Delhi District Court
State vs . Jaffar Hussain on 20 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL VERMA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE07, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT
COMPLEX
FIR No. 176/2019
PS - Sunlight Colony
U/s - 279/337/338 IPC & Section 146/196 MV Act
State Vs. Jaffar Hussain
JUDGMENT
Part A - The list at a glance A. Serial No. of the Case : 1125/2020 B. Date of Commission of offence : 12.07.2019 C. Date of Institution of Case : 26.02.2020 D. Name of the Complainant : Shri Tara Singh S/o Shri Sher Singh R/o House No. L /50B, Gali no. 35/38, Shahdatpur, Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
E. Name of Accused : Jaffar Hussain S/o Shri Munshi
Anshari R/o House No. E
17/222, T Huts, Taj Colony, New
Seelampur New Delhi.
F. Offence charged of : 279/338 IPC & Section 146/196
MV Act.
G. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final Order : Convicted u/s.279/338 IPC &
u/s.146/196 MV Act.
I. Judgment reserved on : 13.02.2023
J. Date of judgment : 20.02.2023
State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.1 of 15
Part B - A brief statement of reasons for the decision (As mandated u/s 355(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.07.2019 at about 08:30 AM to 08:45 AM on Sarai Kale Khan flyover ring road opposite IP Park Gate no. 3 Sarai Kale Khan within the jurisdiction PS Sunlight Colony, accused was driving an auto bearing registration no. DL 1RQ 2746 on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others. It is further the case of the prosecution that while so driving the aforesaid vehicle, the accused struck against a car (standing on left side of road) bearing no. DL 3CCE 2658 make Wagon R white colour, due to which the aforesaid auto turned turtle which caused the grievous injuries to the passenger sitting in his auto namely Tara Singh. It is further the case that of the prosecution that on the above said date, time and place, while driving the aforesaid vehicle, on being checked, accused failed to produce a valid insurance and thereby committed offences punishable u/s. 279/338 IPC & Section 146/196 of M.V. Act.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C and the cognizance of offence was taken. Documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')
3. On the basis of the contents of chargesheet and after hearing both the parties, notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C for commission of offences punishable u/s. 279/338 IPC & Section 146/196 MV Act was served upon the accused on 01.10.2020 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.2 of 15
4. Vide statement recorded under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., the accused admitted the genuineness of following documents:
(i) FIR (without contents) registered in the present case as Ex. PA1 and certificate u/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PA2.
(ii) DD No.22A dated 12.07.2019 Ex. PA3.
(iii) MLC No. 500181333 dated 12.07.2019 with discharge report and MLC no. 500181332 dated 12.07.2019 with discharge report Ex. PA4 and Ex. PA5 (colly).
(iv) Superdarinama of accused Jaffar Hussain is Ex. PA6.
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses:
(i) PW1 Tara Singh deposed that on 12.07.2019, he hired an Auto bearing registration no. DL1RQ2746 from Khajuri to Sarai Kale Khan. He further deposed that near Munda Park in front of flyover he saw from a distance that one car was parked but the driver of the auto was driving the auto in high speed and in that speed he hit the parked car from the behind. He further deposed that he became unconscious when the auto hit the car. He correctly identified the accused as driver of the offending auto. He further deposed that he regained his consciousness in hospital and was informed that the public person had called the police at 100 number and they took him to the hospital. He further deposed that he did not know the registration number of the car which was parked at the place of incident. He further deposed that the owner of the car met him in the State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.3 of 15 hospital. He further deposed that in the accident his left leg got fractured and one rod was installed in his left leg. He further deposed that he is still not able to walk properly. He also received injuries on his both hands, and his righthand fingers were not in proper working condition. He further deposed that the said car was parked mid of the road and they had seen the car from a quite distance but the driver of the auto hit back side of the car and at that time he was driving in high speed. He further deposed that police person came to his house and they enquired about incident. He further deposed that the doctors operated his left leg and thereafter he was advised to complete bed rest. He remained on bed for six months. He correctly identified the accused as driver of the said auto. He also correctly identified the auto bearing registration number DLRQ2746 from its five Photographs Ex.P1 (colly). He further correctly identified the car bearing registration no. DL3CCE2658 from its photographs Ex.P2 (colly). He further deposed that the driver of the auto was driving the auto in high speed and in that speed he tried to turn the other way from the car, however due to high speed he could not control the auto and thereafter it hit the back side of the car. This witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused.
(ii) PW2 Alok Kumar deposed that he was the registered owner of the vehicle WagonR, Registration No.DL3CCE 2658. He further deposed that on 12.07.2019, his said car met with an accident and at that time his wife Mrs. Deepti was driving the abovesaid car. He further deposed that he received the notice u/s 133 MV Act Ex.PW2/A and made endorsement on the notice from Point A to A1. He further deposed that during investigation, he got released the said car by the order of the court State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.4 of 15 through Superdarinama Ex.PW2/C. He identified the said WagonR car bearing registration No. DL3CCE 2658 from its photogrpahs Ex.P2 (Colly). This witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused.
(iii) PW3 Ms. Dipti deposed that on 12.07.2019, she was driving WagonR bearing registration no. DL3CCE2658 to her office at Srifort. Se further deposed that when she reached Sarai Kale Khan flyover, she suspected some problem in her car. Thereafter, she switched on the parking light of her vehicle and parked it at the left side of the flyover. Suddenly one auto came from back side and hit her car from the right rear side of her car. After the collision, auto got disbalanced and rolled down on the road. She further deposed that one passenger sitting in the abovesaid auto got injured in this incident which took place at about 08.45 AM to 09.00 AM. Thereafter, many public persons gathered at the spot and somebody from the public called at 100 number. Thereafter, police came at the spot and took the injured passenger as well as driver of the auto to hospital. She further deposed that she saw the face of the driver at the spot. She correctly identified the accused as driver of the offending auto. She identified the auto bearing registration number DLRQ2746 from its five Photographs Ex.P1 (colly). She further identified the car bearing registration no. DL3CCE2658 from its photographs Ex.P2 (colly). This witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused.
(iv) PW4 T.U. Siddiqui deposed that on 13.07.2019, on the request of IO ASI Praveen Kumar, PS Sunlight Colony, New Delhi, he had State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.5 of 15 inspected the Maruti WagonR car white colour bearing registration no. DL3CCE2658 and TSR bearing registration no. DL1RQ2746 and submitted his two detailed reports Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B to the IO with fresh damages.
(v) PW5 HC Harish Kumar deposed that on the day of incident at about 08.30 AM, PCR call regarding accident was received by ASI Praveen. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI Praveen went to the spot ie flyover opposite IP Park Gate no. 3, where they found a TSR bearing no. DL 1R 2746 and white colour wagnor having no. DL 3CCE2658 in accidental condition. He further deposed that injured persons were already shifted to the hospital by the PCR. He further deposed that he brought both the vehicles back to the PP Sarai Kale Khan. He further deposed that he took the tehrir from the spot and got the FIR registered through Duty Officer. He further deposed that he came back to the spot and handed over the same to ASI Praveen. He failed to identify the accused and deposed that he never met him during the investigation. He correctly identified the car bearing no. DL 3CCE2658 from its six photographs Ex P2 (colly). He also correctly identified the TSR bearing no. DL 1RQ2746 from its six photographs Ex. P3 (colly). He further identified his signatures on site plan Ex. PW5/A, seizure memo of car Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/C. This witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused.
(vi) PW6 HC Ravinder Singh deposed on 02.08.2019 at around 05.00 PM one auto driver Jaffar / accused came to the PP Sarai Kale Khan. Thereafter, IO ASI Praveen interrogated the said accused and arrested State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.6 of 15 him vide memo Ex. PW6/A. He further deposed that accused produced the original documents of the offending vehicle and IO seized the same vide memo Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C. He correctly identified the accused in the court. This witness was not cross examined despite availing opportunity.
(vii) PW7 ASI Praveen Kumar deposed on 12.07.2019 at about 08.00 AM, upon receipt of a DD No.16A regarding accident, he alongwith Ct. Harish went to the spot i.e. flyover, Ring Road, in front of IP Park, Gate No.3, Sarai Kale Khan. They found two vehicles i.e. WagonR bearing No.DL3CCE2658 and Auto/TSR bearing No.DL1RQ2746 in accidental condition. He further deposed that they came to know at the spot that the injured persons have been shifted to the unknown hospital. He further deposed that he took the photographs of the spot through his mobile phone. Meanwhile, he received an information of MLC of the injured persons from AIIMS Trauma Center. Thereafter, he went to the AIIMS Trauma Center and left the constable at the spot. He further deposed that at AIIMS, he collected the MLC of both injured namely Tara Singh and accused Jaffar Hussain. He further deposed that both the said persons were under treatment at that time and their MLC were not ready at that time. He further deposed that he tried to search eyewitness at AIIMS Trauma Center, however, he did not find any witness there. Thereafter, he came back to the spot and shifted both the said vehicles to PP. He further deposed that he prepared the tehrir on GD No. 16A and sent the same to PS through Ct. Harish for registration of FIR. He further deposed that during investigation, he served notice under section 133 MV Act Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW7/B and Ex. PW7/C upon the owners of both State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.7 of 15 the vehicles. He further deposed that the owner of the WagonR car disclosed that at the time of the incident his wife namely Dipti was driving the said car and the owner of the offending vehicle disclosed that he was driving the said Auto at the time of the incident. He recorded the statement of owner of the WagonR car namely Alok and of his wife Dipti. He further deposed that during investigation, he recorded the statement of witness Tara Singh who was traveling in the said Auto as passenger at the time of accident. He further deposed that during investigation, he seized both the vehicles vide memo Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/C, prepared the site plan Ex. PW5/A, got the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles conducted and obtained the report of the said vehicles Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. He further deposed that during investigation, accused Jaffar Hussain produced documents i.e. RC, permit and insurance of the vehicle Ex. P6 (Colly) and he seized the same vide memo Ex. PW6/B. He further seized DL produced by the accused and badge of driver Ex. P6 (Colly) vide memo Ex. PW6/C. He further deposed that on 02.08.2019 he interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW7/D and thereafter arrested him vide memo Ex. PW6/A. He further deposed that during investigation, he verified the documents of the offending vehicle and found that the insurance of the offending vehicle had expired at the time of accident. He further deposed that during investigation, accused handed over the FD of Rs. 30,000/ to him and he seized the same vide memo Ex. PW7/E. He correctly identified the accused in the court. He further identified the spot through its 7 photographs Ex. P1 (Colly) and deposed that the same were taken by him from his mobile phone at the spot. He further identified the auto bearing registration number DLRQ2746 from its five Photographs Ex.P1 (colly).
State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.8 of 15 He further identified the car bearing registration no. DL3CCE2658 from its photographs Ex.P2 (colly). This witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused.
6. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 20.12.2022
7. Statement of accused u/s. 313 r/w 281 of Cr.P.C was recorded on 04.01.2023 wherein the accused denied the incriminating evidences appearing against him. The accused did not opt to lead defence evidence.
8. Subsequently, final arguments from the counsel for accused and Ld. APP for the State were heard.
9. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC & Section 146/196 MV Act. Section 279 IPC punishes the act of a person driving or riding a vehicle on a public way 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. To prove a case U/s. 279/338 IPC against the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the following facts: (1) That the accident was caused by the offending vehicle. (2) That the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or was likely to cause hurt to others;
(3) That the victim suffered grievous injury due to rash or negligent driving of the accused.
10. The words "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However, as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.9 of 15 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances. A distinction between "rashness" and "negligence" is that "rashness" conveys an idea of doing a reckless act without considering any of its consequences, whereas, "negligence" connotes want of proper care. It was held by the Apex Court in the case of S.N. Hussain v. State of A.P., (1972) 3 SCC 18 that:
"Rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined total 7 witnesses. PW1 Tara Singh is the eyewitness and injured in the present case. He deposed that on 12.07.2019, he hired an Auto bearing registration no. DL1RQ2746 and near Munda Park in front of flyover he saw from distance that one car was parked on the road but the driver of the auto drove the auto in high speed and ran into the said parked car from behind. He further deposed that the driver of the auto was driving the auto in high speed and in that speed, he tried to turn the State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.10 of 15 other way from the car, however due to high speed he could not control the auto and consequently it hit the back side of the said car. He further deposed that due to the accident, his left leg got fractured, he sustained injuries on his both hands and his righthand fingers were also not in proper working condition. He identified offending auto bearing no. DL 1RQ2746 he also identified the accused as driver of the said auto.
12. Prosecution further examined PW3 Ms. Dipti whose car was struck by the offending vehicle. She deposed that on 12.07.2019 she was going to her office in her car bearing registration no. DL3CCE2658 and at about 08.45 AM to 09.00 AM, when she reached Sarai Kale Khan flyover, upon suspecting some problem in her car, she switched on the parking light of her vehicle and parked it at the left side of the flyover. Suddenly one auto came from the back side and hit her car from the right rear side of her car. She further deposed that after the collision, the auto got disbalanced and rolled down on the road. She further deposed that one passenger sitting in the said auto got injured in this accident. She correctly identified the offending auto bearing registration number DLRQ2746 as well as the accused as driver of the offending auto.
13. In so far as the identity of the offending vehicle and the accused as driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, the same is established from the testimony of Injured/PW1 Tara Singh and PW3 Dipti. Both the witnesses identified not only the offending vehicle but also the accused as its driver. The testimony of PW7 ASI Praveen Kumar and PW5 HC Harish Kumar also shows that after the accident, the offending vehicle was found at the spot in accidental condition. The seizure memo of both the vehicles i.e. DL 1RQ2746 and DL 3CCE2658, mechanical inspection report Ex PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.11 of 15 further corroborates the same. Even in statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C the accused admited his presence at the spot and only denied that the accident was caused by his rash or negligent driving.
14. Since the factum of the accident, the identity of the offending vehicle and the accused as driver of the offending vehicle has been established, the only question now before this court is whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, and had caused grievous injuries to injured Tara Singh.
15. Perusal of testimony of PW1 Tara Singh shows that in his testimony he specifically described the mode and manner in which the offending vehicle was driven by the accused at the time of incident. He categorically deposed that while driving the auto in high speed, the accuseddriver tried to turn the auto the other way from the parked car but due to high speed he could not control the auto and hit the said car from behind. PW1 Tara Singh was crossexamined by the Ld. defence counsel for the accused at length, but nothing came on record to disbelieve his testimony.
16. Apart from the PW1, testimony of PW3, mechanical inspection report Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B also shows that the offending vehicle had struck the car bearing no. DL 3CCE2658 from behind. Thus, testimony of victim PW 1 has remained consistent and found corroboration on all material aspects from PW3 and the documentary evidences.
17. Since the offending vehicle had struck the aforesaid parked car from behind, in such circumstances, it was for the accused to explain as to how the accident had occurred if not due to his rash or negligent driving.
State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.12 of 15
18. Accused has taken the defence that the accident occurred because of the fault of the said car bearing no. DL 3CCE2658 as it was parked without any parking lights being turned on. It appears that the argument of the counsel for the accused is that the accused could not see the car parked on the road beaucse its parking lights were not ON. I do not find any merit in this argument. As per the record, accident occurred at 08.45 AM to 09.00 AM. If the accused could not see the car parked on the road in sun light at 09:00 AM, then no parking light, however bright, could make him see the said vehicle.
19. Here, it is to be noted that culpable rashness of the accused 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. The duty of driver of a motor vehicle not only includes keeping the pedestrians/other vehicles safe but also includes duty to care towards the passengers of the vehicle he is driving.
20. Act of negligence in this case can be clearly attributed to the accused as he is solely responsible for causing the accident without any fault of the said car bearing no. DL 3CCE2658. PW1 categorically deposed that while travelling in the offending auto, he could see the parked car from a distance and yet the accused who was driving the offending auto in high speed, could not control the auto and ran into the said car from behind. The fact that the accused was driving the vehcile in such a high speed that he could not turn away from the parked car in time, shows that he was not only rash but also negligent. He drove the offending vehicle in the said manner despite having knowledge that he ran the risk of a horrendous outcome. The accused failed to lead any evidence which State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.13 of 15 could show otherwise. Thus, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the accused drove the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner which endangered human life and safety of others.
21. As far as the question of injuries sustained by the complainant is concerned, the same is established by the testimony of PW1 Tara Singh wherein he deposed that due to the accident his left leg got fractured. The same is also corroborated by his MLC and discharge report Ex. PA5 (colly) which proves the greivous nature of the injuries caused to the injured/complainant. Thus, the court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused and that the grievous injuries were caused to the injured Tara Singh in the accident.
22. Now, coming to the charge of Section 146/196 of M.V. Act, it is the case of the prosecution that at the time of the accident, the accused was found to be driving the offending vehcile without mandatory Third Party insurance. PW7 IO ASI Parveen Kumar deposed that during investigation he found that the insurance of the offending vehicle had expired and that he had no valid insurance at the time of the accident. In such circumstances, it was for the accused to lead evidence in his defence to show that he had valid insurance covering the date of accident. However, no such evidence was led by the accused. In fact, he admitted in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he did not have valid insurance at the time of accident. Thus, offence punishable u/s 146/196 M.V. Act also stands established against the accused.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the opnion that the prosecution has succesfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.14 of 15 has committed offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC and Section 146/196 of M.V. Act.
24. Hence, accused Jafar Hussain is held guilty of the offence punishable u/s. 279/338 IPC and Section 146/196 MV Act. Accordingly, the accused Jafar Hussain stands convicted u/s. 279/338 IPC and u/s. 146/196 MV Act.
25. Let the copy of the judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost.
Digitally signedAnnounced in open court RAHUL by RAHUL
VERMA
on 20.02.2023 VERMA Date: 2023.02.20
16:09:48 +0530
(RAHUL VERMA)
Metropolitan Magistrate07,
South East, Saket, New Delhi
State Vs. Jaffar Hussain; FIR No. 176/19 Page No.15 of 15