Delhi District Court
State vs Gaurav Nasa on 4 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI NAIN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 160/2016
U/s 279/427 IPC
PS: Swaroop Nagar
State vs. Gaurav Nasa
Date of Institution of case: 23.02.2017
Date of Judgment reserved:19.12.2023
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 04.01.2024
JUDGMENT
CIS Number : 1839/2017 CNR Number : DLNT020017872017 Date of Commission : 18.04.2016 of offence Name of the : Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kishan complainant Name of the accused : Gaurav Nasa S/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Offence complained 279/427 IPC of Plea of accused : Not guilty Date of order : 04.01.2024 Final Order : Acquitted Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Jyoti Nain Date: 2024.01.04 17:38:40 +0530 FIR No. 160/2016 Page 1 of 12 State Vs. Gaurav Nasa BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Accused is facing trial for the offences u/s 279/427 IPC. The genesis of prosecution story is that on 18.04.2016, at about 11:30 am, at GTK Road, Shamshan Ghat, Nangli Puna, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Swaroop Nagar, accused was found driving vehicle bearing No. HR 10T3797, in a manner so rash and negligent, so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the above said vehicle in above said manner, accused hit against the above said vehicle and thereby, caused damage/mischief to the vehicle Swift Dzire bearing no. HR10X0104. According to prosecution, accused committed offences punishable under Section 279/427 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, upon investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the accused.
Investigation
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred as Cr.PC. for brevity]. The accused was arrested. Relevant record was collected. The final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., was prepared against the above named accused and challan was presented in the Court.
3. The cognizance of the alleged offences was accordingly taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court and after procuring the presence of accused through instrumentality of Court, he was admitted on bail, the offences being bailable FIR No. 160/2016 Page 2 of 12 State Vs. Gaurav Nasa Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Nain Date: 2024.01.04 17:38:45 +0530 in nature and after supplying the copy of chargesheet and documents to accused, provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. were also complied with.
4. On finding the sufficient grounds to proceed against accused for offences punishable u/s 279/427 IPC, the notice of accusation was served upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to establish guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined ( 5 ) five witnesses in all.
6. PW1 is Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar, R/o VPO Kumashpur, District Sonepat, Haryana. He deposed that he was residing at the abovesaid address. He further deposed that on that day, he was going from Sonipat to Prashant Vihar in his office by car no. HR10X0104 Swift Dzire white colour and when he reached at Nangli Puna in front of Nangli Puna Shamshanghat, one i10 car bearing no. HR1ot3797 struck his vehicle from behind in high speed. Thereafter, his vehicle collided with the road divider and his vehicle was damaged from front and rear part due to the said incident. At that time his car was not fit for road test after incident. He further deposed that he called on 100 number and PCR came at the spot. IO also came at the spot. He went to the driver of the offending vehicle at the spot and he disclosed his name as Gaurav Nasa. PW1 further deposed that he had not received any injuries in the said incident. IO recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he had shown the place of incident to the IO. His vehicle was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that the accused was FIR No. 160/2016 Page 3 of 12 State Vs. Gaurav Nasa Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Date: 2024.01.04 Nain 17:38:52 +0530 arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/C bearing his signatures at point A and the offending vehicle was also taken by the IO from the spot.
This witness was also crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
7. PW2 is Ct. Sonu Sharma, No. 2159/OND, PS S. P. Badli. He deposed that on 18.04.2016, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as Constable. He further deposed that on that day, he alongwith HC Sandeep Kumar was on emergency duty from 08:00 am to 08:00 pm and on receipt of DD No 40B to IO HC Sandeep Kumar, he alongwith IO went to the spot i.e. G.T. Road, Samshan Ghat, Nanglipuna, Delhi, where, they saw that the car make swift Dzire bearing No. HR10X0104 and one I10 Car bearing registration No. HR10T3797 were present in a accidental condition. Complainant Naresh Kumar and driver of offending vehicle Gaurav Nasa (present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness) was also present at the spot. He further deposed that IO recorded statement of complainant Naresh Kumar and prepared rukka on the basis of statement of complainant and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he went to the PS and got registered the present FIR. After registration of FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO.
He further deposed that IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant, which is Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that IO seized above said car bearing No. HR10X0104, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/B, bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that IO also seized the car bearing registration No. HR10T3797 and RC of this car vide memos, which are Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C, bearing his signature at point A. Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Date:
FIR No. 160/2016 Nain
Page
2024.01.04
4 of 12
17:38:56 +0530
State Vs. Gaurav Nasa
He further deposed that accused Gaurav Nasa was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo, same is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/C, bearing his signature at point B. IO released the accused on police bail. Thereafter, the above mentioned cars were shifted to police station through a private crane.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
8. PW3 is HC Rajeev Kumar, No. 11910/DAP, 4th Batallion. He deposed that on 28.05.2016, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as HC and on that day, this file was marked to him by concerned SHO and he prepared challan and filed the same in the court for trial.
This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
9. PW4 is retired ASI Gurdeep Singh (Mechanical Expert). He deposed that on 22.04.2016, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as ASI and he was working as a mechanical expert. He further deposed that mechanically/technically qualified. He further deposed that he has 30 years experience as a mechanical/technical expert. He further deposed that on 22.04.20216, on the request of IO HC Sandeep Kumar, he conducted inspection of vehicle bearing registration no. HR10X0104 and vehicle bearing no. HRNT3797. He further deposed that he prepared his detailed report which are now Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B, both bearing his signature at point B.
10. PW5 HC Sandeep, No. 758/N, PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. He deposed that on 18.04.2016, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as HC and on that day he received a DD entry no. 40B which is exhibited as Ex. PW5/A. He further FIR No. 160/2016 Page 5 of 12 State Vs. Gaurav Nasa Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Date: 2024.01.04 Nain 17:39:00 +0530 deposed that on that day, he alongwith was on emergency duty from 08:00 am to 08:00 pm and on receipt of DD No 40B to IO HC Sandeep Kumar, he alongwith IO went to the spot i.e. G.T. Road, Shamshan Ghat, Nanglipuna, Delhi, where they met with the complainant Naresh Kumar and accused Gaurav Nasa and they also saw that the car make swift Dzire bearing No. HR 10X0104 and one I10 Car bearing registration No. HR10T3797 were present in a accidental condition. He recorded the statement of Complainant Naresh Kumar which is already exhibited as Ex. PW2/A bearing his signatures at point B. He further deposed that he prepared rukka on the basis of statement of complainant and handed over the same to Ct. Sonu for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, Ct. Sonu came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him.
He further deposed that he prepared site plan at the spot which is Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that he seized the offending vehicle bearing no. HR10T3797 vide memo already exhibited as Ex. PW2/B bearing his signatures at point B. He further deposed that he also seized the car of the complainant bearing registration No. HR10T3797 and RC of this car vide memos, which are Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he arrested the accused Gaurav Nasa vide arrest memo, same is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/C, bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that he released the accused on police bail. Thereafter, the above mentioned cars were shifted to police station through a private crane.
He further deposed that during investigation, he got conducted mechanical inspection of the abovementioned cars i.e. bearing registration No. HR10X 0104 (Swift Dzire) and i10 Car bearing no. HR10T3797. Mechanical FIR No. 160/2016 Page 6 of 12 State Vs. Gaurav Nasa Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Date: 2024.01.04 Nain 17:39:04 +0530 inspection reports are already Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B and he removed the abovementioned cars from the spot through Muskan Crane Operators. He further deposed that no injury was caused to the complainant, therefore, medical examination of the complainant was not done. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of the witnesses and deposited the case property i.e. abovementioned cars in the Malkhana.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
11. The accused admitted certain the documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C and the examination of formal witnesses qua such documents was dispensed with. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. Pursuant thereto, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances, were put to the accused. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence.
12. I have heard the rival contentions of Ld. APP for the State and also of the Ld. Defence Counsel.
13. Ld. APP for State has contended that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place, the accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or public safety of others and due to his act of rash or negligent driving and hit against the above said vehicle and thereby, caused damage/mischief to the vehicle Swift Dzire bearing no. HR10X0104 and hence, the accused deserves to be convicted for the offences punishable u/s 279/427 IPC.
Jyoti Digitally signed
by Jyoti Nain
Date: 2024.01.04
Nain 17:39:09 +0530
FIR No. 160/2016 Page 7 of 12
State Vs. Gaurav Nasa
14. Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no iota of evidence to establish the fact that the accused was driving the vehicle in question on the given date, time and place in rash and negligent manner. That the eye witness i.e. complainant has no where stated that the accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner. There is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime or to establish rash or negligent act on his part, therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
15. Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to discuss the essential ingredients of offences u/s 279 IPC and the position of law on the subject.
It is a settled law that Section 279 IPC punishes the act of a person driving or riding a vehicle on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to the likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. In order to establish the liability of a person for this offence, it is necessary to establish the following facts:
(i) That the person accused of the offence was driving the vehicle on a public way at a relevant time when the accident ensued.
(ii) That the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused person.
(iii) That the rash or negligent driving of the vehicle was done in a way so as to endanger human life or public safety or other.Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain
Jyoti Nain Date: 2024.01.04 17:39:14 +0530 FIR No. 160/2016 Page 8 of 12 State Vs. Gaurav Nasa If the aforesaid conditions mentioned in point no. (i) to (iii) are satisfied, then the accused can be held liable for offence u/s 279 IPC.
16. In the case of "Abdul Subhan Vs. State" (NCT of Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while discussing the ingredients of Section 279 IPC observed that;
"As observed is Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely cause hurt or injury to any person".
17. Further, what would constitute a rash and negligent act has been described by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of Andra Pradesh" decided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:
A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act till rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Nain Date: 2024.01.04 17:39:18 +0530 FIR No. 160/2016 Page 9 of 12 State Vs. Gaurav Nasa against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution.
18. Having discussed the position of law on the subject, now let us advert ourselves to the merits of the present case.
In the present case, the only eye witness to the incident is the complainant i.e. PW1 Naresh Kumar and he has deposed that when he reached at Nanglipuna, one I10 car allegedly driven by the accused struck his vehicle from behind in high speed, due to which his vehicle collided with the road divider and it got damaged from front and rear side.
It is pertinent to mention, that the accused has not disputed his identity as well as the identity of the offending vehicle. The only defence raised by Ld. Counsel for the accused is that the accused was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and that the accident took place as the tyre of accused's vehicle got burst, due to which, he could not control the vehicle and thus, it got struck against the vehicle of the complainant from behind.
19. From the perusal of the record, it is very much clear that there is no eye witness to the incident apart from the complainant and even the complainant felt the impact of the offending vehicle striking against his vehicle, only after the incident took place. It is submitted by the complainant i.e. PW1 that the offending vehicle struck his vehicle from behind at a high speed. PW1 has not spoken anything about the manner in which the offending vehicle was driven rather, PW1 has substantiated the defence taken by the accused as he in his Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Nain Date: 2024.01.04 17:39:22 +0530 FIR No. 160/2016 Page 10 of 12 State Vs. Gaurav Nasa crossexamination admitted that when he visited the vehicle of the accused, he found that tyre of accused's vehicle had gotten burst and due to this the accused lost the control over his vehicle and struck his vehicle from behind. Further, there is no other eye witness who could have substantiated the case of the prosecution. Thus, it can be stated that there is not any iota of evidence on the record which could prove that the accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. Hence, in view of the same, accused stands acquitted for the offence u/s 279 IPC.
20. Further, accused has also been charged u/s 427 IPC. Section 427 IPC states that whoever commits mischief and thereby causes lost or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished.
Section 425 IPC defines mischief as " whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation there of as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief".
From the record, it is apparent that the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on the record which could prove that the accused intended or had knowledge that he is likely to cause damage to the property i.e. vehicle of the complainant.
21. At this stage, court further deems it fit to state that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that culpability cannot be established on surmises FIR No. 160/2016 Page 11 of 12 State Vs. Gaurav Nasa Digitally signed Jyoti by Jyoti Nain Date: 2024.01.04 Nain 17:39:26 +0530 and conjectures but it should rest on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence, dispelling every doubt and bulwarking the fact that in all possibility, the offence must have been committed by the accused.
In the present case, it is pellucid that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes as there are numerous inconsistencies found in the testimony of the witnesses .
22. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion, it is pellucid that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes and the testimony of star witness i.e. complainant has not helped the prosecution to prove its case rather has gone against it. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused person stand acquitted from the charges U/s. 279/427 IPC.
23. Previous Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged. Endorsement if any, be cancelled and documents if any, be returned, against acknowledgment after due verification. File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
24. This Judgment consists of 12 pages and all pages bear my signature.
Announced and dictated directly into the computer in open court Digitally signed on 04th day of January, 2023.
Jyoti by Jyoti Nain
Date:
2024.01.04
Nain 17:39:31
+0530
(Jyoti Nain)
MM07/North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 160/2016 Page 12 of 12
State Vs. Gaurav Nasa