Delhi District Court
State vs . : Shailendra Pathak on 13 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF AASHISH GUPTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 07, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. : Shailendra Pathak
FIR No. : 431/16
U/s. : 279/337 IPC
PS : Sunlight Colony
a The Sl. No. of the case : 880/18
b The date of commission : 25.09.2016
c The date of Institution of the case : 13.02.2018
d The name of complainant : ASI Ombir Singh
e The name of accused : Shailendra Pathak s/o Sh.
Vagis Pathak
R/o H. No. 37, Sarpanch ka
Bada, Mandawali, New
Delhi.
f The offence complained of : 279/337 IPC
g The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h Arguments heard on : 21.08.2018
i The final order qua accused : Acquitted
j The date of judgment : 13.09.2018
JUDGMENT
1 Accused Shailendra Pathak has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 25.09.2016 at about 10 pm at Red light of Sarai Kale Khan within the jurisdiction of P.S. Sunlight Colony, he was found driving a vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1RM 1899 on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others and thereby committed offence made punishable u/s. 279 IPC. It is further alleged that at the aforesaid date, time and place the accused had hit the FIR No. 431/16 State V/s. Shailendra Pathak Page 1 of 5 aforesaid vehicle against one person and caused simple injuries to the said victim and thereby committed offence made punishable u/s. 337 IPC. The IO after completion of investigation, filed chargesheet before this court.
2 Notice u/s. 251 CrPC for commission of offences punishable u/s. 279/337 IPC was given to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 Prosecution has examined the following witnesses in support of its case:
Sr. Witness Nature of deposition/documents produced/proved No. Description 1 PW1 Documents produced/proved:
T. U. Siddiqui A. Mechanical inspection report Ex.PW1/A. He had mechanically inspected the offending vehicle.
2 PW2 Documents produced/proved:
Brahm
Prakash A. 06 photographs of the offending vehicle Ex.P1
(colly.).
He is an eye witness to the incident and had made the PCR call which led to registration of FIR. He deposed that on 25.09.2016 at about 1111:15 pm when he reached Sarai Kale Khan bus stand, he saw that one auto bearing no. DL 1NL 1899 had hit against a person. He claimed to have chased the said auto but could not apprehend the driver. Later he made a PCR call from his mobile.FIR No. 431/16 State V/s. Shailendra Pathak Page 2 of 5
It may be noted that this witness claimed that the accused present in court was driving the vehicle in question.
3 PW3 Documents produced/proved:
ASI Ombir
A. True copy of DD No. 32PP Ex. PW3/A
B. Rukka Ex. PW3/B
C. Site plan Ex.PW3/C
D. Notice u/s. 133 MV Act Ex.PW3/D
E. Arrest memo of accused Ex.PW3/E
F. Personal search memo of accused Ex. PW3/F G. Seizure memo of offending vehicle Ex.PW3/G H. Seizure memo of D/L, R/C, permit, fitness and insurance Ex.PW3/H and Ex.PW3/N. He is the IO of the case who carried out the investigation in the case.
It may be noted that in this case the injured had left the hospital without recording of his statement and he could never be traced out thereafter.
Documents admitted by the accused:
A. FIR (without contents) Ex. PA1 B. MLC of victim bearing no. 586194 dated 25.09.2016 Ex.PA2 4 After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C in which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not avail the opportunity to lead defence evidence. Hence matter reached the stage of final arguments.FIR No. 431/16 State V/s. Shailendra Pathak Page 3 of 5
5 Final arguments heard. Record perused.
6 The accused has faced trial for offences made punishable u/s. 279/337 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused herein had struck an unknown victim with his TSR bearing no. DL 1RN 1899 at a very high speed leading to simple injury on the body of the victim.
7 Before an accused can be convicted under the aforesaid provisions, it is for the prosecution to show that the vehicle in question was being driven in a rash or negligent manner by the said accused. In the present case, as per the testimony of PW2, a person was crossing the road on 29.09.2016 at about 1111:15 pm. As per witness PW2, the said person was struck by the accused with his auto bearing no. DL 1NL 1899. Neither in the evidence of PW2 nor in the investigation, it has come on record as to in what manner was the said auto being driven or what act is claimed to have been done by the accused herein to qualify as rash or negligent act on the part of the accused. Infact, the sole eye witness i.e. PW2 has even given the wrong vehicle number as the vehicle responsible for the accident.
8 Now, save and except the bald assertion of PW2 that the accused had hit one victim, nothing is on record to show any negligence or rashness on the part of the accused. Even the victim of the incident was not traceable and his statement was not recorded. Thus, there is nothing on record for this court to take a view that the accused herein was actually driving the vehicle in question (it may be recalled that the sole eye witness FIR No. 431/16 State V/s. Shailendra Pathak Page 4 of 5 PW2 has given a wrong vehicle number) or even if it is taken that the accused herein was driving the vehicle, the same was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused. Simply because accused had hit the victim shall not mean that such hitting was rash or negligent by itself. Only if the victim had been traced, some light could have been thrown on the manner of the said accident or the circumstances leading to the same. With nothing of the sort being on record, in my opinion, the basic ingredients of rashness or negligence is not proved in the present case.
9 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my opinion, merely because an unfortunate accident took place, which led to some injury to the victim, it cannot mean that the accused herein had committed any rash or negligent act within the meaning of section 279/337 IPC. From the evidence on record, no rashness or negligence on the part of the accused has been brought out to call for application of the aforesaid provisions.
10 Accordingly, in my humble opinion, accused is entitled to be acquitted of all charges in the present case. It is ordered accordingly.
Digitally signedAASHISH by AASHISH GUPTA Announced in the Open GUPTA Aashish Gupta Date: 2018.09.13 16:47:51 +0530 Court on 13th day of September, 2018 MM(South East)07 Saket, New Delhi FIR No. 431/16 State V/s. Shailendra Pathak Page 5 of 5