Delhi District Court
State vs . Satbir Singh on 4 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARVINDER SINGH,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 03 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI - 110 054.
FIR No.1078/2000
PS - Nangloi
State Vs. Satbir Singh
Unique Case ID No.02401R0265972001
JUDGMENT
(a) Sr. No. of the case 1505/1/08
(b) Date of offence 26.11.2000
(c) Complainant Yasub Haider S/o Sh. Farar Hussain R/o A -
699, Camp No.02, Nangloi, Delhi.
(d) Accused Satbir Singh S/o Sh. Bhale Ram R/o Village
Julana, District Jind, Haryana.
(e) Offence(s) Under Section 279 and 304A of The Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order Conviction
(h) Date of institution 12.07.2001
(i) Date when judgment was Not Reserved
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 04.10.2013
The brief facts of the case are that : -
1. The accused has been charge sheeted for committing offences under Section 279 and 304A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegations against the accused are that on 26.11.2000 at about 11:30 PM at Main Rohak Road, Kirari Mor, Nangloi, Delhi, accused was driving a truck bearing registration number HRO-2575 in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and by his rash and negligent act, accused caused the death of Krishna Singh not FIR No.1078/2000 Page No.1 to 10 amounting to culpable homicide. According to the prosecution, accused thereby committed offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the challan was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Notice was put to the accused under Section 279 and 304A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide order dated 01.07.2003 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined ten witnesses. PW1 Sh. J. S. Pawar has proved and exhibited the mechanical inspection report as Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B respectively. PW1 was examined, cross- examined and was discharged.
4. PW2 Sh. Yasub Heder has deposed in substance that on 26/27.11.2000 in the night at about 11:00 pm to 11:30 pm, he was going to his house after having tea at tea stall near Cooperation Office gate. He saw two trucks coming from Lokesh cinema side and one of them was loaded with bricks and one truck coming from PS Nangloi side. One truck coming from Lokesh cinema side loaded with bricks, collided first with truck coming from PS Nangloi side and thereafter, hit the cyclist. He identified the accused as driver of the offending truck who hit the cyclist. He further deposed that in his opinion, the incident took place due to rash driving of accused as he was more negligent as it was junction of three roads. He called the police and police recorded his FIR No.1078/2000 Page No.2 to 10 statement Ex.PW2/A. Police seized both the vehicles and cycle vide Ex.PW2/B to Ex.PW2/D. PW2 was examined, cross-examined by the accused and was discharged.
5. PW3 HC Kuldeep has proved and exhibited the copy of FIR as Ex. PW3/A. PW3 was examined, not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given and was discharged.
6. PW4 Sh. Sayeed Ahmed has deposed in substance that on 26.11.2000, at about 11:30 pm, two trucks were coming from Lokesh Cinema side and one truck was also coming from Punjabi Bagh side. One cyclist who had already moved towards Kirari Mor was crushed by one of the truck. The truck which hit the cyclist was loaded with bricks. He identified the accused as the driver of the offending truck and deposed that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the incident took place with the front vehicle coming from Lokesh cinema side loaded with bricks. He further deposed in his cross- examination by the accused that he had seen the accused driving the offending vehicle at the time of incident and accused was arrested in his presence at the spot on the day of incident. PW4 was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
7. PW5 and PW10 have deposed in substance that on 27.11.2000, on receipt of DD No. 28A, Ex. PW10/A, they went to Kirari Mor, Main Rohtak Road, where they met with HC Dalbir. They saw trucks bearing registration No. DL1GB2481 and HRO-2571 in accidental condition. They also found one bicycle in accidental condition and one crushed dead body whose face was unidentifiable. They met with eye-witness PW2 and PW10 recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A and prepared Rukka on the same. PW10 prepared Rukka on the same and handed over to PW5 who went to PS, got FIR FIR No.1078/2000 Page No.3 to 10 registered and came back at the spot along-with Rukka and copy of FIR. PW10 prepared site plan Ex.PW10/B at the instance of PW2. PW10 seized truck bearing registration number DL-1GB-2481 vide Ex.PW2/B, truck bearing registration number HRO-2575 vide Ex.PW7/C and cycle vide Ex.PW2/D. PW10 recorded statement of HC Dalbir. PW10 served notice under Section 133 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 upon owner Jai Veer and obtained his reply Ex.PW10/C. PW10 arrested accused Satbir vide memo Ex.PW10/D and conducted his personal search vide Ex.PW10/D1. PW10 seized the driving license of accused Ex.PW10/D. PW10 recorded statement of other eye-witnesses Saiyad Ahmed and Randhir Singh. On 29.11.2000, PW10 got identified dead body of deceased from his relatives and got conducted the postmortem at SGM Hospital. PW5 was not completely examined in the present matter. PW7 was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
8. PW6 Dr. Kamal Singh has proved and exhibited postmortem report of deceased Krishan Singh as Ex.PW6/A. PW6 was examined, not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given and was discharged.
9. PW7 Sh. Rohtash Singh has proved and exhibited the dead body handing over memo of the body Krishna Singh as Ex.PW7/A. PW7 was examined, not cross- examined by the accused despite opportunity given and was discharged.
10. PW8 Sh. Inder Sen has identified Ex.PW5/B in his evidence. PW8 was examined, not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given and was discharged.
FIR No.1078/2000 Page No.4 to 10
11. PW9 Sh. P. K. Madan has proved and exhibited the photographs and the negatives as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. PW9 was examined, not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given and was discharged.
12. On 13.12.2011, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by the Court as matter pertains to the year 1998.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
13. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused person was recorded under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 281 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Incriminating evidence was put to him. Accused person denied all the allegations and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused opted not to lead evidence in his defence.
14. Final arguments heard. Record is perused.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS/CONTENTIONS/ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
15. First contention which has been raised by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel is that PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not taken the photographs of the vehicles which were inspected by him. He further admitted that he had not issued receipt for payment received by him for inspection. It is further contented that PW1 was not able to tell how much payment he received for inspection of the vehicles. The Ld. Legal Aid Counsel had contended that the PW1 has not inspected the vehicle and has prepared false reports of inspection of vehicles.
This Court has considered the contentions raised by the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused. The PW1 has mentioned in detail in both of his reports Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B regarding the aspects on which mechanical inspections were FIR No.1078/2000 Page No.5 to 10 done. The PW1 has mentioned fresh damages on the front bumper, bonnet and radiator of vehicle bearing registration number HRO-2575 and has also pointed fresh damages on the left side of truck bearing registration number DL-1GB-2481 near oil tank and below driver's cabin. The inspection reports prepared by the PW1 appear to be genuine one prepared after detailed examination of vehicles. He has submitted that he received payment for the same, therefore, even if he had not issued receipt for the same it would have no bearing upon this case. The photography of the vehicles was not required at the time of mechanical inspection, therefore, it has no consequence, even if the photographs were not taken at the time of mechanical inspection. In totality of circumstances, this Court has no doubt that both the vehicles were inspected by PW1 vide Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B and his deposition inspires the confidence of this Court, therefore, this Court sees no force in contention of the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel that the vehicles were not inspected by PW1 and he has prepared a false report, therefore, is hereby rejected.
16. Another contention which has been raised by the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel is that PW2 was not able to tell the registration number of the vehicle(s) involved in the incident. It is further submitted that in his cross-examination, he has deposed that he cannot say as to whether the accident took place on account being hit by truck bearing registration number DL-1GB-2481 or not. It is further submitted that in these circumstances, there is doubt whether the accident took place with the vehicle of the accused or with the other vehicle.
This Court has considered the contention raised by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused. The PW2 has deposed that two trucks were coming from FIR No.1078/2000 Page No.6 to 10 Lokesh Cinema side. One truck was coming from PS Nangloi side. Truck coming from Lokesh Cinema side loaded with bricks, first collided with truck coming from PS Nangloi side and thereafter, hit the cyclist. The PW2 has identified the accused as driver of the offending vehicle which hit the cyclist. He has further deposed that the accused was rash and negligent in driving his truck. PW4 has also deposed that two trucks were coming from Lokesh Cinema side and one truck was coming from Punjabi Bagh side. The truck loaded with bricks hit the cyclist and crushed him. He also deposed that the present accused was the driver of the offending truck and the incident took place due to negligence of the accused. In his statement under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 281 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, accused has admitted that he was driving the truck bearing registration number 2575 on the day of incident, but has stated that other truck which was coming from Delhi side caused death of deceased cyclist. Both the PW2 and PW4 have deposed that the accused person was the driver of one of the trucks loaded with bricks coming from Lokesh Cinema side and he crushed the cyclist under his truck. Though, PW2 has deposed in his cross-examination that he cannot say as to whether the incident took place on account of being hit by truck bearing registration number DL-1GB-2481 or not, but, since he was not able to tell the number of the truck which the accused person was driving in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination, therefore, this deposition of PW2 cannot be given any weightage in the present circumstances. Both the PW2 and PW4 have been consistent in their evidence to the effect that accused was driver of the truck coming from Lokesh Cinema side and he crushed the cyclist under his truck. Both the witnesses have submitted that accused was rash and negligent in FIR No.1078/2000 Page No.7 to 10 driving his truck as he first collided his truck with another truck and then, crushed the cyclist under his truck. The spot of incident was a three road junction, therefore, the accused should have been extra careful in driving his truck at that juncture. In view of these circumstances, this Court sees no substance in the contentions of the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused that there is doubt regarding the identity of the vehicle involved in the incident and accused as the driver of the offending vehicle, accordingly, is hereby rejected.
17. In this matter, PW2 and PW4 have deposed that on 26.11.2000 at about 11:30 pm at Kirari Mor, Main Rohtak Road, they saw one truck coming from PS Nangloi side / Punjabi Bagh side and two trucks from Lokesh Cinema side. The one truck which was loaded with bricks and which was coming from Lokesh Cinema side, first hit one truck coming from opposite side and then crushed the cyclist. Both the PW2 and PW4 have deposed that the accused was the driver of the offending truck and he was rash and negligent in driving the truck. PW2 had deposed that the accused was negligent as it was junction of three roads and he was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently. PW1 has proved and exhibited the mechanical inspection reports of truck bearing registration number HRO-2575 as Ex.PW1/A and of truck bearing registration number DL-1GB-2481 as Ex.PW1/B respectively. PW3 has proved and exhibited the FIR as Ex.PW3/A. PW6 has proved and exhibited the postmortem report of deceased Krishan Singh as Ex.PW6/A. PW7 has proved and exhibited the dead body handing over memo as Ex. PW7/A. PW8 has identified the Ex.PW5/B in his evidence. PW9 has proved and exhibited the eight photographs and their negatives as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 respectively. Since, examination of PW5 was not completed, therefore, his evidence FIR No.1078/2000 Page No.8 to 10 could not be considered against the accused. PW10 has deposed that on 27.11.2000, on receipt of D.D.No.28A Ex.PW10/A, he along-with Ct. Narayan Singh went to Kirari Mode, Main Rohtak Road where they met with HC Dalbir. They saw trucks bearing registration number DL-1GB-2481 and HRO-2571 in accidental condition. They also found one bicycle in accidental condition and one crushed dead body whose face was unidentifiable. They met with eye-witness PW2. PW10 recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. PW10 prepared Rukka on the same and handed over to Ct. Narayan Singh who went to PS, got FIR registered and came back at the spot along-with Rukka and copy of FIR. PW10 prepared site plan Ex.PW10/B at the instance of PW2. PW10 seized truck bearing registration number DL-1GB-2481 vide Ex.PW2/B, truck bearing registration number HRO-2575 vide Ex.PW7/C and cycle vide Ex.PW2/D. PW10 recorded statement of HC Dalbir. PW10 served notice under Section 133 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 upon owner Jaiveer and obtained his reply Ex.PW10/C. PW10 arrested accused Satbir vide memo Ex. PW10/D and conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW10/D1. PW-10 seized the DL of accused Ex. PW10/D. PW10 recorded statement of other eye witnesses Saiyad Ahmed and Randhir Singh. On 29.11.2000, PW10 got identified dead body of deceased from his relatives and got conducted the postmortem at SGM Hospital. The above said witnesses have passed the test of lengthy and skilful cross-examination done on behalf of accused. The PW2 and PW4 have been consistent in their deposition that it was the accused with whose truck, the present incident happened and he was driving his truck in rash and negligent manner as he was not careful at the junction of three roads and crushed the cyclist under his truck. The rashness in the driving of the accused is self evident from the fact that he first hit his FIR No.1078/2000 Page No.9 to 10 truck with truck coming from the opposite side by going on the wrong side and then crushed the cyclist.
In these circumstances, ingredients of commission of offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 have been brought on record beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused person and he is liable to be convicted for the same.
19. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has duly proved its case against the accused person for offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused person namely Satbir Singh is hereby convicted for offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
20. Copy of judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost. Announced in the open Court on October 04, 2013.
(HARVINDER SINGH) M.M.-03/THC (West), Delhi/04.10.2013 FIR No.1078/2000 Page No.10 to 10