Delhi District Court
State vs Ramkesh on 23 November, 2023
FIR No.46/2018 (State vs. Ramkesh) PS Sagarpur
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-03,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Isha Singh, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 16980/2018
Unique Case ID No. -: DLND02-015749-2018
FIR No. -: 46/2018
Police Station -: SAGARPUR
Section(s) -: 279/304A IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
RAMKESH
S/o Sh. Ram Ratan
R/o H. No. RZ-296/1A-D, Near Poer House, Durga Park,
Nasirpur, Delhi
.... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Suraj
2. Name of Accused : Ramkesh
Offence complained of or
3. : 279/304A IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of registration of FIR : 03.03.2018
6. Date of Filing of chargesheet : 06.10.2018
7. Date of Reserving Order : 23.11.2023
8. Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2023
9. Final Order : ACQUITTED
Page no. 1 / 8
FIR No.46/2018 (State vs. Ramkesh) PS Sagarpur
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. Briefly put, the case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2018 at about 11:00 AM, at Durga Park, Nasirpur Road, Near MCD Office, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Sagarpur, accused Ramkesh were driving a vehicle bearing registration no. HR 67A 4138 make Tata 407 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving, he hit against one pedestrian namely Ms. Savita and caused her death thereby committing offences u/s 279/304A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter "IPC").
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, charge-sheet against the accused Ramkesh was filed u/s 279/304A IPC. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused Ramkesh was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused Ramkesh in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused Ramkesh, charge under sections 279/304A IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Firstly, PW1/Complainant Sh. Suraj entered the witness box and in his examination, he stated that he did not remember anything about the alleged incident and he refused to testify any further to support the prosecution. Since the witness was resiling from his earlier statement given to the police, Ld. APP for the State sought permission to cross-examine the witness, which was allowed and attention of the complainant was drawn towards his complaint Ex.PW-1/A. Upon being confronted with his complaint Ex. PW1/A, the witness denied writing any complaint to the police ever. During his cross-examination by the Ld. APP, he denied the suggestion Page no. 2 / 8 FIR No.46/2018 (State vs. Ramkesh) PS Sagarpur that on 03.03.2018, in the morning, he was walking towards Durga Park, Nasirpur Road, New Delhi and at 11:00 AM, he noticed that a vehicle make Tata 407 bearing registration no. HR 67A 4138 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He further denied the suggestion that the driver of the aforesaid vehicle, suddenly turned the offending vehicle towards Dayal Park from Nasirpur Road and crashed into an old lady from behind, who was a pedestrian. He further denied the suggestion that due to the impact the said lady fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He further denied the suggestion that the driver of the ofending vehicle was trying to run away from the spot, however, he was apprehended by public persons and his name was revealed as Ramkesh S/o Sh. Ram Ratan. During his cross-examination, attention of the witness was also drawn towards his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Mark-X), the witness, however, denied giving any such statement to the police ever. He also denied the suggestion that the present FIR was registered on his complaint. He further denied the suggestion that the site plan was prepared by the IO at his instance and he even denied the suggestion that accused was arrested and the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle were seized by the IO in his presence. Upon each denial, he was confronted with his statement Mark-X, wherein all the above said facts were so recorded. Further, he failed to identify the accused Ramkesh. Despite the attention of the witness being specifically drawn towards the accused, he failed to identify him and he also failed to identify the photographs of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR 67A 4138.
No cross-examination of PW1/Suraj was conducted despite opportunity been given to the accused.
4.1 PW2 IO/SI Ramesh Kumar was examined who deposed that on 03.03.2018, upon receiving an information vide DD No. 25B, he alongwith PSI Manjeet reached the spot situated at Durga Park, Nasirpur Raod, Near MCD Office, New Delhi, where offending vehicle make Tata 407 (white colour) bearing registration no. HR 67A Page no. 3 / 8 FIR No.46/2018 (State vs. Ramkesh) PS Sagarpur 4138 was found stationed in accidental condition. He further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle namely accused Ramkesh S/o Sh. Ram Ratan was found present at the spot. He further stated that the eye-witness to the incident namely Sh. Suraj S/o Sh. Ramjeet Shah was also found present at the spot, who gave his oral complaint Ex.PW1/A, which was recorded by PW-2 IO/SI Ramesh Kumar. Thereafter, he received an intimation regarding the admission of the injured in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Dwarka Sector-1, New Delhi vide MLC No. 464/2018 Ex.A6. He further stated that he proceeded towards the hospital leaving behind PSI Manjeet at the spot for the preservation of the same. After reaching at the hospital, PW-2 met with the concerned doctor, who opined that the injured was unfit for giving her statement. Thereafter, he returned to the spot and received an intimation vide DD No. 19A Ex.A5 regarding the fact that injured Savita had succumbed to her injuries. He further stated that he prepared a tehrir Ex.PW2/A at the spot ad handed over the same to PSI Manjeet for the registration of FIR, who went to PS Sagarpur and got the FIR registered. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, PW2 IO/SI Ramesh Kumar prepared the site plan Ex.PW2/A at the spot, thereafter, arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D respectively. He further stated that the accused was released on police bail, matter being bailable in nature. He further stated that he seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/E and he also seized the driving license of the accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/F and seized the RC, permit, fitness certificate and insurance police of the offending vehicle vide sure memo Ex.PW2/G. He further stated that he got captured the photograph of the spot and recorded the statement of relevant witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
On 04.03.2018, the postmortem of the dead body of deceased was conducted and the dead body was handed over to relatives of the deceased Savita and PW-2 also recorded the statement of her relatives in this regard. He correctly identified the accused as well as photographs of the offending vehicle bearing Page no. 4 / 8 FIR No.46/2018 (State vs. Ramkesh) PS Sagarpur registration no. HR 67A 4138.
During cross-examination of PW2 IO/SI Ramesh Kumar, he admitted that he was not an eye witness to the incident. He denied the suggestion that the site plan was prepared by him at PS Sagarpur. He denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
5. In his statement under Sec. 294 CrPC, the accused admitted registration of FIR No. 46/2018, Certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act supporting the FIR, DD No. 25B dated 03.03.2018, DD No. 34B dated 03.03.2018, DD No. 19A dated 03.03.2018, MLC No. 464/18 dated 03.03.2018 of deceased Savita and postmortem report no. 395/18 dated 04.03.2018 of deceased Savita.
6. Since the complainant PW1/Suraj turned hostile and the IO stood examined in respect of the investigation carried out, therefore PE was closed on 10.11.2023, at request of Ld. APP, for the reason that the remaining witnesses of the prosecution were only police witnesses and formal witnesses, sufficient only to prove the investigation of the present case.
7. On 23.11.2023, statement of accused Ramkesh u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded, wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He chose not to lead defence evidence and hence, DE was closed and final arguments were heard.
8. During final arguments, it was argued by Ld. APP for the State, that the evidence of the hostile witness can be read on material points and it can be used to prove the offence alleged against the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused be convicted.
Page no. 5 / 8FIR No.46/2018 (State vs. Ramkesh) PS Sagarpur
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring out a case against the accused and he is liable to be acquitted. He has argued that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused as the person, who drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently causing the death of victim Savita. He also argued that the complainant/public witness has turned hostile and despite reading his evidence as a whole, nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused. As such, it is prayed that accused be acquitted.
10. The accused has been charged for the offences under Section 279/304A, IPC. For offence under Section 279/304A IPC, it has to be proved that the accused was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving, he caused death of the victim, not amounting to culpable homicide.
11. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
12. In order to prove the accused as the one, who was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and while so driving, also caused the death of the victim Savita, the prosecution has examined the complainant - PW1/Suraj. However, PW-1/Suraj has failed to support the case of the prosecution and has also failed to identify the accused during trial. Despite the attention of the witness being drawn towards the accused, he still failed to identify the accused. Thus, PW-1/Suraj was declared hostile.
Page no. 6 / 8FIR No.46/2018 (State vs. Ramkesh) PS Sagarpur
13. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses is not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in omnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witnesses, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under -
"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 same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
14. Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of hostile witness PW1/ Suraj can be relied in part. In the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to help the prosecution. PW1 has failed to depose anything in favour of the prosecution. Despite being confronted with his previous statement / complaint recorded before the police, the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and has denied writing any such complaint. PW1 complainant has also failed to identify the accused as the same person who was driving the offending vehicle on the date of the incident. Despite being specifically shown the accused, the witness was unable to identify him. PW-1 has also failed to identify the photographs of the offending vehicle. Thus, even if the evidence of the hostile witness/PW1 Suraj is considered partly, there remains nothing in the case of the prosecution to prove the identity of the accused as the same person who was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR 67A 4138, rashly and negligently on the date of the incident which led to causing of death of victim Savita. No other independent eyewitness of the incident has been cited by the prosecution. There is no other circumstance or clinching piece of evidence such as CCTV footage, mentioned in the chargesheet, that points towards the guilt of the accused. PW2/IO SI Ramesh Kumar is police witness, and he is not a witness to the offence of causing of death on account Page no. 7 / 8 FIR No.46/2018 (State vs. Ramkesh) PS Sagarpur of rash and negligent driving by the accused, sufficient only to prove that pursuant to the complaint received on 03.03.2018, an FIR no. 46/2018 was lodged at PS Tughlak Road and investigation was conducted thereupon. The prosecution has NOT successfully proved that the accused Ramkesh was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR 67A 4138, rashly and negligently on the date of the incident which led to causing of death of victim Savita. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together, is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offence u/s. 279/304A IPC. Thus, there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence u/s 279/304A IPC.
CONCLUSION
15. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 279/304A IPC, the prosecution was required to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The star witness of the prosecution i.e., PW1/ complainant as well as eye-witness Suraj has turned hostile and has failed to identify the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle, who drove rashly and negligently on the date of the incident, thereby causing the death of victim Savita. There is no evidence to link the accused with the crime charged against him. The ingredients of the offence u/s 279/304A IPC, are not fulfilled from the material on record.
16. Resultantly, accused namely RAMKESH S/o SH. RAM RATAN is hereby found not guilty. He is hereby ACQUITTED of the offence under Section 279/304A IPC. Accordingly, file be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open court on 23.11.2023 in presence of the accused. This judgement contains 08 pages, and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
(Isha Singh) MM-03/PHC/ND/23.11.2023 Page no. 8 / 8