Delhi District Court
Jile Singh vs State on 9 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE -04
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLNT01-007791-2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 124/2022
PS Alipur
JILE SINGH
S/o Sh. Kapoor Singh,
R/o House No.4, Villager: Sherpur,
PO: Badhauli, Ambala. .....Appellant
VS.
STATE .....Respondent
Date of institution of appeal : 27.08.2022
Date on which arguments heard : 09.01.2024
Date on which judgment pronounced : 09.01.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the present appeal filed by appellant Jile Singh, under section 374 (3) Cr.P.C. against judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2019 (hereinafter referred to as impugned judgment) and Order on Sentence dated 29.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order on sentence) passed by the Court of Ld. CMM, North-District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Trial Court) in Case bearing FIR No.167/2010, PS Alipur, U/s. 279/304A/471/474 IPC titled as 'State Vs. Jile Singh' wherein prayer for setting-aside the impugned judgment and impugned Order on Sentence has been made.
Jile Singh Vs. State CA No. 124/2022 Page No. 1 of 12
2. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence, the appellant has moved the present appeal on the following grounds :-
(i) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that in rukka, FIR and charge-sheet, it has been confirmed by the Investigation Officer that it was the SI Sachin (PW-10) who transit the victim / deceased through PCR Van L-83 to SRHC Hospital in the absence of an eye-witness.
(ii) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that once the Investigation Officer himself has clarified / stated / declared in the charge-sheet that the victim / deceased was transfered from the spot to the hospital by the officials of PCR Van L-83, in such eventuality the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 remain of no consequences, whereas Ld. Trial Court to prove the charge under section 304A IPC relied upon the statement of PW1 and PW2 ignoring the statement of PW-4, PW-6 & PW-10. That if the Ld. Trial Court would have considered the statement of PW-4, PW-6 and PW-10, appellant would not have been found responsible for the offence under section 304A IPC.
(iii) That because the judgment dated 23.12.2019 and proceedings arising therefrom are perverse in nature in as much as Ld. Trial Court miserable failed to consider the observation of PW-5 in PW-5/A (MLC) wherein it is specifically recorded that Jile Singh Vs. State CA No. 124/2022 Page No. 2 of 12 "since facility of blood transfusion and emergency anaesthetic is not available, so patient is transfered to higher centre for further management'. That the afore-mentioned recommendation was made by PW-5 at 11:50 AM, whereas no steps were taken by the state / police to shift the victim/deceased from SRHC Hospital to any other institution where facility of blood transfusion and emergency anesthetic would have been available to give the correct required treatment to the patient / victim / deceased. That, it will not be out of place to mention here that since 11:50 AM to 12:50 PM, no action whatsoever has been taken as recommended by PW-5, therefore, the patient / victim / deceased died on account of failure of state to provide the required treatment, therefore, in no manner whatsoever, it can be considered that the death was on account of the accident.
(iv) That the judgment dated 23.12.2019 is perverse in nature in as much as Ld. Trial Court miserably failed to consider the site plan (Ex. PW-10/B) wherein it is apparent that no Zebra crossing has been shown on the crossing. That if no zebra crossing is existing at the crossing, in such eventuality, the victim /deceased is not supposed to cross the road where no zebra crossing is in existence. Ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate that the crossing is without existence on red light. That the absence of red lights shows that the traffic on the said street can run without any Jile Singh Vs. State CA No. 124/2022 Page No. 3 of 12 stop and pedestrian are not allowed to move on the roads to cross it, therefore, the guilt of appellant is absolutely incorrect.
(v) That the order dated 23.12.2019 is perverse in nature in as much as Ld. Trial Court miserably failed to consider that the transport department has constructed a service road behind the BDO DTC Stand, hence, the person de-boarded the bus are / were supposed to move on the service road but not on the main road which clears shows that it was the victim / deceased who miserably failed to follow the traffic rules and on account of her failure in following traffic rules, resulted into the alleged accident.
(vi) Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that PW-1 in cross-examination stated that the victim/deceased died while taken her to the hospital, whereas the medical record placed by the Investigating Officer shows that the death was taken place in the hospital at 12:50 PM and the victim was alive when the MLC was prepared by PW-5. That the felicity of the fact that PW-2 Praveen shifted the victim/deceased from the spot to the hospital is absolutely incorrect.
(vii) Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that in the absence of the cross-examination of the formal witness i.e., Jile Singh Vs. State CA No. 124/2022 Page No. 4 of 12 Investigation Officer accepting the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 would absolutely prejudice to the interest of the appellant.
(viii) Ld. Trial Court although considered that the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 are contrary in nature but mechanically over ruled his own observation and justified the difference in the statement stating that the minor discrepancy in the statement is of on consequence. That there is no minor discrepancy in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 to which can be over looked. That PW-1 nowhere states in his statement that it was PW-2 who has taken the victim / deceased to the hospital, rather it has been stated that the victim / deceased dies while shifting to the hospital, therefore, the judgment is liable to be set-aside.
(ix) That the order dated 23.12.2019 is perverse in nature as Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the license allegedly ceased by the Investigating Officer is not the part and parcel of the documents placed by the Investigating Officer on record, therefore, in the absence of license, the report of PW-12 is of no consequence.
(x) Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that no evidence has come on record to substantiate that the alleged license has been caused by the Investigating Officer from the Appellant, as no independent witness has been shows to present Jile Singh Vs. State CA No. 124/2022 Page No. 5 of 12 at the time of preparing the seizure memo of the alleged license on 29.05.2010.
(xi) Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the witness has only given his opinion on rash and negligent driving.
That High speed of the vehicle by itself may not in each case be sufficient to hold that a driver in rash or negligent. That Speed alone is not the criterion for deciding the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. That the witness has not stated anything as to how the vehicle was being driver. That no skid marks or tyre marks have been obtained of the spot to indicate that the vehicle was being driver at high speed. That, further the prosecution has also not proved the condition of the traffic light which could have indicate as to whether the accused was within his rights to drive on the road if it was green light or whether he was jumping a red light or whether the light was non-functional. That the prosecution has also not been able to establish as to whether the victim was within his right to cross the road at the crossing.
3. It has been argued on behalf of appellant that impugned order dated 23.12.2019 and order on sentence dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court are incorrect and, therefore, the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2019 and order on sentence dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court may kindly be set-aside.
Jile Singh Vs. State CA No. 124/2022 Page No. 6 of 12
4. On the other hand, Ld. Additional PP for State/ Respondent has opposed the contentions made by Ld. Counsel for appellant and submits that the impugned order has been passed by Ld. Trial Court after considering the testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses including eye witnesses and that the same has not been passed arbitrarily. He has opposed the present appeal vehemently and he has prayed that the present appeal may kindly be dismissed.
5. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of ld. Counsel for the appellant/accused as well as Ld. APP for State/Respondent. This Court has also perused the record.
6. In the present case, Trial Court record has also been summoned. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that vide order dated 03.03.2011, notice under section 251 Cr. P.C., was framed against appellant / accused Jile Singh for the offence punishable under sections 279/304A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 04.07.2018, additional charge for the offences punishable under Sections 471/474 IPC was also framed upon the appellant/accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Perusal of the Trial Court Record further shows that in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined total Twelve (12) witnesses including two eye-witnesses namely Sh. Ravi (PW-1) and Sh. Praveen Jile Singh Vs. State CA No. 124/2022 Page No. 7 of 12 (PW-2). After closing of prosecution evidence, the appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 281 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein he pleaded false implication and innocence. Appellant/accused wished not to lead defence evidence.
8. Perusal of the Trial Court Record further shows that after hearing final arguments, Ld. Trial Court convicted accused Jile Singh for the offences punishable under Section 279/304A/471/474 IPC vide its impugned judgment dated 23.12.2019 and passed the impugned order on sentence dated 29.07.2022.
9. Perusal of TCR shows that in the present case, the prosecution has examined two eye witnesses namely Sh. Ravi (PW-1) and Sh. Praveen (PW-2). It is the case of prosecution that on 28.05.2010 at about 10:46 AM, opposite SDM Office, at Main G. T. Road, Alipur, Delhi, appellant / accused Jile Singh while driving truck bearing registration no. HR-37D-1008, in rash and negligent manner, struck against pedestrian Ms. Chand Kaur (deceased) and caused her death not amounting to culpable homicide.
10. Perusal of TCR further shows that in his testimony, PW-1 Sh. Ravi has identified accused Jile Singh and he has testified in his examination-in-chief that the truck bearing no.HR-37D-1008 being driven by appellant / accused Jile Singh in a rash, negligent and speedily Jile Singh Vs. State CA No. 124/2022 Page No. 8 of 12 manner, hit against deceased Ms. Chand Kaur who fell down on the road and the front tyre of said truck crushed her legs. It has been further testified by PW-1 that thereafter, he along with Praveen (PW-2) went to their native village to inform the relatives of Ms. Chand Kaur (deceased). Further, it has come in the cross-examination of PW-1 that he had not called the police on 100 number.
11. It seems highly improbable that a person after seeing an accident, instead of taking the injured to hospital went to her native village to inform the relatives of injured and he did not even inform the police about the incident. Further, in his examination-in-chief, PW-1 has testified that he along with Praveen had gone to their native village to inform the relatives of deceased Chand Kaur, however, on being cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for accused, he deposed that the lady (deceased) was shifted to hospital by Praveen in a police vehicle. This is a major contradiction in his testimony which cannot be overlooked.
12. The second eye-witness PW-2 Sh. Praveen Kumar has also identified appellant/accused and he has testified on similar lines. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that only Ravi (PW-1) had gone to home to inform about the incident and he shifted Ms. Chand Kaur (deceased) to the hospital along with police officials. However, perusal of the rukka i.e., Ex. PW10/A clearly shows that no eye-witness was found by police officials namely SI Sachin Mann and Ct. Surender at the spot when they reached over there. Perusal of the rukka further reveals Jile Singh Vs. State CA No. 124/2022 Page No. 9 of 12 that no eye-witness was found even at Hospital when both of them reached over there. PW-10 SI Sachin Mann has also testified in his examination-in-chief that no eye-witness was found at the spot or at the hospital. Further, perusal of the MLC of injured / deceased Ms. Chand Kaur which is Ex. PW5/A also shows that she was taken to hospital by IO / SI Sachin Mann. All these things raises serious doubts on the reliability as well as truthfulness of the testimony made by eye-witness namely Ravi (PW-1) and Praveen (PW-2).
13. Interestingly, it has come in the cross-examination of PW-1 Ravi that Ms. Chand Kaur (Deceased) had died when she was being taken to hospital. On the other hand, the MLC of deceased clearly shows that she was alive when she was taken to hospital, however, she could not be treated over there since facility of blood transfusion was not available, therefore, patient was referred to higher centre for further management. This is also a major contradiction which has vitiated the prosecution version. The contradictions between the documentary evidence such rukka etc., and the depositions made by eye-witnesses namely Ravi (PW-1) and Praveen (PW-2) have raised serious doubts on the reliability of the eye-witnesses examined by prosecution. The contradictions in their testimony are major which clearly raises serious doubts on their presence at the time when the alleged accident took place.
14. Appellant has also been convicted for the offences punishable under section 471/474 IPC, however, there is no iota of evidence against Jile Singh Vs. State CA No. 124/2022 Page No. 10 of 12 appellant / accused qua the offences punishable under section 471/474 IPC. Perusal of Trial Court Record reveals that the Investigating Officer ASI Shiv Narayan could not be examined before Ld. Trial Court as he expired. The prosecution has examined PW-12 Rajeev Kumar Bansal who has testified to the effect that the license in question was not issued from Agra Authority and it was found to be fake. Except PW-12, none of the remaining witnesses examined by prosecution has deposed even a single word as to when and under what circumstances, the license in question was seized or recovered from the possession of appellant / accused. The writing work such as seizure memo, arrest memo etc., prepared by IO could not be proved on record as IO expired before making deposition before the Court, thus, the conviction of appellant / accused for the offences punishable under section 471/474 IPC is not justified in such circumstances.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of considered view that the judgment passed by Ld. Trial Court is liable to be set-aside as the account of the incident given by eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 does not appear to be reliable. The contradictions in the testimony of eye- witnesses and other prosecution witnesses are major and the same have raised serious doubts on prosecution story. Appellant / accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of conjectures or surmises and he is entitled to benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2019 and impugned order on sentence dated 29.07.2022 passed by Ld. Trial Court are hereby set-aside. The appeal filed by appellant Jile Jile Singh Vs. State CA No. 124/2022 Page No. 11 of 12 Singh is hereby allowed. He is acquitted for the offences punishable under section 279/304A/471/474 IPC.
16. Let the Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith a copy of this Judgment to Ld. Trial Court.
17. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
18. A copy of this order be given to both the parties at free of cost.
Pronounced in open Court on this 09th day of January, 2024.
(SUSHIL KUMAR) Additional Sessions Judge-04 North: Rohini Courts: Delhi.
09.01.2024 Jile Singh Vs. State CA No. 124/2022 Page No. 12 of 12