Delhi District Court
State vs . Sharad Yadav on 17 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON, MM-6 (C), TIS
HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
FIR No.242/2007
U/s. : 279/304A IPC
P.S. : Civil Lines
State Vs. Sharad Yadav
JUDGMENT
1. CIS number of the case : 289888-2016
2. CNR number of the case : DLCT02-000229-2008
3. The date of commission of offence : 30.10.2007
4. The name of the complainant : Ct. Umesh Kant
5. The name & parentage of accused : Sharad Yadav
S/o Sh. Hemraj Singh
Yadav
R/o H.No.302, Krishan
Puri, Neendawali,
Fazalpur, Delhi-92.
6. Offence under which notice has been : 279/304A IPC
served
7. The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Convicted of offence
U/s 279/304A IPC
Date of Institution : 25.01.2008
Judgment reserved on : 16.07.2018
Judgment announced on: 17.07.2018
FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 1/15
PS Civil Lines
STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as unfolded from the charge-sheet are that on 30.10.2007, at about 9:00 AM, near Monesty Market, Delhi, situated, within the jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines, accused was found driving motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-7SR-9392 in a manner so rash & negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so, hit against one person namely Sh. Ram Pal due to which he sustained injuries and who later-on died. Thereby, the accused committed the offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC and accordingly, charge-sheet was filed.
2. The copy of charge-sheet as well as its annexures were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and notice of the accusation u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s 279/304A IPC was served upon accused Sharad Yadav by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court vide order dated 21.12.2009 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution was thereafter given opportunity to prove the accusation against the accused and examined 14 witnesses. Relevant portion of testimony of witnesses is discussed hereinafter.
4. PW-1 Ct. Umesh Kant (Complainant) deposed that on 30.10.2007, he was posted as Constable at PS Civil Lines and he was on duty from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM infront of Monesty Market, Budh Vihar, Picket. On that day, at about 9:00 AM, when he was performing his duty, he saw that one motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-7SR-9392 of make FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 2/15 PS Civil Lines Hero Honda Ambition, which was being driven by accused Sharad Yadav in a rash & negligent manner and at a high speed and while driving so, accused hit one pedestrian at the Traffic Light Signal. As a result of the same, the pedestrian, who was an old aged person fell down and accused also fell down alongwith his motorcycle. Accused was correctly identified by him in the Court that day. He immediately reached at the spot and he found that the pedestrian had sustained injuries on his head and other parts of his body. He removed the injured as well as accused from the spot and in the meantime, PCR also came there. SI Rajeshwar Singh also came at the spot from the PS Civil Lines and he handed over the motorcycle to him. IO also went to the Hospital and got the MLC of the injured as well as of the accused and he came back to the spot. IO also recorded his detailed statement regarding the accident proved as Ex.PW1/A. SI Rajeshwar Singh prepared rukka and he handed over the same to Ct. Mahinder Pal for getting the case registered from PS Civil Lines, who took rukka to PS Civil Lines and got the case registered vide FIR No.242/2007. After registration of the case, Ct. Mahinder Pal returned at the spot and he handed over the copy of FIR alongwith rukka to the IO. IO prepared the site plan at his instance and seized the motorcycle alongwith the key bunch vide memo proved as Ex.PW1/B. The documents of the motorcycle were also seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C. IO also arrested the accused vide arrest memo proved as Ex.PW1/D and his personal search was also got conducted vide personal search memo proved as Ex.PW1/E. IO also recorded his supplementary statement.
5. PW-2 Sh. Ram Singh identified the dead body of Ram Pal in the Subzi Mandi Mortuary on 02.11.2007. He deposed that Ram Pal had FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 3/15 PS Civil Lines met with an accident on 30.10.2007 and later-on he died. Ram Pal was vegabond and he saw Ram Pal, plying rickshaw in the area of Monesty, Civil Lines. IO recorded his statement proved as Ex.PW2/A
6. PW-3 HC Surender Kumar deposed that on 30.10.2007, he was posted as MHC (M) at PS Civil Lines. On that day, one motorcycle i.e. Hero Honda alongwith keys were deposited in the Malkhana by SI Rajeshwar in connection with the present case. The case property was registered in register No.19 at Sr. No.305. Photocopy of the relevant entry proved as Ex.PW3/A. The motorcycle was later-on released on superdari.
7. PW-4 Sh. Hira Lal identified the dead body of deceased Ram Pal vide identification memo proved as Ex.PW4/A.
8. PW-5 W/SI Sudesh Rani (Duty Officer) proved the present FIR as Ex.PW5/A, endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW5/B and DD No.10A as Ex.PW5/C.
9. PW-6 Retired ASI Gurdeep Singh (Mechanical Inspector) proved mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-7SR-9392 as Ex.PW6/A. He also deposed that on inspection he found that the speed meter assembly of the vehicle was broken, its head light, front indicator left & right side and side diggi was also broken.
10. PW-7 Ct. Satender Kumar deposed that on 31.10.2007, he was posted as Constable in PS Civil Lines. On that day, on the direction of IO/ SI Rajeshwar, he went to PS Mangalore, District Haridwar for giving FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 4/15 PS Civil Lines information about the death of deceased Ram Pal in this case. From PS Mangalore, he was sent to PP Narsal Chowki and one Constable was accompanied him and they reached at Village Tikrola Kalan where they made inquiries from the relatives of the deceased Ram Pal by showing the photograph of the deceased. From the inquiries made, it was revealed that the said deceased Ram Pal had left the village about 40 years ago and no relative of deceased Ram Pal was found there. From there, after getting the actual address of the relatives of the deceased Ram Pal, he went to Village Noorkhedi, PS Gangok, District Saharanpur, U.P and with the help of local police of PS Gangok, he reached at the village, where the brother of deceased Ram Pal namely Rajesh met him, who stated that deceased Ram Pal had already disconnected from them, about 40 years ago and they had no contact with him since then. The son of the deceased namely Suresh & Wife of the deceased had also left the village and their present whereabouts are not known to them despite best efforts made by him. He informed them about the death of the deceased Ram Pal in an accident. They refused to take the dead body of the deceased as they had no relations with the deceased. He called the Sarpanch of the Village and informed him about the situation, who told Rajesh to bring the dead body for cremation. Rajesh refused to do so. He recorded the statement of neighbour Sh. Ramesh in this regard proved as Ex.PW7/A. Thereafter, he returned to PS and informed IO. The cremation of deceased was Ram Pal was done by the IO on Government expenses. IO recorded his statement
11. PW-8 Ct. Mohinder Pal deposed that on 30.10.2007, he was posted as Constable at PS Civil Lines and he was on emergency duty. On that day, on receipt of DD No.10A regarding accident, he alongwith SI FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 5/15 PS Civil Lines Rajeshwar, reached at the spot i.e. opposite side of Monesty Market, Civil Lines, Delhi where they found one motorcycle bearing registration No.DL- 7SR-9392 in an accidental condition. After leaving him at the spot, IO reached at Trauma Centre. After sometime, IO came back to the spot and recorded the statement of Ct. Umesh Kant & prepared rukka, after making endorsement on it and sent the same to PS for registration of FIR through him. He went to PS and produced rukka to DO/W-ASI Suresh Rani. After registration of FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. The offending vehicle was seized vide seizure memo already proved as Ex.PW1/B. After sometime, accused (correctly identified by him in the court that day) alongwith his Father came to the spot, where, he was arrested at the instance and identification of Ct. Umesh Kant vide arrest memo already proved as Ex.PW1/B. Accused produced the documents of the offending vehicle which were seized vide seizure memo already proved as Ex.PW1/C. Accused was released on bail and motorcycle was deposited in the Malkhana. (The Identity of the case property was not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel).
12. PW-9 Dr. Deepak Kumar Singh conducted local examination of patient Ram Pal, 45 years, Male on 30.10.2007, vide MLC No.92566/07 and proved the same as Ex.PW9/A.
13. PW-10 SI Rajvir Singh deposed that on 30.10.2007, he was posted at PCR Circle, North-Zone as ASI. On that day, he was Incharge of PCR Van Sugar-8 and his duty hours were from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM alongwith PCR staff. On that day, at about 9.15 AM, he received a PCR call regarding accident in-front of Ring Road, Monesty, near police picket FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 6/15 PS Civil Lines by motorcycle to a pedestrian. On receiving the said call, he alongwith PCR van and staff reached at the spot i.e Ring road, Opposite Monesty, on road going from the side of ISBT towards Majnu-ka-Tilla, where one motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-7SR-9392 was found at the spot in accident condition. Accused, being the rider of the motorcycle, disclosed his name as Sharad Yadav in the court that day and he was also correctly identified by him. The injured disclosed his name Ram Pal. Accused and injured Ram Pal were taken to Trauma Centre and admitted there as accused also sustained injury. IO recorded his statement in this regard. He correctly identified the offending vehicle and the same is proved as Ex. P1.
14. PW-11 Dr. Rajesh Gupta conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Ram Pal on 02.11.2007 and proved his detailed postmortem report as Ex.PW11/A.
15. PW-12 Sh. Ramesh deposed that he does the work of selling food item i.e. chole kulche in the area of Monesty Market, Budh Vihar, Bela Road from last 20/ 22 years. He further deposed that one person namely Rampal also worked and resided in the Monesty Area, who used to come to him to eat chole kulche and he died in the accident. No family members in his presence visited him. He saw him there from the time he start selling chole kulche.
16. PW-13 Sh. Rajesh Kumar (Record Clerk) proved the MLC No.92566 dated 30.10.2007 (OSR) of patient Ram Pal as Ex.PW9/A.
17. PW-14 Retired SI Rajeshwar Singh (Investigating Officer) FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 7/15 PS Civil Lines deposed that on 30.10.2007, he was posted at PS Civil Lines as SI. On that day, on receipt of DD No.10A regarding accident infront of Monesty Market, ISBT, he alongwith Ct. Mohinder Pal went to the above said spot where they found one blue colour motorcycle in accidental condition. There is one picket of Budh Vihar on the other side of the road going towards Majnu-ka-Tilla, where also, no police official was found. He left for Trauma Centre Hospital leaving behind Ct. Mohinder Pal at the spot. At the Hospital, he obtained the MLCs of Ram Pal and Sharad Yadav. Doctor at the Hospital opined on the MLC of Ram Pal "fit for statement". However, Ram Pal was not able to speak properly. He stated the Doctors at the Hospital about the condition of the Rampal upon which Doctors again checked him and opined that he is unfit for statement. He also searched for any eye witness at the Hospital who might have come with the victims but did not find any. He came back at the spot where he met Ct. Umesh Kant, who was on duty at the above said picket, Bodh Vihar. Ct. Umesh told him that he went to the Monesty for calling at PS for conveying the information of accident. He further told that he saw the accident and he picked the victims and boarded them in a PCR. He also stated that he also recorded their name and address. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Ct. Umesh Kant already proved as Ex.PW-1/A. He prepared tehrir on the said statement proved as Ex.PW-14/A and handed over the same to Ct. Mohinder for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Umesh Kant proved as Ex.PW-14/B. He was making inquiry from Ct. Umesh Kant regarding any other eye witness, at the same time, Ct. Mohinder Pal came from the PS alongwith copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to me. Thereafter, he seized the motorcycle vide seizure memo already proved as Ex.PW-1/B. Accused alongwith his Father came at the spot FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 8/15 PS Civil Lines after getting discharged from the Hospital. On seeing accused, Ct. Umesh stated that accused is the same person who has caused the accident and injured Ram Pal. Thereafter, he obtained RC of the motorcycle, Driving Licence of accused and other documents of the motorcycle from accused and seized the same vide seizure memo already proved as Ex.PW-1/C. Thereafter, he made inquiry from the accused and arrested & personally searched accused vide memos already proved as Ex.PW-1/D and Ex.PW-1/E respectively. Thereafter, he recorded the supplementary statement of Ct. Umesh Kant u/s. 161 Cr.PC. Accused was released on police bail at the spot itself. Thereafter, he left for the PS alongwith case property and Ct. Mohinder Pal. He recorded statement of Ct. Mohinder Pal in the PS and deposited the motorcycle in the Malkhana. He received information regarding death of victim Ram Pal from Trauma Centre vide DD No.17A. Thereafter, on the said information, he went to the Trauma Centre Hospital but the time being odd, the dead body was kept at the Trauma Centre Hospital. On the next day i.e. 31.10.2007, he sent one Constable to the native place of deceased Ram Pal at Saharanpur for calling relative. There Constable came to know that Village Tikola which is a native place of the deceased falls under Haridwar District. From Haridwar, Village Tikola address of the brother of the deceased was found that was again in District Saharanpur. In District Saharanpur, brother of deceased and sister-in-law of the deceased were found, who identified the deceased as their brother Ram Pal but they refused to cooperate in the investigation. The neighbouring persons namely Ram Singh and Heera Lal, of deceased Ram Pal were called, who identified the deceased and after this, postmortem of deceased was done. He got done mechanical inspection of the motorcycle and recorded the statement of Ct. Satyender, who visited the native place of the FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 9/15 PS Civil Lines deceased. He obtained postmortem report but he does not remember the date. Thereafter, he prepared the challan and filed it in the court. He correctly identified the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle as the same was not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel. Accused was correctly identified by him in the court that day.
Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
18. Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put him and he has stated that on 30.10.2007, he was going near Monesty Market on his bike at a normal speed about 40 to 45 kms following all traffic rules & regulations. Suddenly, one white colour car overtook him and touched the left handle of his bike, due to which he fell down & he lost control over the bike. That car also hit Ram Pal after crossing him due to which Ram Pal sustained injuries and later-on died. He did not hit Ram Pal. Due to sudden fall down from his bike, he could not identify the car and he also did not note down the registration number of the car. He also sustained injuries. Police officials took him to the Hospital for getting his medical examination done. MLC of the same is already on record.
Accused opted not to lead any defence evidence in his favour. Therefore, the matter was listed for Final Arguments.
19. Arguments from Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused were heard at length. The entire record has been carefully perused. The relevant sections are reproduced below for ready reference.
Section 279 IPC reads as under:-
" Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 10/15 PS Civil Lines endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Section 304 A IPC reads as under:-
"Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both."
20. To secure the conviction in a vehicular accident case, the prosecution has to prove all the following ingredients beyond reasonable doubt:-
a) That an accident was caused with a particular vehicle.
b) That accused was driving that particular vehicle, which caused the accident.
c) That accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of accused facing trial in the Court.
d) The injury suffered by an injured or death of deceased was the direct result and FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 11/15 PS Civil Lines consequence of that accident.
21. During his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C the accused has admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration no. No.DL-7SR-9392 at the time and place of alleged incident, however he stated that he was not driving the same in the rash or negligent manner and was hit by another car from behind due to which he collided with the deceased, as a consequence the deceased and him sustained injuries. Therefore, identity of the offending vehicle which caused the accident and the fact of it being driven by the accused at the time and place of alleged incident is not in dispute. Hence, the only ingredients remain to be establish by the prosecution are that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of accused and the death of deceased was the direct result and consequence of that accident.
22. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that the testimony of PW-1 cannot be relied upon as he is the sole-eye witness to the present case and he is planted witness being police official. However, argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel that PW-1 is the planted witness is merit-less as PW-1 is the complainant in the present matter, who met the IO/ PW-14 at the spot and narrated the entire incident to him and at whose instance rukka was prepared & FIR was registered. Further, at his instance site plan was prepared proved as Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures. Still, further, at his instance and identification, accused was arrested by the IO, being the driver, who committed the alleged offence.
DD No.11B dated 30.10.2007 regarding picket duty of PW-1 is already on record. Further, the point "B" in the site plan, where PW-1 was present is near the spot and the spot seems to be clearly visible.
FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 12/15PS Civil Lines Absolutely nothing has been brought on record by the accused to prove as to why the PW-1 would falsely implicate the accused in the present case. Furthermore, the stand of witness has been consistent even during his cross-examination. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that PW-1 is the planted witness. It has been held in number of judgment that testimony of even a solitary witness can be the basis of conviction if it is found to be clear, coherent and reliable. Testimony of PW-1 is clear, coherent and reliable and inspires the confidence of this Court and it cannot be disregarded only for the reason that he is a police official. His presence at the spot has been proved on record by IO/ PW-14 and PW-8 Ct. Mohinder Pal.
Despite lengthy cross-examaination, the defence could not demolish or discredit the stand of prosecution witnesses.
23. Further, the mechanical inspection report proved on record reveals that in the accident, the speed meter assembly, head light, front indicator left & right side and side diggi of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle was broken in the accident which point towards high impact of the collision, hence, it cannot be ruled out that the offending vehicle was at high speed even at the traffic signal and had hit the deceased with a great force due to which he succumbed to his injuries.
24. The defence taken by the accused that one white colour car overtook him and touched the left handle of his bike, due to which he fell down & he lost control over the bike and had also hit deceased Ram Pal after crossing him due to which Ram Pal sustained injuries, falls flat on two grounds, firstly that as per mechanical inspection report, the offending FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 13/15 PS Civil Lines vehicle has broken parts in the front and there is no mark of any hit by the car. Secondly, this defence has been raised for the first time while recording statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.PC and no suggestion qua the same was put to any prosecution witness including PW-6 Mechanical Inspector. Reliance is placed by this court upon judgments in cases titled as:-
(1) Mahavir Singh vs State Of Haryana (SC) wherein it is held that " it is a settled legal proposition that in case the question is not put to the witness in cross-examination who could furnish explanation on a particular issue, the correctness or legality of the said fact/issue could not be raised".
(2) Bhagloo Lodh & Anr vs State Of U.P (SC) wherein it is held that " in the statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellants had not taken the defence that they could not be present at the place of occurrence as at the time of occurrence they were working in their paddy field. Thus, in view of the above, the deposition of the two witnesses examined in their defence becomes meaningless".
25. From the medical documents proved on record, it is clear that the deceased succumbed to his injuries as a direct consequence of the accident committed by the motorcyclist i.e. accused.
26. From the testimony of PWs and record, it has been proved that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at a high speed even at FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 14/15 PS Civil Lines the traffic red signal and had hit the deceased, while he was crossing the road. Driving the vehicle at a high speed at the traffic signal exactly, at the point of zebra crossing is itself rash/ negligent act, which is clear from the site plan.
27. With this background, it is held that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused. Accordingly, accused Sharad Yadav is convicted of the charge u/s 279/304A IPC.
Order on sentence shall be announced after hearing the accused. SHEFALI Digitally signed by SHEFALI BARNALA ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN BARNALA TANDON Date: 2018.07.18 TANDON 17:06:26 +0530 COURT ON 17th JULY, 2018 (SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON) MM-06 (C)/TIS HAZARI COURT DELHI All pages are duly signed.
FIR No.242/2007 State Vs. Sharad Yadav Page No. 15/15PS Civil Lines