Delhi District Court
State vs . Virender Sharma, Veh. No. Dl2W 3800 ... on 14 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR, MM TRAFFIC- CENTRAL, TIS
HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
Challan No. 64091
Circle:- Civil Line
Vehicle No. DL2W 3800
Unique Case ID No.
Under Section 66/192A r/w section 125/177, 66.1/192A r/w section 130/177,
32/177, r/w section 130/177, 146/196, r/w section 130/177 and 56/192 r/w section
130/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
State .............Complainant
(Delhi Traffic Police)
Versus
Virender Sharma,
S/o Sh Sukhdarshan Sharma,
R/o D-415, Gali no. 1,
Chand Bagh,
Delhi ....................Accused
Date of institution of the Challan : 13.07.2011
Date of decision : 14.09.2015
Final order : Convicted u/s 66.1/192A r/w
section 125/177 and u/s
130/177 of the Motor Vehicle
Act.
Present: Ld. APP for State.
Accused along with ld. Counsel.
State Vs. Virender Sharma, Veh. no. DL2W 3800 1/10
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment I shall dispose of the case pertaining to the traffic challan bearing no. 064091 issued on 12.07.2011 in respect of vehicle no. DL2W 3800. According to the prosecution version the brief facts of the case are that on 12.07.2011, while accused was driving vehicle bearing no. DL 2W 3800 near ISBT Flyover and coming from Shastri Park Side, he was found carrying ten passengers in his aforesaid vehicle whereas number of passengers allowed to be carried in his vehicle were six and by boarding the excess passengers the accused violated the conditions of permit. Further case of prosecution is that while driving the aforesaid vehicle accused was also found without having permit, RC, Insurance and fitness of the above said vehicle. Therefore Challaning officer /ZO ASI R B Singh issued the challan agianst the accused for commission of offence u/s 66/192A, 32/177, 146/196 and 56/192 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
2. The accused appeared in the court on 13.07.2011and was released on bail as the offences were bailable. The notice of accusation was served upon the accused u/s 251 of Cr.P.C to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, three prosecution witnesses, PW1 Ct. Satyapal, PW2 Challaning officer/ASI RB Singh and PW3 Inspector Arunedra Singh were examined and cross-examined. Thereafter the evidence of prosecution was closed vide order dated 20.09.2011. The statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the entire incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him were put to him. The accused stated in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he want to lead his defence evidence. On 07.01.2012 accused had moved an application u/s 315 Cr.P.C. for examining himself as defence witness. The accused has also produced one defence witness namely Alla Rakha. Both were examined and discharged on 17.01.2012. On 28.01.2012 Ld. counsel for accused has moved an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the PW1 Ct. Satyapal which was allowed on the same day. On 17.03.2012 PW1 Ct. Satyapal appeared before the court and cross examined and discharged.
State Vs. Virender Sharma, Veh. no. DL2W 3800 2/10
4. In the case in hand Ld. APP has argued that the prosecution witnesses have proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He further argued that prosecution witnesses proved on record the challan as Ex. PW2/A. Ld. APP for state has argued that the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses were consistent and all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated their testimonies in material particular regarding fact of carrying ten passengers in the above said vehicle whereas six passengers were allowed in the above said vehicle and by boarding of excess passengers accused have violated the permit conditions. He further submitted that accused/driver was driving the above said vehicle without having permit, RC, insurance and fitness certificate of the vehicle. Ld. APP for State argued that considering all theses facts and circumstances accused be held guilty for the commission of offence of carrying excess passengers as well as for plying vehicle without having Permit, RC, Insurance and fitness certificate.
Per contra Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the challan was issued wrongly and prosecution has not produced any material to show that accused/driver was carrying ten passengers on the relevant time. Ld. counsel for accused further argued that accused in this case was not carrying ten passengers at the relevant time. Ld. counsel for accused further argued that no independent witness was produced to prove the fact that accused was carrying ten passenger in his vehicle. Ld. counsel for accused further submitted that accused had shown RC, Permit, insurance and fitness certificate on the spot but Challaning officer had refused to see these documents and issued the challan for plying vehicle without having RC, Insurance, Permit and Fitness certificate. He argued that considering all these facts and circumstances accused should be acquitted for the above said alleged offence of carrying extra passengers as well as for plying vehicle without having above said documents.
5. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the material on record. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by prosecution and the defence and also carefully scrutinized the testimonies of the witnesses.
State Vs. Virender Sharma, Veh. no. DL2W 3800 3/10
6. In order to prove its case presecution has prodocued three prosecution witnesses, PW1 Ct. Satyapal, PW2/Challaning officer/ASI RB Singh and PW3 Inspector Arunedra Singh.
For the sake of convenience and proper analysis of evidence as well as other material on record the case of prosecution against the accused is hereby clasified into two parts:-
First Part:-
The case of prosecution is that accused/driver was carrying excess passengers at the relevant time in question and therefore voilated the permit conditions.
Second Part:-
At the relevant time in question the accused was plying vehicle without having RC, Insurance, Permit and Fitness certificate pertaining to abovesaid vehicle .
7. First Part of the Case and appriciation of evidence.
The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 12.07.2011 at about 5.35 pm near ISBT Flyover accused was found plying his vehicle and carrying 10 passengers inside his vehicle whereas accused/driver was permitted only to carry 06 passengers in his vehicle and therefore accused had committed voilation of permit conditions.
To prove the case in hand prosecution has produced three witnesses. Challaning officer/PW2 stated in his examination in chief that on 12.07.2011 he was standing near ISBT flyover along with Ct. Satyapal and TI Civil line Circle. At about 5.35 pm one Gramin Sewa bearing no. DL2W 3800 was coming from the side of Shastri Park and going towards Mori gate side. He further stated that he found that the driver of above said vehicle was carrying ten passengers in his vehicle. He further stated that he and Ct. Satpal togehter got stopped the abovesaid vehicle and counted the number of passengers which were ten in the number. He further stated that he issued challan against the accused/driver which is Exhibited as Ex. PW2/A and bears his signature at point A. He also correctly identified the accused/driver in the court.
PW1/Ct. Satyapal deposed to the same effact State Vs. Virender Sharma, Veh. no. DL2W 3800 4/10 and corroborated the version of challaning officer/PW2 and stated that accused/driver was carrying ten passengers when aboversaid accused/driver was plying his vehicle and coming from the directions of Shastri Park and going towards Morigate. He further submitted that ZO issued the challan against the driver and impounded the vehicle. He also identified the accused/driver in the court.
PW3/ Inspector Arunendera Singh al;so deposed to the same effect and corroborated the version of PW2 as well as PW1 except some minor variation regarding name of flyover. Pw3 stated the name of flyover where he was standing as shahdra flyover whereas PW1 and PW2 stated that they were standing near ISBT Flyover but in his cross examination PW3 explained that he was on patrolling duty near ISBT flyover and he was standing on the side of ISBT Flyover. PW3 in his examination stated that that on 12.07.2011 he was standing near Shahdra flyover on his routine patrolling duty. He further submitted that he saw one Gramin Sewa bearing no. DL2W 3800 coming from the side of Shastri Park and going twoard Mori Gate Side. He further submitted that Ct. Satyapal got stopped the vehicle at the direction of challaning officer/ PW2 ASI RB Singh. He further submitted that accused/driver was carrying 10 passengers. He further submitted that challaning officer issued the challan against accused/dirver. PW3 also correctly identified the accused/driver in the court.
It is clear from the abvoe said examination in chief of all the PWs that all had categorically stated that accused was carrying ten passengers. All the prosecution witnesses were throughout consistent on the point of carrying of ten passengers by the accused/driver.
8. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that challan was worngly issued against the accused/driver. As far as allegations that accused was plying his vehicleas carrying excess passenger in his vehicle is concerned all the prosecution witnesses categorically stated that at the relevant time they saw accused was plying his vehicle and ten passengers were sitting inside his vehicle. Ld. Defence counsel has not placed any material which could create any doubt in the mind of Court regarding varacity of above said testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Ld. Defence counsel was also not able to elicit any discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Court also State Vs. Virender Sharma, Veh. no. DL2W 3800 5/10 see no any reason to discard the testimonies of above said prosecution witnesses. Prosecution witnesses were throughout consistent in their testimonies.
9. Ld. Defence counsel had further argued that neither passengers sitting inside the above said vehicle nor any independent witnesses were joined by traffic police as witness at the time of issuance of challan therefore their testimonies in the court could not be relied upon. In the view of court there is no much force in the submission of ld. Defence counsel that prosecution witnesses could not be relied upon unless and until corroborated by independent witness. Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that usually public witnesses or passerby are reluctant to become witness. It is general trend in our country that people usually avoid to become public witness. It is also general trend in our country that people usually avoid to appear in court as a public witness for one reason or other. In these prevalent situations if prosecution case is discarded solely on the ground that prosecution has not joined any independent witness than instead of justice, miscarriage of justice is bound to happen. Moreover as far as contention of the ld. Defence counsel that prosecution has not produced any independent witness to prove the factum of carrying of excess passengers by accused/driver and therefore prosecution witnesses could not be relied upon as they are police officials is concerned Court is of view that the argument of Ld. Counsel that witnesses are police officials therefore their testimony cannot be relied upon is fallacious and untenable as evidence of police officials cannot be scrutinized with suspicion or with any negative presumption. The duty to speak truth after taking oath equally applies to police officials as to any other witness. Police officials are competent witnesses under Sec. 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and their testimony, if found to be trustworthy, can be relied upon. The testimony of such witnesses has to be given equal weightage. To fortify this proposition reliance can be placed upon one judicial pronouncement in, 'Ramesh Kumar Vs. State' reported as ILR (2009)V Delhi 235; Hon'ble Delhi High Court, observed that, "The legal position which emerges from the afore-noted decision is that the factum of non-examination of public/independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in every case. It depends upon the additional factor whether the evidence led by the prosecution inspires confidence or not. If the evidence led by the prosecution is otherwise State Vs. Virender Sharma, Veh. no. DL2W 3800 6/10 credible and trustworthy, the non-examination of independent/public witness is of no consequence."
10. As already discussed all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated their testimonies regarding the incident of carrying of ten passengers by the accused/driver and court find not any material to doubt the veracity or truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses therefore court show no any reasons to discard the testimonies of prosecution witnesses only on the ground that prosecution has not joined any independent witnesses. Moreover all the prosecution witnesses have explained and clarified in their cross examination that they had asked the passengers to join as a witness but they refused. Challaning officer/PW2 and PW1 both stated in their cross examination that they had asked the passengers to join as a witness in this case but they all have refused to do so. As already above discussed seeing the prevailing situation in our country wherein any independent person or passer by almost show their reluctant to become witness the explanation offered by prosecution witnesses seems plausible that passengers had refused to become witness despite request. Moreover in the case in hand testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses inspire the confidence of court as they have been consistent in their deposition throughout on the point of carrying ten passengers in the vehicle by the above said accused/driver. All the prosecution witnesses have successfully proved the facts and circumstances of the case leading to the offence of carrying of ten passengers by accused/driver in his vehicle. Whereas above said vehicle had only permit to carry on six passengers. It is also relevant here that accused in his defence produced himself as DW1 and one another witness as DW2. DW2 who is also registered owner of the vehicle stated in his examination in chief that on 12.07.2011 at 5.pm in the evening he directed his driver to deposit the empty vehicle at Civil Line pit in pursuance of suspension order issued by ACP Traffic. It is relevant here to mention that except bald assertion accused had not produced any material to show that the above said vehicle was empty at the relevant time and accused was going to deposit his vehicle at CLC pit in pursuance of suspension order. In this regard there also appears to be force in the submission of ld. APP that abovesaid story of accused appears to be afterthought and it is clear from cross examination of DW2 and DW1 when both admitted that State Vs. Virender Sharma, Veh. no. DL2W 3800 7/10 they had not submitted any complaint/documents to the incharge suspension pit to the effect that while accused/driver was taking the vehicle same was impounded by police. It appears that the story put forward by accused that he was going to deposit his empty vehicle in the pit and during which Challaning officer had falsely issued the challan is afterthought. Therefore keeping in mind consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses and other material on records as well as abovesaid discussion it can safety be said that prosecution witnesses have been successful in proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt regarding the fact of carrying of ten passengers by the accused/driver in voilation of permit conditions which authorised accused/driver to carry only six passengers excluding driver.
11. Second Part:-
As far as offence of driving vehicle without having documents i.e. RC, insurance, Permit and Fitness certificate is concerned. Prosecution has produced above said three witnesses to prove the guilt of accused.
Challaning officer/PW 2stated in his examination in chief that at the relevant time in question at the spot he asked from the driver/accused to produce documents pertaining to aforesaid vehicle. He further stated that he found that the driver was not having RC, Permit, insurance and Fitness Certificate and thereafter he issued the challan which is exhibited as Ex. PW2/A which bears his signature at point A. Pw1 also stated to the same effect and corroborated the testimony of challaning officer/PW2 and stated in his examination in chief that when ZO checked the documents of the abovesaid vehicle driver was found not in possession of Permit and Insurance and thereafter ZO issued the challan against the accused.
Pw3 also stated to the same effect and stated that accused/driver was not carrying any documents except driving license.
12. It is clear from the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses that they categorically and in very clear term stated that accused was not carrying documents State Vs. Virender Sharma, Veh. no. DL2W 3800 8/10 while he was plying his vehicle as he has not produced RC, insurance, Permit and Fitness certificate on being asked by challaning officer. It is also clear from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that they had categorically stated that challaning officer had asked the accused/driver to produce RC, Insurance, Permit and fitness certificate but he did not produce the same however the accused/driver in his defence as DW1 stated that on demand by challaning officer he produced and requested the challaning officer to take the fitness certificate and insurance certificate but challaning officer refused to take the same. It is also relevant here to mention that subsequently at stage of final arguments with the permission of court accused had filed RC and Permit of the above said vehicle in question.
13. Perusal of testimonies of prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses and other material on records clearly shows that prosecution witnesses had asked the accused to produce the abovesaid documents i.e. RC, Insurance, Permit and Fitness Certificate but accused did not produce the same. The defence of the accused that he had shown the insurance and fitness certificate to the challaning officer but challaning officer refused to take the same appears to be afterthought and it does not inspire the confidence of the court. Court does not see any reason why challaning officer would refuse to see documents if produced by driver at the spot. Accused/driver had neither shown any reasons nor produce any material from which court could infer that challaning officer had issued the challan due to some improper motive in mind or due to some malafide intention. Accused had not shown any plausible reason or material which could create doubt in the mind of the court regarding fact that challaning officer had refused to see the documents when produced by the accused. In the overall facts and circumstances of this case it seems likely that accused was not carrying the above said documents in question with himself while plying the abovesaid vehicle and therefore he might not have produce the documents at the spot but as he has valid documents pertaining to the abovesaid vehicle therefore later on he produced the abovesaid documents in the court and concocted story that he was carrying abovesaid documents but challaning officer refused to see the abvesaid documents.
14. Considering the abovesaid discussions as well as consistent and unequivocal State Vs. Virender Sharma, Veh. no. DL2W 3800 9/10 testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses that accused had not produced the documents at the spot court is of view that prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of acused beyond reasonable doubts that accused was plying vehicle without having above said documents and failed to show abovesaid documents i.e. Insurance, RC, Permit and fitness certificate. As accused has produced and shown the valid documents i.e. Insurance, RC, Permit and fitness certificate in the court therefore accused is hereby convicted for the offence of non production of documents on the spot on the demand of challaning officer u/s 130/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
15. In view of above observations, the accused is convicted for offence u/s 66.1/192A r/w section 125/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act for violation of permit conditions by carrying excess passengers and u/s 130/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act for non production of documents on spot
16. Let the accused be heard on the quantum of sentence for conviction u/s 130/177 and 66.1/192 r/w section 125/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Copy of judgment be given to the convict accordingly.
(RAKESH KUMAR)
Judgment pronounced in open court. MM Traffic-Central,
14.09.2015
State Vs. Virender Sharma, Veh. no. DL2W 3800 10/10
Challan No. 64091
Circle:- Civil Line
Vehicle No. DL2W 3800
State Vs. Virender Sharma
14.09.2015
Present: Ld. APP for State.
Convict in person along with Ld. Counsel.
I have heard convict as well as ld. APP for State on sentence. Ld. counsel for convict stated that convict is a poor person and it is his first offence. He further stated that convict is the only bread earner of the family and has to support his family and was facing trial since last five years. Ld. counsel for convict argued that considering the fact that he is first time offender court should take a lenient view.
Per contra ld. APP for State argued that it has been proved beyond reasonable that convict was carrying excess passengers in his vehicle therefore court should take a strict view and passed appropriate sentence against the convict.
I have heard both the parties on the point of sentence .
Prosecution has not produced any material to show that convict is a habitual offender. Furthermore considering the socio economic condition of the convict and fact that he is sole bread earner of his family the court is of view that some sort of lenient approach would serve the interest of justice. Keeping in mind also the reformative theory of punishment it cannot be said that the conduct of convict is beyond reform. One of the aim of the reformative theory is try to bring about a change in the personality and character of offender so as to make him a useful member of society. The court is of view that convict should be given a chance to reform himself and act according to expectation of society. Undoubtedly convict in this case was found guilty for carrying excess passengers in his vehicle but keeping in mind overall facts and circumstances and particularly fact that accused is remorseful regarding his conduct of carrying excess passengers in his vehicle, court deems it appropriate that some sort of lenient approach would served the end of justice. Keeping in mind all these facts and circumstances convict is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- for the commission of offence u/s 66.1/192A r/w section section 125/177 of State Vs. Virender Sharma, Veh. no. DL2W 3800 11/10 the Motor vehicle Act for violating permit conditions by carrying excess passengers. The convict is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the commission of offence u/s 130/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act for non production of documents before the challaning officer. In default of payment of fine convict shall undergo SI for 10 days.
Fine paid.
All the bonds executed by convict stands canceled. The documents attached with challan be returned to convict against acknowledgment. The file be consigned to the record room after due completion. Pronounced in the open court.
(Rakesh Kumar)
MM Traffic-Central,Delhi
14.09.2015
State Vs. Virender Sharma, Veh. no. DL2W 3800 12/10