Delhi District Court
State vs . Parveen Kumar on 9 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. AASHISH GUPTA
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
South West District; Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Regn. No. 3/2018
Date of Institution : 02.01.2018
Final Arguments heard on : 31.05.2022
Date of Judgment : 09.06.2022
In the matter of :
State Vs. Parveen Kumar
FIR No. 12/2015
PS : Sector-23 Dwarka
U/s: 279/338/304-A IPC
1. CNR No. of the case : DLSW02-038148-2017
2. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Raja Ram
S/o Sh. Lakhan
R/o Pole No. 11, Sadh Gali
Panchhuya Mohalla, Village
Chhawla, New Delhi.
3. Date of commission of offence : 12.01.2015
4. Name of accused person : Parveen Kumar
S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar
R/o WZ-198, 80 yards,
Harijan Colony, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi.
5. Offence charged : U/s 279/338/304-A IPC
Digitally signed
by AASHISH
State Vs. Parveen Kumar AASHISH GUPTA
FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 GUPTA Date:
2022.06.09
15:13:42 +0530 Page No.1 of 16
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
7. Final Order : Convicted under Section
279/337/304-A IPC
JUDGMENT
1. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 12.01.2015, at about 7:30 p.m., between Red Light Pochanpur and Village Dhulsiras, Main Chhawla Kapashera Road, New Delhi, accused was found driving Cab Mahindra Xylo bearing Registration No. DL-1YC-9378 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. It is further case of prosecution that while driving the above said vehicle in the said manner, he hit an Auto bearing Regn. No. DL- 1RK-7406 which caused injuries on the person of Sushila Devi, Pawan, and Sanjay Prasad (who later on died). Thus, prosecution has set up a case u/s 279/338/304-A IPC against accused Parveen Kumar.
2. On the basis of investigation carried out by the police, challan was filed in the court and copy of the same was supplied to the accused person to his satisfaction.
3. On the basis of the challan, charge for committing the offence punishable under Section u/s 279/338/304-A IPC was served upon the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signedAASHISH by AASHISH GUPTA State Vs. Parveen Kumar GUPTA Date: 2022.06.09 15:13:52 +0530 FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.2 of 16
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses, who are as under:
Sr. Name of Regarding Remarks
No Prosecution
Witness
1. PW-1 Complainant/eye-
Sh. Raja Ram witness/Driver of Auto bearing
Regn. No. DL-1RK-7406
2. PW-2 Injured/eye-witness who
Smt. Sushila Devi received grievous injuries and
she was one of the passengers
in Auto bearing Regn. No. DL-
1RK-7406.
3. PW-2 Injured/eye-witness who Inadvertently this
Sh. Pawan Kumar received grievous injuries and witness has been
she was one of the passengers given number as
in Auto bearing Regn. No. DL- PW-2 instead of
PW3. To avoid
1RK-7406.
confusion, the
witness shall be
referred by his name
in the body of this
judgment.
4. PW-3 Registered owner of offending
Sh. Bal Kishan vehicle Mahindra Xylo bearing
Regn. No. DL-1YC-9378, who
got released the vehicle on
superdari.
5. PW-4 IO of the case
Retired SI Kamlesh
Kumar
6. PW-5 This witness was present with
Head Ct. Kamlesh the IO during investigation.
7. PW-6 Proved entry No. 1791 from
HC Suraj Register No.19.
State Vs. Parveen Kumar Digitally signed
FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 AASHISH by AASHISH
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2022.06.09 Page No.3 of 16
15:14:00 +0530
5. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents:
Sl. Exhibits Documents Remarks
No.
1. Ex.PW-1/A Driving Licence of PW-1/Raja Ram
(OSR)
2. Ex.PW-1/B Badge of PW-1/Raja Ram
(OSR)
3. Ex.PW-1/C Statement of PW-1/Raja Ram u/s
161 Cr.PC
4. Ex.PW-1/E RC of Auto
5. Ex.PW-1/F Certificate of Fitness of Auto
(OSR) bearing Regn. No. DL-1RK-7406
6. Ex.PW-1/G Permit of Auto from State Transport
(OSR) Department
7. Ex.PW-1/H Insurance of Auto bearing Regn.
(OSR) No. DL-1RK-7406
8. Ex.PW-3/A Superdari Order of Court dated
14.01.2015
9. Ex.PW-3/B Panchnama of offending vehicle
Mahindra Xylo bearing No. DL-
1YC-9378
10. Ex.PW-4/A Ruqqa
11. Ex.PW-4/B Site plan of the spot.
12. Ex.PW-4/C Seizure memo of vehicle No. DL-
1YC-9378
13. Ex.PW-4/D Seizure memo of TSR No. DL-1RK-
7406
14. Ex. PW-4/E Arrest memo of accused
15. Ex.PW-4/E Seizure of documents of Mahindra Inadvertently, this
Xylo Car documents was also
exhibited as Ex.Pw-
4/E. To avoid
confusion, the same
will be referred in
the body of the
judgment by its
nomenclature.
State Vs. Parveen Kumar Digitally signed
FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 AASHISH by AASHISH
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2022.06.09
Page No.4 of 16
15:14:17 +0530
16. Ex.PW-4/F Seizure memo of DL & badge of
TSR
17. Ex.PW-4/G Mechanical Inspection Report of
offending vehicle Mahindra Xylo
bearing Regn. No. DL-1YC-9378.
18. Ex.PW-4/H Mechanical Inspection Report of
TSR No. DL-1RK-7406.
19. Ex.PW-4/I Inquest letters
20. Ex.PW-4/J Superdarinama of TSR
21. Ex.PW-4/K Panchnama of TSR
22. Ex.PW-6/A Copy of entry No. 1791 regarding
(OSR) deposition of both the vehicles -
TSR and Mahindra Xylo in the
Maalkhana.
23. Ex.P1 (colly) Photographs of offending vehicle Mahindra Xylo bearing No. DL-
1YC-9378
24. Ex.P2 (colly) Photographs of Auto bearing Regn.
No. DL-1RK-7406.
25. Ex.A1 DD No. 32-A Also admitted by accused in statement u/s 294 Cr.PC
26. Ex.A2 DD No. 79-B - Do -
27. Ex.A3 DD No. 8-A - Do -
28. Ex.A4 DD No. 20-B - Do -
29. Ex.A5 DD No. 4-B/arrival entry. - Do -
30. Ex.A6 Copy of FIR No. 12/2015 Admitted without contents by accused in statement u/s 294 Cr.PC
31. Ex.A7 MLC No. 640/15 of Sanjay Admitted by Prasad/deceased accused in statement u/s 294 Cr.PC
32. Ex.A8 MLC No. 639/15 of Sushila -Do-
Devi/injured
Digitally signed
State Vs. Parveen Kumar by AASHISH
FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 AASHISH GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2022.06.09 Page No.5 of 16
15:14:38 +0530
33. Ex.A9 MLC No. 641/15 of Pawan -Do-
Kumar/deceased
34. Ex.A10 MLC No. 643/15 of accused -Do-
35. Ex. A11 & Identification statements of relatives -Do-
A12 of deceased Sanjay Prasad.
36. Ex.A13 PM report No. 68/2015 -Do-
6. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of the accused person was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, wherein he admitted that he was driving the Cab bearing No.DL-1YC-9378 on the alleged date, time and place. Though, he claimed that the accident in question was not a result of his rashness or negligence. He claimed that he was driving in his lane and it was the Auto in question which hit his Car.
Thereafter, accused stepped into the witness box in his own defence and has given his version of events. He claimed that while he was driving in his lane, the Auto Rickshaw in question did not have any headlight and the said Auto-rickshaw had hit the right side of his Car, which resulted in the accident. He further claimed that infact, it was the Auto-driver (PW-1/Raja Ram before this Court), who was driving his Auto rashly and negligently, which resulted in the accident. Accused was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. Save and except for himself, no other defence witness was brought before this Court.
7. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for accused and Ld. APP for the State as well as perused the material and evidence on record.
Digitally signed by AASHISH AASHISH GUPTA
State Vs. Parveen Kumar
GUPTA Date:
2022.06.09
FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 15:14:46 +0530
Page No.6 of 16
9. In the present case, on 12.01.2015, Raja Ram was driving his Auto bearing No. DL-1RK-7406 near Dhulsiras Red Light. When the said Auto had reached the area between Dhulsiras Red Light and Pochanpur Red Light, as per prosecution, one Mahindra Car bearing No. DL-1YC-9378 (which was coming from the opposite side) had hit the said Auto. There were three passengers in the said Auto apart from the Auto- driver. The said passengers were relatives of the Auto Driver Raja Ram, namely, Sanjay Prasad (deceased/son-in-law of Raja Ram), Sushila Devi (mother of Sanjay) and Pawan Prasad (relative of Sanjay).
10. As per the prosecution, because of the collusion, the Auto in question had turned turtle and Sanjay had come under the Auto. The accident occurred at around 6:30 p.m. Later, Sanjay expired in hospital on 15.01.2015 as a result of injuries suffered in the accident. As per the postmortem report Ex.A-13, Sanjay died due to head injury subsequent to multiple organ failure followed by road traffic accident. In other words, as per medical record proved on record, death of Sanjay was a result of the accident in question.
11. In support of the present case, three eye witnesses namely Raja Ram/PW-1 (Auto driver); Pawan Kumar (passenger in the Auto) and PW-2/Sushila Devi (passenger in the auto) were examined. Before I analyis the evidence of said witnesses, it may be noted that the fact that accused Parveen Kumar was driving a Mahindra Car bearing No. DL- 1YC-9378 on 12.01.2015 at about 6:30 p.m., is not disputed before this Court. In fact, accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC has admitted the said facts. Again, the location of the accident i.e. in an area Digitally signed by AASHISH State Vs. Parveen Kumar AASHISH GUPTA FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 GUPTA Date:
2022.06.09 15:14:56 +0530 Page No.7 of 16 between Dhoolsiras Red Light and Pochanpur Red Light is also not disputed before this Court and has been admitted by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. Even if the said admission is not considered by this Court, still the aforesaid facts stood proved from the testimony of PW1 Raja Ram, who specifically gave the aforesaid facts in his testimony and nothing has come out from his cross examination to disbelieve the same.
12. Now, Raja Ram claimed that while he was driving on his side of the road, accused (who was driving a Mahindra Car and was coming from the opposite direction) had tried to overtake and severed his Car at a high speed. This casued the said witness to turn his vehicle/auto towards right side of the road (to escape collusion) and in the process the said Car rammed in the left side of the auto in question. The road where the accident took place did not have divider and a single line demarcated the directions for movement of vehicles. As per Raja Ram, he was driving in his lane when the aforesaid incident happened and his auto was dragged from left to right side of the road and it overturned. As per the witness, Sanjay and other passengers of the Auto (Sushila Devi and Pawan) had sustained injuries and they were taken to hospital in an Ambulance.
13. As far as Sushila Devi and Pawan Kumar are concerned, they supported Raja Ram in his claim that the said witnesses were travelling in the Auto of Raja Ram on the fateful day alongwith Sanjay Prasad. They also supported Raja Ram to say that auto of Raja Ram for being driven on his side of the road and another vehicle had hit the auto Digitally signed by AASHISH State Vs. Parveen Kumar AASHISH GUPTA FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 GUPTA Date:
2022.06.09 15:15:04 +0530 Page No.8 of 16 of Raja Ram leading to injuries to all of them. PW2/Sushila Devi claimed that her son Sanjay eventually expired during treatment on 15.01.2015.
14. I have already noted that the cause of death of Sanjay in the present case is recorded as a direct result of the accident in question. Again, accused Parveen Kumar was driving a Mahindra Car at the aforesaid alleged date, time and place has also been proved by the prosecution through the testimony of PW-1/Raja Ram. As already noted this fact is not disputed by accused himself.
15. Thus, the identity of the vehicles involved in the accident and the driver thereof has been established by the prosecution and there is no dispute qua the same. What is in dispute before this Court is whether the accident in question was a result of any rash or negligent act attributed to the accused so as to invoke Section 279/338/304-A IPC. For each of the said offences, some rash or negligent act should be attributable to the accused before he can be held guilty under the said provisions.
16. It was vehmently argued by the Counsel for the accused that his client was not at fault for the accident in question and it was Raja Ram/PW-1 who was responsible for the accident. He pointed out that as per the photographs Ex.P2 (of the Auto in question), the said auto did not have a head light while it was being plied on road. He drew the attention of the Court to the mechanical inspection report Ex.PW-4/H, wherein it is recorded that the glass of the headlight of the auto in question was found damaged at the time of inspection and the said damage was an old Digitally signed State Vs. Parveen Kumar AASHISH by AASHISH GUPTA FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 GUPTA Date: 2022.06.09 15:15:12 +0530 Page No.9 of 16 damage. It means that as per the mechanical inspection report Ex.PW- 4/H, the head-light of the auto in question was damaged prior to the accident and may not have been functional. It was argued by the Counsel for the accused that the incident occurred in the month of January at around 6:30 p.m. and at that period of year it gets dark quite early. It is his argument that since the head light of the auto was missing and the area in question was a dark, the auto of the witness Raja Ram may not have been easily visible. It is also his arguments that accused himself stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and claimed that the auto- rickshaw driver had hit on the right side of the Car, and thereafter, the said auto had turned turtle. He argued that the auto-driver i.e. Raja Ram was infact driving rashly and negligently and had taken his auto in front of the Car of the accused, which led to the accident.
17. In sum and substance, as per the accused, it was Raja Ram, who was driving the auto in question negligently and absence of a head- light in the auto in question compounded the problem leading to the accident and eventual death of Sanjay Prasad. On the aforesaid submissions, acquittal is prayed.
18. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by Counsel for accused and have carefully perused the record. As per the photographs of the Auto placed on record Ex.P2 (colly), it appears that the Car in question had hit the auto in question from its left side. This is corroborated by the mechanical inspection report of the auto Ex.PW- 4/H, wherein it is recorded that the left side of the auto was found damaged at the time of inspection. As per the mechanical inspection Digitally signed State Vs. Parveen Kumar AASHISH by AASHISH GUPTA FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 GUPTA Date: 2022.06.09 Page No.10 of 16 15:15:20 +0530 report of the Car in question, the Car in question had suffered damages on its right side. Thus, it appears that the right side of the Car in question had collided with the left side of the auto. Both the said vehicles were coming from opposite directions when the collusion took place.
19. Now, the testimony of the complainant as to how the accident took place is the most relevant to understand the sequence of events/collusion. In the testimony of Raja Ram/PW-1, he has claimed that while he was driving on his side of the road, accused (who was driving a Mahindra Car and was coming from the opposite direction) had tried to overtake and severed his Car at a high speed. This casued the said witness to turn his vehicle/auto towards right side of the road (to escape collusion) and in the process the said Car rammed in the left side of the auto in question. The road where the accident took place did not have divider and a single line demarcated the directions for movement of vehicles. As per Raja Ram, he was driving in his lane when the aforesaid incident happened and his auto was dragged from left to right side of the road and it overturned.
20. The aforesaid facts stated by the witness were tested during cross-examination of Raja Ram and he still claim that the offending vehicle had hit the left side of his auto, while the right side of the offending vehicle was damaged. He denied any suggestion that he was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
21. It may be noted that even in his initial complaint Ex.PW-1/C, it was claimed by Raja Ram that the accused had brought his vehicle on Digitally signed by AASHISH State Vs. Parveen Kumar AASHISH GUPTA FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 GUPTA Date:
2022.06.09 15:15:27 +0530 Page No.11 of 16 the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and had suddenly come in front of his Auto, which forced him to severe on the right. Thereafter, the Xylo Car driver had hit his auto at a great speed.
22. Thus, the testimony of the complainant Raja Ram is in line with his initial complaint and nothing has come out from the cross- examination of the said witness to disbelieve the chain of events narrated by him. The testimony inspires confidence of the Court and is found believable. It appears that the accused herein was driving his vehicle at some speed and while he was trying to overtake some other vehicle, he crossed over into the portion of road where the auto of Raja Ram was being driven. It means that while overtaking the other vehicles on the road, for a short period of time, accused drove his vehicle in wrong direction (i.e. against the flow of the traffic in the lane, which was not meant for accused vehicle). As already noted, the road in question did not have any divider, and thus, the same road was used for plying of vehicles in both directions. This fact was also supported by the site plan placed on record Ex.PW-4/B, which shows that the road where the accident took place did not have any divider and it was used for plying by vehicles coming from both directions.
23. Now, as per Raja Ram while he was driving in his lane on the left side of his road, accused suddenly tried to overtake another vehicle with both the said vehicles coming from opposite direction of Raja Ram. This led the accused to take his Car on an area, which was to be used by Raja Ram/other vehicles going in the direction of Raja Ram. It was night time and in order to avoid collusion, Raja Ram turned his vehicle towards Digitally signed by AASHISH State Vs. Parveen Kumar AASHISH GUPTA FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 GUPTA Date:
2022.06.09 15:15:53 +0530 Page No.12 of 16 right, and thus, the right side of the accused Car hit on the left side of Raja Ram's auto. The impact of collusion was such that the auto of Raja Ram was measurely damaged, which is evident from the mechanical inpsection report Ex.PW-4/H read with the photographs Ex.P2 (colly).
24. It may further be noted that vehicle of the accused had a Bull Bar ( a steel iron rod) on its front portion which further compounded the problem as said Bull Bar must have resulted in greater impact force when the collusion took place and resultantly the auto and its passengers were thrown to some distance.
25. In my opinion, the accused herein was acting rashly when he came in the lane meant for Raja Ram's auto and the fact that Raja Ram's auto did not have any head-light cannot absolve the accused from his liability. Even if it is taken as correct that the accident occurred after nightfall and the Raja Ram's auto did not have a functional head-light, still as per record, he was driving in his portion of road/lane. Why did accused cross his portion of road? In my opinion, nothing can absolve the accused from his rash act of driving into the area of road marked for other vehicles coming from opposite direction. In my opinion, accused herein had acted rashly by crossing over into the lane of Raja Ram's auto and the said act was directly responsible for the accident in question. As a result of the collusion, not only did Sanjay Prasad sustained injuries on his body (See Ex.A-7) but he eventually died as a result of the said injury (See Ex.A-13). Both the said documents were admitted by accused. The said collusion also resulted in injury to Sushila Devi and Pawan Kumar (See Ex.A-8 and Ex.A-9; also admitted by accused). Thus, prosecution Digitally signed State Vs. Parveen Kumar AASHISH by AASHISH GUPTA FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 GUPTA Date: 2022.06.09 15:16:02 +0530 Page No.13 of 16 has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
26. Before parting with the judgment, I may take note of one more argument raised by Counsel for accused. It was argued by him that since accused had himself stepped into the witness box to say that Raja Ram was driving rashly, prosecution's evidence is countered and at best its a 50-50 chance as to who caused the accident. He argued that because of the testimony of the accused, prosecution evidence is not sufficient to convict him and therefore his clinet should be acquitted. I do not find any merit in the said argument. This is because firstly accused has every interest in saving himself and his testimony cannot be blindly treated as gospel truth by this Court. Infact, as per accused's version of events, auto of Raja Ram had hit the right side of his Car and turned turtle. I have already noted that Raja Ram's auto was hit on the left side by the right side of the accused vehicle and the manner in which the accident took place has been explained by Raja Ram in his testimony. Usually, if two vehicles coming from opposite directions will collide, either the injury shall be suffered by both of them on their right side or by both of them on their left side. If if take the chain of events narrated by accused in his testimony as correct, it appears that right side of Raja Ram's auto had hit the right side of the accused's Car. But, as already noted, in this case as Raja Ram tried to prevent the collusion, he severed on his right exposing the left side of his auto to the Car of the accused, and thereafter, the accused Car hit the Auto. This explanation of Raja Ram is in line with the other evidence (the mechanical inspection reports as well as the photographs of the vehicles). If that be the case, in my opinion the facts / chain of events narrated by accused does not support the other Digitally signed by AASHISH State Vs. Parveen Kumar AASHISH GUPTA FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 GUPTA Date:
2022.06.09 15:16:09 +0530 Page No.14 of 16 documentary evidence, and therefore, his testimony does not support his claim about Raja Ram being responsible for the accident. It was in these circumstances, that the testimony of accued Parveen Kumar has been found to be unreliable by this Court and has been discarded. I have already noted that the testimony of witness Raja Ram is reliable and trustworthy which is sufficient on its own read with other docuemntary evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused in the present case.
27. In my opinion, the testimony of Raja Ram read with the other evidences on record including his site plan Ex.PW-4/B; the mechanical inspection reports Ex.PW-4/H and Ex.PW-4/G and the photographs of the vehicles Ex.P2 (colly) and Ex.P1 (colly) show that the accused herein was driving his vehicle rashly which resulted in the accident in question. By his rash acts, accused endangered human life/personal safety of others. Thus, in my opinion the essential ingredients for offences made punishable u/s 279/337/304-A IPC are complete. Accused drove his vehicle in a rash manner resulting in injuries to Sushila Devi and Pawan Kumar. It also led to the death of Sanjay Prasad.
28. It may be noted that initially the accused was charged u/s 338 IPC as witness Sushila Devi and Pawan Kumar were stated to have suffered grievous injuries (See Ex.A-8 & A-9 being MLCs of the said witnesses). But, perusal of the said MLCs do not clarify as to why the concerned medical expert had stated the nature of injuries as grievous. From the perusal of the said injury within the meaning of Section 320 IPC is made out, and thus, in my opinion Section 337 IPC shall be attracted to the facts of the case and not section 338 IPC.
Digitally signedState Vs. Parveen Kumar AASHISH by AASHISH GUPTA FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 GUPTA Date: 2022.06.09 15:16:38 +0530 Page No.15 of 16
28. Accordingly, accused Parveen Kumar is convicted for offences made punishable under Section 279/337/304-A IPC.
Digitally signed by AASHISH Pronounced in the open Court AASHISH GUPTA on 9th of June, 2022. GUPTA Date: 2022.06.09 15:16:47 +0530 (AASHISH GUPTA)
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dwarka Courts: New Delhi 09.06.2022 State Vs. Parveen Kumar FIR No. 12/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.16 of 16