Delhi District Court
Traffic Challan/800694/2014 on 4 November, 2015
Challan No. 28280069414 IN THE COURT OF MS. SADHIKA JALAN, MM, TRAFFIC - 01 (NORTH DISTRICT) ROHINI COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. State v. Ravi Challan no.: 28280069414 Vehicle No.: DL 8CR 6668 Circle: ALP Date of institution of the challan : 15.11.2014 Date of Decision : 04.11.2015 JUDGMENT
(a) The date of commission of offence : 14.11.2015
(b) Name and Parentage of Accused : Ravi
s/o Brij Mohan
r/o Flat no. 357, Harish
Chander Road, Narela,
Delhi40
(c) Offence complained of : Section 185, 3/181, 32/177, 138(3)/177
184, DMVR 99(1)/177, 130/177 and
39/192 M.V. Act
(d) Plea of accused : Not Guilty
(e) The final order : Acquitted under Sections 185, 39/192,
184 and 138(3)/177. Conviction under
Sections 3/181, 99(1)/177 and 32/177
M.V. Act
(f) The date of such order : 04.11.2015
9/9
Brief statement of reasons for the decision--
1. The accused person Ravi in this case is on trial for the commission of offence under Section 185, 3/181, 32/177, 138(3)/177, 184, 130/177, 39/192 and Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules ("DMVR") 99(1)/177, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("M.V. Act").
2. The facts in brief as per the prosecution story are that on 14.11.2014 at about 06:30 pm while coming from Singhu Border and going towards Sonepat, the accused Ravi was found driving his vehicle bearing registration number DL 8CR 6668 under the influence of 818.9 mg/100ml of alcohol as per sample breath analyser report while the permissible limit is 30mg/100ml. Thus committing an offence under Section 185 M.V. Act. Accused was also found to be without a driving licence ("DL"), registration certificate ("RC") and without a valid pollution under control certificate ("PUCC") and was thus challaned under Sections 3/181, 32/177 and DMVR 99(1)/177 M.V. Act respectively. As the accused could not produce documents related to the vehicle he was challaned under Section 130/177 M.V. Act. The accused was driving without wearing a seat belt and was driving in a rash and negligent manner and was thus challaned under Section 138(3)/177 and 184 M.V. Act respectively. Further on enquiry it was found that the accused was using his private vehicle as a vehicle for tourist/ commercial purpose and thus committed an offence under Section 39/192 M.V. Act. A challan was also prepared against the registered owner.
9/9
3. Accused was informed of the substance of the allegation against him, vide notice dated 17.11.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case the prosecution examined two witnesses namely ASI Suresh Kumar as PW1 and Constable Deepak Kumar as PW2.
5. PW1 in his examination in chief stated that on 14.11.2014 he was posted at Singhu Border along with Constable Deepak Kumar. At 06:30pm the red light was jumped by a car bearing registration number DL 8CR 6668. Subequently the driver of this vehicle was asked to stop. The driver however tried to run away. He stated that when the driver was finally stopped, alcohol could be smelled on his breath. A breath analyser test was conducted. The accused could also not produce documents of the vehicle such as DL, RC, pollution and insurance. He prepared a challan against the accused which is Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A. Receipt of the alcohol meter/ breath analyser machine is Ex. PW1/B bearing his signatures at point A. Challan of the owner is Ex. PW1/C bearing signatures at poitn A. Accused was correctly identified in Court.
In cross examination, PW1 stated he released the accused on personal bond of Rs. 500. He stated that no separate document was prepared in relation to that. He reiterated that there were 10 passengers sitting inside the vehicle. He stated that the vehicle was coming from Delhi and going towards Sonipat. He stated that no statement of the passengers was recorded. He further stated that the alchometer was not present with them at the spot. He stated that 9/9 he called the circle concerned for the alchometer. He stated that he did not recall the constable who had gone to get the alchometer. In response to a court question he responded that it takes around 1520 minutes to get the alchometer to the spot. He stated that no entry is made in the circle when the alchometer is called. He stated that the nozzle in which the accused was asked to blow air was changed every time. He stated that there is a number on the nozzle. He stated that the nozzle is a plastic pipe which had to be thrown everytime after it is used. He stated that he did not remember if he had taken any picture of the accused. He stated voluntarily that the constable might have taken a picture. He further stated that he did not hand over the accused to anyone, he just released the accused on personal bond. He stated that they impounded vehicle as no one had appeared to claim it. He stated that the name of the accused is mentioned as written was told to him by the accused. He stated that the accused was stopped as he had jumped the red light. He stated that a medical test was not necessary as the accused had been tested by a breath analyser machine. He further stated that he did not ask any public person to join the investigation.
6. PW2 in his examination in chief stated that on 14.11.2014 stated that he was posted at Singhu Border along with ASI Suresh Kumar. He stated that at around 6:00pm the accused driving a vehicle bearing registration no. DL 8CR 6668 jumped the red light. He stated that they tried to stop the accused then. The accused tried to run away. He further deposed that the vehicle of the accused was full of passengers. He stated that when they stopped the accused he was smelling of alcohol. He stated that a breath analyser test was conducted 9/9 on the accused. He further stated that the accused could not produce any valid documents of the vehicle i.e. driving licence, registration certificate, pollution and insurance. He stated that ZO ASI Suresh Kumar then prepared challan Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at point B. Challan of the owner is Ex. PW1/C bearing his signatures at point B. He identified the accused present in court.
In his cross examination, he stated that the accused was released on a personal bond of Rs 5000, mention of which is made on the challan. He stated that no separate document is prepared for the personal bond. He stated that there were 10 passengers sitting inside the vehicle when the challan was prepared. He further stated that at the time the challan was prepared the passengers inside the vehicle were getting irritated as they had taken the vehicle on hire. He stated that he did not make any inquiries from the passengers seated inside the vehicle. He stated that the accused did not take any money from the passenger in front of him. He stated voluntarily that the passengers themselves had stated that they had paid for the journey. He stated however that the passengers did not state any exact amount. He deposed that he did not remember the exact number of women or children present in the vehicle. He stated that the alchometer which was used by them was present with them at the spot. He stated that this was the only drunken driving challan that PW1 had done with him. He stated his duty hours to be from 8:00am to 10:30pm. He stated that the challan was prepared around 6:30pm. He stated that the pipe in which the accused is asked to blow air is changed everytime. He stated that there is only a machine number and there is no number attached 9/9 with the pipe. He stated that he did not know the exact number of pipes which they used with the alchometer. He stated that they keep an adequate number of extra pipes with them. He stated that the quantity in the alchometer when they checked the accused was 818.9mg. He stated they handed over the accused to some relative of the accused on a personal bond of Rs. 5,000. He stated that they had taken a photograph of the accused. He stated voluntarily that the picture of the accused had been clicked by him on his cellphone. He stated however that all the data of his phone had been lost as he dropped his phone in water. He stated that no public person was joined in the investigation. He stated that they had asked the passengers sitting inside to become witnesses however they refused. He further deposed that he and PW2 had together signalled the vehicle to stop.
7. On 20.05.2015, statement of accused under Section 313 read with Section 281 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, after explaining and putting to the accused all the evidence that was moved against him. Accused stated that on the day of the challan he was not driving the vehicle in question. The vehicle was being driven by his brother Sonu. He stated that his brother Sonu needed to get some goods from the market and he thus asked the accused to park the vehicle on side of the road. He stated that as soon as he parked the vehicle on the side of the road the traffic officials stopped him. They then took his car keys and went to the nearby petrol pump. He stated that they then prepared some documents and asked him to sign them. He stated that he was not aware as to what he signed. He stated that he was only informed after that that his vehicle was being impounded and that he could get the vehicle released from 9/9 court. He stated that he was drunk at the time of making the challan. The documents of the vehicle were lying in the vehicle however he was never asked by the traffic officials to show them. He stated that the challan was falsely prepared against him.
8. I have heard the both the parties and also perused the record.
9. The burden of proving a criminal case lies on the prosecution who is to prove its version beyond all reasonable doubt.
10. In the instant matter, there are many discrepancies in the accounts of both the prosecution witnesses. First PW1 stated that they did not have the alchometer on the spot and that he had sent some constable to go get the alchometer from the circle. However PW2 stated that the alchometer was present on the spot. It could have been possible that PW2 only became part of the investigation when the alchometer had come to the spot. However even that can not be assumed as PW2 himself stated that he and PW1 both stopped the vehicle of the accused.
11. Secondly, PW1 stated that they let the accused go on a personal bond of Rs
500. Whereas PW2 stated that the personal bond amount was Rs. 5000 and that the accused was handed over to the relative. It is also interesting to note that PW1 stated that the vehicle was impounded as their was no one there to claim it. Whereas PW2 claims the presence of the relative of the accused at the spot.
12. Thirdly, PW1 stated that he did not take a picture of the accused. He however stated that PW2 might have taken a picture. Whereas PW2 stated that they had taken a picture. However the picture could no longer be produced in Court as 9/9 the picture had been clicked on his cell phone which has now lost all data as it was damaged in water.
13.Fourthly, neither the passengers where asked as to where they were coming from, nor were they questioned as to how much they were paying the accused. Neither of the prosecution witnesses could profile as to the how many passengers where male or female, or whether there were any children.
14. Lastly, though it is settled position of law as laid down in the case of Sanspal Singh v. State of Delhi, 1999 Cr. L.J. 19 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that nonjoining of public witnesses would not be fatal to the prosecution in the situation where there were no public witnesses available or none was willing to associate in the investigation but would be fatal only when despite the availability of the public witnesses no one was joined in the investigation. However PW 1 in his cross examination states that public witnesses were not joined in the investigation without forwarding any reason to do so. Whereas, PW2 stated that the passengers seated inside the vehicle were asked to be witnesses however they refused. Both versions are contradictory and doesnot lend credence to the the story of the prosecution.
15.Both PWs have stated that no driving licence, registration certificate and PUC certificate was shown by the accused at the time of the challan. The defence counsel in his final arguments has stated that the accused doesnot have these documents. The registration certifiacte shown is also without a chip and thus not considered valid. Furthermore the owner pleaded guilty in respect of his offence where in it was stated that he allowed an unlicenced person to drive his 9/9 vehicle.
Conclusion
16. Therefore, I find that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 185, 39/192, 184 and 138(3)/177 and the accused is thereby acquitted of that charge. Accused has however been unable to produce a valid DL, RC and PUCC and is thus convicted under Sections 3/181, 32/177 and DMVR 99(1)/177 M.V. Act. Order on sentencing shall be passed after hearing the convict.
Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the accused.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT DATED: 04.11.2015 (Sadhika Jalan) MM01/Traffic (North) Rohini/ New Delhi 04.11.2015 9/9