Delhi District Court
Sate vs . Bahadur Singh on 20 May, 2015
FIR No.530/07
PS Narela
U/s. 279/427 IPC
Sate Vs. Bahadur Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURT: DELHI.
FIR No.530/07
PS Narela
U/s. 279/427 IPC
Sate Vs. Bahadur Singh
Date of Institution of case:- 15.04.08
Date of Judgment reserved:-20.05.15
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 20.05.15
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. :02404R0266452008
Date of commission of offence :03.10.2007
Name of complainant :HC Vijay Pal, No. 530/NW, PS
Narela, Delhi.
Name and address of accused :Bahadur Singh
S/o. Sh. Lal Chand, R/o
Village Janti Khurd, District
Sonepat, Haryana.
Offence complained of :279/427 IPC
Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
Final order :Acquitted
Date of order :20.05.2015.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
1. The accused Bahadur Singh S/o Sh. Lal Chand has been sent to face trial under Section 279/427 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) on the allegations that on 03.10.07 at about 12:45 p.m. at Narela Bawana Road, Near Old Gaushala, Narela, Delhi, he was found driving the truck bearing No. HR-69A-3541 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others and while driving Page No.1 of 8 FIR No.530/07 PS Narela U/s. 279/427 IPC Sate Vs. Bahadur Singh the above stated truck in the aforesaid manner he hit against the electric pole of high tension wire and caused damages and on the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR bearing no. 530/07 was registered at Police station Narela and the accused has been charged with the offences under Section 279/427 IPC.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. The copies of charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and notice U/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences U/s. 279/427 IPC was served upon the accused on 21.10.08, to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution examined five witnesses.
4. PW1 is Sh. Ishwar Chand S/o Sh. Shokee Sharma, aged about 46 years, R/o Gali No. 30-B, Swatantra Nagar, Narela, Delhi. He deposed that he did not know anything about this case and he has come to the court on receiving the summons of this court.
Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross examine the witness as he was silent to his earlier statement. During his cross examination by Ld APP for the state, he admitted that he was running STD Shop on Narela Bawana road on 03.10.2007. He denied the suggestion that he gave statement to the police that on 03.10.2007 at 12:30 a.m., one truck came at a very rash and negligent manner and on seeing Page No.2 of 8 FIR No.530/07 PS Narela U/s. 279/427 IPC Sate Vs. Bahadur Singh the truck, he turned his bicycle towards old Gaushala. He also denied the suggestion that he stated to the police that the offending truck driver hit the truck against high tension electric pole. He also denied the suggestion that he told the police that he went to the spot and inquired from the accused as to whether he has received any injuries and about his name. He further denied the suggestion that the accused told his name to be Bahadur. He admitted that arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW1/A and PW1/B respectively bears his signature at point A. He denied the suggestion that the arrest memo and personal search memo bears his signatures because the accused was arrested in his presence and later on, he had deposed falsely being won over by the accused. He further denied the suggestion that he was riding bicycle at the time of alleged accident. At this stage, the attention of the witness was drawn towards the accused to which the witness fails to identify the same. He further deposed that he did not know whether the photographs Mark 'A' to 'E' which are placed in the file were of the spot.
During his cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, he admitted that one police post was near his STD booth and he signed these papers at the instance of police official from police post.
5. PW2 is Statement of Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Lal Chand aged about 29 years, R/o Village-Jati Khurd, Sonepat, Haryana. He was the registered owner of truck bearing Page No.3 of 8 FIR No.530/07 PS Narela U/s. 279/427 IPC Sate Vs. Bahadur Singh registration No. HR-69A-3541. He further deposed that on 01.10.2007, the abovesaid vehicle was taken by his brother Bahadur who is present in the court and was in his possession till the date and he came to know about the accident from the police officials. Thereafter, he took the truck on Superdari. He further deposed that he gave the reply to the notice under Section 133 M.V. Ex.PW2/A. He admitted that arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused Ex. PW1/A and PW1/B bears his signatures at point B respectively. He admitted that photographs Mark A to E were of his truck. The identity of the truck was not disputed by Ld. defence counsel and accordingly the same was Ex. P1. During his cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel he admitted that he was not the eye witness of the case and no accident took place in his presence, therefore, he could not say who exactly was driving the truck at the time of accident.
6. PW3 is Ct. Dharmender, No. 1037/OD, PS Alipur, Delhi.
He deposed that on 03.10.2007, on receiving DD No. 34 A, he alongwith HC Vijay Pal reached at the spot i.e. Narela-Bawana Road near old Gaushala, where they found one truck bearing registration number HR-69A-3541 in an accidental condition and one high-tension electric tower nearby the spot was also found in damaged condition. He further deposed that no eye-witness was found at the spot. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka on the said DD Number and handed over to him for registration of FIR. After getting the case registered he returned at the spot alongwith Page No.4 of 8 FIR No.530/07 PS Narela U/s. 279/427 IPC Sate Vs. Bahadur Singh original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over to the IO. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan. He further deposed that in the meantime, the owner of the truck Sh. Kishan Kumar came at the spot and introduced himself as owner of the said truck. Thereafter, IO served notice u/s 133 of Motor Vehicle Act and recorded statement of the registered owner of the vehicle. Thereafter, IO called private photographer and got the photographs of the spot. Thereafter, the owner of the truck produced his driver namely Bahadur Singh, i.e. accused present in the court. Thereafter, IO seized the truck vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter, IO seized driving licence of accused vide memo Ex. PW3/B. In the meantime, IO met one eye-witness namely Ishwar Chand who narrated the incident to IO and IO recorded his statement. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/A and conducted his personal search vide memo already Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, on producing surety, accused was released on bail. Thereafter, they brought the case property to PS and deposited the same in Malkhana. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement. During his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed that they received the DD no.3A at about 12:45 a.m. He admitted that there is no name of accused as well as eye- witness in the said DD. He further deposed he had not made any departure or arrival entry before leaving or arriving at PS. He also admitted that no official from NDPS/BSES or any govt. officer was called to join the investigation. He denied the Page No.5 of 8 FIR No.530/07 PS Narela U/s. 279/427 IPC Sate Vs. Bahadur Singh suggestion that IO had not recorded the statement of eye- witness Ishwar. He also denied the suggestion that IO had obtained the signature of eye-witness Ishwar on blank papers and converted the same into document. He also denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely at the instance of the IO.
7. PW4 is Head Contable Jai Bhagwan, No. 8074/DAP, 7th Battalion, Malviya Nagar, Delhi. He was the duty officer. He deposed that on 03.10.2007, he recorded DD No. 3A at about 12:45 a.m. regarding accident whose attested copy is on file record. He had brought the original DD register containing the aforesaid entry and the same is in his handwriting. The attested copy of the same was Ex. PW4/A. He further deposed that on 03.10.2007 on receipt of rukka from Ct. Dharmender sent by HC Vijay Pal recorded the FIR No. 530/07. Computerized copy of which was Ex. PW4/B. He also made endorsement on the rukka and the same was Ex. PW4/C. He has not been cross-examined by the accused despite given opportunity.
8. PW5 is ASI Vijay Pal, No. 427/OD, PS Alipur, Delhi. He has also deposed on the similar lines as that of PW3 Ct. Dharmender. Therefore, his testimony is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid verbosity/repetition. He also correctly identified the accused. In addition to this, he proved the rukka Ex.PW5/A, site plan Ex.PW5/B. He further deposed that he got conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle and collected the report. The mechanical Page No.6 of 8 FIR No.530/07 PS Narela U/s. 279/427 IPC Sate Vs. Bahadur Singh inspection report was Ex.PW5/C. Thereafter, the offending vehicle was released on Superdari. He has not been cross examined by the accused despite given opportunity.
9. It is matter of record that the only eye witness i.e. PW1 Sh.
Ishwar Chand to the alleged accident had completely turned hostile in the present case and all other witnesses are formal in nature accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed on 02.09.2013.
10. Subsequent to the recording of statement of witnesses, statement of accused was recorded and all the incriminating evidence having came on record were put to the accused, in which he submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that he does not wish to lead any defence evidence and final arguments were heard.
11. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as the Ld. Defence counsel and given my thoughtful consideration to the entire record.
12. It is noteworthy that to convict the accused in the present case, testimony of eye witness is very crucial to sustain the conviction of the accused. As already discussed above, the only eye witness i.e. PW1 Sh. Ishwar Chand examined by the prosecution completely turned hostile and did not allege anything against the accused. This witness did not support the case of prosecution at all and completely exonerated the accused from the allegations levelled by the prosecution in the Page No.7 of 8 FIR No.530/07 PS Narela U/s. 279/427 IPC Sate Vs. Bahadur Singh present case by saying that he did not know anything about the present case. PW1 was the only eye witness cited by the prosecution but neither he identified the accused as the one who was driving the offending vehicle i.e. the aforementioned truck on the date and time of alleged accident nor this witness stated anything about rash and negligent driving of the accused or the about the truck hitting the electric pole. Hence in nutshell, there is nothing incriminating/inculpatory in the evidence of the eye witness against the accused on record and there is no other eye witness/public witness examined by the prosecution in the present case. All other witnesses are formal in nature whose no amount of evidence can tantamount to conviction of the accused.
13. Hence, in view of the discussion made above and after scanning the entire evidence, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the present case against the accused. Accordingly, the accused Bahadur Singh is hereby acquitted of the said offences U/s. 279/427 IPC.
14. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance .
(SANDEEP GUPTA) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi Announced in open court today, Dated 20th May, 2015.
Page No.8 of 8 FIR No.530/07PS Narela U/s. 279/427 IPC Sate Vs. Bahadur Singh FIR No.530/07 PS Narela U/s. 279/427 IPC Sate Vs. Bahadur Singh 20.05.2015 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Accused in person alongwith Ld. Counsel.
An application for cancellation of NBWs has been moved on behalf of the accused.
It is submitted by the accused that his non appearance on the last date of hearing was neither intentional nor deliberate.
In view of the submissions made in the application, NBW's against accused stands cancelled, subject to fine of Rs.300/-. Fine deposited. He is warned to remain careful in future.
I have heard the arguments and perused the record. Vide separate judgment dictated to the steno in the open court, accused is acquitted of the said offence U/s 279/427 IPC.
Accused is directed to furnish fresh bail bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount in terms of Section 437 A of Cr.P.C.
The same stands furnished and accepted. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
(Sandeep Gupta) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi Page No.9 of 8