public persons standing at the bus stop over the Patri. PW3/Omveer and PW4 Yashvir have also corroborated the factum of the accident in question having taken place by the Tata Sumo car bearing no. DL-9CA-3531. All these three witnesses were also able to withstand the rigours of cross-examination as no material contradiction could be brought forth in their cross-examination so as to raise any doubt as to the accident having been caused by the Tata Sumo car bearing no. DL- 9CA-3531.
FIR No. 73/2005PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 11 of 24
24. It is pertinent to note that even the accused has not disputed the factum of the accident having taken place by the said vehicle since during the cross-examination of PW2 Man Singh, PW3 Omveer or even PW4 Yashvir, no questions or even suggestions were put to any of them as to the accident in question not having been caused by the vehicle ie Tata Sumo car bearing no. DL-9CA-3531. No any reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the consistent oral testimony of PW2 Man Singh, PW3 Omveer and PW4 Yashveer which inspires confidence of the Court even more so since the said vehicle was also found at the spot in accident condition as has come on record in the testimony of PW5 HC Sri Niwas and PW11/IO Retd Inspector Sewa Singh. Hence the factum of the accident having been caused by the Tata Sumo car bearing no. DL-9CA-3531 stands duly proved.
Identity of the driver of the offending vehicle
25. PW2 Man Singh, PW3 Om Veer and PW4 Yashvir have all consistently testified as to the accused Amin Ali driving the Tata Sumo car bearing no. DL-9CA-3531 on 12.02.2005 at about 08.30 am and they all correctly identified the accused in the Court as well. The identification of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle went unrebutted as these witnesses were not cross-examined in this respect on behalf of the accused. It is duly noted that even the accused has not disputed the factum of him driving the said vehicle FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 12 of 24 at the time of the accident since the only defence set up by him even at the time of recording of his statement under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC is that there was no negligence or rashness on his part. Hence in view of the urebutted testimony of PW2 Man Singh, PW3 Om Veer and PW4 Yashvir identifying the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle, the factum of the accused Amin Ali being the driver of the vehicle ie Tata Sumo car bearing no. DL- 9CA-3531 at the time of accident stands duly proved.
Accident was result of the rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place
26. It is duly noted that a rash act is primarily an overhasty 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 (Ref: Mohd. Aynuddin alias Miyam v. State of A.P. (2000) 7 SCC
72).
27.In the present case, PW2 Maan Singh Rawat has categorically testified that on 12.02.2005 at about 8.30 am, he was standing at the FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 13 of 24 bus stand Wazirpur Depot waiting for a bus when suddenly the offending vehicle ie Tata Sumo bearing no. DL9CA-3531, being driven in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed, came and hit against the public persons standing at the bus stop over the Patri after which the car stopped after hitting a pole. The other injured ie PW3 Omveer has also testified on similar lines. During the entire cross-examination, this testimony of PW2 Maan Singh and PW3 Om Veer has not been rebutted nor its credibility has been impeached.
28. It had been argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the exact speed of offending vehicle and hence the accused be acquitted. While it is no doubt true that both the injured ie PW2 Maan Singh and PW3 Omveer have consistently testified the offending vehicle was being driven in high speed and no further specific evidence has been led by the prosecution to the speed at which the offending vehicle was being driven at the time of the accident, yet it can not be overlooked that as per the testimony of PW2 Maan Singh and PW3 Omveer, the accident took place at the bus stop over the patri. During his cross-examination, PW2 Maan Singh testified that the patri was about 4-5 inches in height from the road and even PW3 Om veer testified in his cross-examination that the patri was about 1 feet in height from the road. That being so, the factum of the patri being at some elevation from the road stands established. Hence it has come on record that despite the elevation, the offending vehicle FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 14 of 24 being driven by the accused hit persons including PW2 Maan Singh and PW3 Omveer after climbing on the patri which itself proves that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a manner that he could not control his vehicle so as to stop the same within time to avoid hitting the injured and this proves his failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally and to the injured specifically.
29.It is also noted that no evidence has come on record as to the accident having been caused despite exercise of due care and caution of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle as the accused has chosen to merely deny all the incriminating evidence put to him during his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though the accused stated in his statement that his vehicle had met with an accident prior to this incident as a truck had hit his vehicle and that he was bringing his vehicle to a stop slowly against the footpath but people were crossing on the zebra crossing in his front and to avoid hitting them, he turned his vehicle to the left and the injured suddenly came in front and as the brakes of his vehicle did not work properly, the injured were hit, but the accused did not lead any evidence to prove the same.
30.It cannot be lost sight of that the statement of accused under section 281 or 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the evidence of the accused. The explanation furnished at the time of recording such FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 15 of 24 statement is to be proved by witness appearing in the witness box where they can be subjected to cross examination. Mere explanation given in the statement of accused under Section 281 or 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not amount to proof. ( Ref: V S Yadav vs Reena Crl.A. No. 1136 of 2010 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court].
31.Be that as it may, the explanation furnished by the accused also does not inspire confidence since there is also no evidence on record as to whether the accused had even honked the horn at any point of time to warn the persons and the testimony of the PW3 Om Veer as to the accused not having honked any horn has also gone unrebutted. Even if the defence of the accused was accepted as correct for the sake of arguments, even then it does not appeal to reason that a vehicle which had purportedly been hit and was trying to stop against a footpath would not even honk horn to warn the pedestrians purportedly crossing on the zebra crossing. Hence the explanation appears to be afterthought even more so as not even a single suggestion to this effect was put to the prosecution witnesses by the accused.
32.Hence from cogent, consistent and creditworthy evidence the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner at a public place which resulted in the accident.
FIR No. 73/2005PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 16 of 24 Injury to the victim due to rash and negligent act of the accused
33.The oral testimony of PW2 Maan Singh, PW3 Om Veer and PW4 Yashvir as to injuries having been sustained by Maan Singh as a result of the accident has been duly corroborated by the ME No. 6676 dated 12.02.2005 ie Ex.PW 7/A of the injured/ PW2 Maan Singh as per which simple injury has been opined by Dr Ashfaq whose signatures were duly identified by PW7 Dr Neeraj as Dr Ashfaq was stated to have left the hospital and his whereabouts were not known but Dr Neeraj testified that he could identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr Ashfaq having worked with him in the course of his duty.
34.The oral testimony of PW2 Maan Singh, PW3 Om Veer and PW4 Yashvir as to injuries having been sustained by Om Veer has also been duly corroborated by the MLC No 17362 ie Ex PW9/A on which opinions given by Dr Dinanath, Dr Vijay and Dr Nitin Puri have been duly identified by PW9 Dr Neeraj who also testified that present whereabouts of the said doctors were not known but he could identify their handwriting and signatures as he had seen them sign and write during the course of his official duties. Perusal of the said MLC Ex PW9/A shows that inter alia abrasions were found present on the patient/injured Om veer and while the injury sheet of Om veer ie PW8/A, on which PW8 Dr JK Ujjainia identified the signatures of Dr Prakash Borah (whose whereabouts were not FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 17 of 24 known) being conversant with his handwriting and signatures having worked with him as CMO, shows that the injuries were opined to be dangerous no further evidence has been produced by the prosecution to conclude that such injuries were of any other nature other than simple.
35.In these circumstances, the factum of simple injuries having been caused to PW Maan Singh and PW Omveer stands duly proved and since the x-ray of none of the injured including Maan Singh were produced in the Court, the factum of grievous injury having been caused to any injured remains unproved.
36.An argument had been raised by the Ld.Counsel for the accused during final arguments that since the doctor who had prepared the MLC had not been examined and even the authorization in favour of the witness/Dr Neeraj had not been produced, the MLC remained unproved. However, there is no merit in the argument as raised. The argument regarding non-examination of the very doctor who prepared the MLC/ME must fail since the law has been settled in Rajesh Kumar @ Raju vs The State (Delhi Admn.) I(2007) DLT (CRL.)1041 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that:
"The plea that the MLC has not been proved must fail. A document can be proved by the author of document or any one else who can identify his signature. MLCs are recorded in the hospitals in the FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 18 of 24 normal course of duties by the doctors who are there at the 'causalities'. The record of the injuries is prepared and documented only for the reason that it is not possible for any doctor to remember as to what were the injuries on the person of an injured after few days. A doctor has to examine, in causality several patients per day and in all medico legal cases, a record of injuries is prepared for use in the Courts. The doctor who prepares the record of injuries is normally called to prove the MLC in the Court during evidence which may be after a year or more of his examining the injured. A doctor cannot be expected to depose orally as to what were the injuries on the person of a patient. A doctor therefore speaks from the MLC. MLC is an authentic record of injuries which is prepared in regular course of business by the doctor present and can be safely relied upon by the Courts, even when the doctor is not examined in the Court and the record is proved by any other doctor or record keeper. Any person who alleges that the MLC i.e. the record of injuries produced in the Court was not authentic and there has been tampering with the record, has to show to the Court how tampering has been done. It cannot be expected from the hospitals to keep track of the doctors after the doctors leave the hospital. Neither it is necessary for a doctor to keep the hospital informed about his latest whereabouts. A doctor today working in AIIMS or SJ Hospital may tomorrow be working in Bangalore and next month may be away to any other country. Merely because doctor is not personally examined, the MLC cannot be disbelieved. Proving of MLCs by a FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 19 of 24 colleague doctor who identifies the signatures of the doctor on MLC or by any administrative staff of the hospital or by any record keeper who identifies the signatures of the doctor on MLC, is a valid and good proof. MLC cannot be doubted unless tampering with MLC is proved by the person alleging tampering. When a medical man is examined to prove the MLC of a colleague, all questions regarding medical jurisprudence can be asked to him and when a clerk is examined and the accused wants to ask some questions about medical aspects, he can ask the court to summon some doctor from hospital who can answer the questions on the medical aspects of injuries, their nature, their impact on the body. It is not a legal requirement that the doctor who examined the plaintiff alone can answer such questions."
37.In the present case, no such case/defence has been set up by the accused as to the MLC/ME having been tampered with and hence, the testimony of Dr Neeraj proving the said MLC/ME is sufficient to prove the documents.
38.In respect of the argument qua authorization, it is duly noted that Dr Neeraj has categorically testified that he had been deputed by the MS BJRM hospital to depose regarding the ME Ex PW7/A and PW9A on which he duly identified the handwriting and signatures of the concerned doctors and while his evidence had deferred once for want of said authorization, no further cross-examination of this FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 20 of 24 witness on the aspect of authorization was conducted nor even a single suggestion was put to him as to him not being duly authorized to depose. That being so, mere omission to produce any written authorization is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
39.Hence the prosecution has been able to prove that the accident resulted in simple injury to the PW2 Maan Singh and PW3 Om Veer.
Other Arguments of the accused
40.Another argument has been raised by the Ld Counsel for the accused that the prosecution had failed to prove its case since the complainant ie Goverdhan had not been examined in this case at whose instance, the site plan had been prepared and arrest of the accused was made. However, there is no merit in the argument as raised since the site plan Ex PW11/D as well as the arrest memo Ex PW5/D has been duly proved by the IOPW11 Retd Inspector Sewa Singh being the author thereof and not even a single question or suggestion was put to him or even to any other injured by the accused disputing the correctness of the same.
41. It is duly noted that while complainant Goverdhan could not be examined as he remained un-served even through the office of DCP, the same does not in any manner take away from the credibility of the testimony of the other injured/eye-witnesses especially PW2 Maan Singh and PW3 Omveer. It is duly noted that the testimony of FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 21 of 24 an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted as his statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. [Ref: State of UP vs Naresh (2011) 4SCC 324 and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719]
42. In these circumstances, in view of the consistent, cogent and credible testimony of PW2 Maan Singh and PW3 Om Veer, which inspires the confidence of the Court, the non-examination of the complainant in itself not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
43. It had been further argued by the Ld Counsel for the accused that there was also a discrepancy in the testimony of the witnesses as to who had taken the accused to the Police Station in as much as both FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 22 of 24 PW5 HC Sri Niwas (who had accompanied the IO) and PW6 ASI Tuka Ram (being PCR official) had claimed to have taken the accused to the Police station and that there was also a discrepancy in the testimony of prosecution witnesses as to where the statement of the eye-witnesses/injured were recorded. However, it is pertinent to note that the said discrepancies are only minor in nature being part of investigation only and does not affect the credibility of the testimony of the eye-witnesses and hence is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
44. It is also duly noted that while the accused also examined Sh Mukesh as DW1, who could not even produce any document to prove that he had inspected and repaired the offending vehicle nor any such repair even if proved could disprove in itself that the accident did not take place to rashness or negligence on the part of the accused.
Decision
45. In view of the discussion as above, it is held that from the evidence as led, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt through cogent, consistent and creditworthy evidence, that on 12.02.2005, the accused Amin Ali caused injuries to Maan Singh and Om Veer as he was driving his vehicle ie TATA Sumo bearing number DL 9CA 3531 in a rash or negligent manner as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. Hence, the accused Amin FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 23 of 24 Ali S/o Sh Abdul Rashid is convicted of offences under Section 279/337 IPC in FIR no. 73/05, PS Keshav Puram.
46.Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the convict.
Announced in the open court
on 10.02.2020 POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2020.02.10 13:16:10 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 24 pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2020.02.10 13:16:16 +0530 (POOJA AGGARWAL) Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 73/2005 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/337/338 IPC State Vs Amin Ali Page No. 24 of 24