Delhi District Court
State vs Saroj Gandhi on 26 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHANU PRATAP SINGH, JMFC-02, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR Cases 1176/2017
STATE Vs. SAROJ GANDHI
FIR No. 287/2016
PS Malviya Nagar
JUDGMENT
1) CR No. of the case : 1176/2017
2) The date of commission of offence : 23.02.2016
3) The name of the complainant : Chetna Gupta
D/o Bhadrasen
Gupta
4) The name & parentage of accused : Saroj Gandhi
W/o Late Sh.
M.L. Gandhi
R/o H. No.
C-45/1 Dugal
Colony, Khanpur
Devli Road, New
Delhi.
5) Offence involved : 279/338 IPC &
509 of IPC
6) The plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Acquittal
8) The date of order : 26.05.2025
Date of Institution : 27.03.2017
Judgment pronounced on : 26.05.2025
FIR No. 287/2016 State Vs. Saroj Gandhi 1 of 7
Digitally signed
BHANU by BHANU
PRATAP SINGH
PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2025.05.26
17:00:50 +0530
BRIEF FACTS
01. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.02.2016 at about 10:55 AM near Chirag Delhi Flyover BRT, accused was driving a car make Alto No. DL-3CAD-9006 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and hit against the injured/complainant Ms. Chetna Gupta from behind who was driving a scooty bearing no. DL-3SCU-0659 Suzuki Access 125 resulting in grievous injury to her and thereby accused committed offence punishable U/s 279/338 of IPC. Secondly on the aforesaid date, time and place accused used obscene words/language towards the complainant with intention to insult the modesty of the complainant and thereby accused committed offence punishable U/s 509 of IPC.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
02. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 279/338/509/427 of IPC was filed by the IO. The cognizance of the offence was taken by this Court and summons were issued to the accused. Thereafter when the accused appeared before the Court, copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused and the charge for commission of offences under Section 279/338/509 of IPC was framed upon the accused on 17.08.2018 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution witnesses were examined, cross-examined and discharged. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 22.02.2024 to which accused stated that she wants to lead defence evidence. Thereafter defence witness namely Vinod Kumar Pandey was examined, cross-examined and discharged and DE was FIR No. 287/2016 State Vs. Saroj Gandhi 2 of 7 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2025.05.26 17:00:57 +0530 closed on 12.03.2025. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments. Thereafter, final arguments were heard on behalf of the parties.
REASONS FOR DECISION
03. For deciding the present case, this Court deems it fit to reproduce and discuss the relevant provision which has been attracted in the present case as per the chargesheet:
(a) Section 279 IPC has been defined in the code as:
"279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.--Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
(b) Section 338 IPC has been defined in the case as :
"338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.- Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend FIR No. 287/2016 State Vs. Saroj Gandhi 3 of 7 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
2025.05.26 SINGH 17:01:04 +0530 to one thousand rupees, or with both."
04. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of a given case and in light of the attending circumstances. 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 against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. [Reference: Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9SCC 284]
05. In order to prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined PW-1 Chetna Gupta, PW-2 HC Jaswant Singh, PW-3 Dhiraj, PW-4 Tasnimuddin Siddiqui, PW-5 ASI Gurnam Singh, PW-6 ASI Bharat, PW-7 Bhunesh, PW-8 SI Sonu Kumar, PW-9 Dr. Chigurupati Vedasamhitha.
06. PW-1 Chetna Gupta in her examination in chief stated that on 23.02.2016 at about 09:00 AM, she was going towards her office by her scooty Suzuki bearing registration No. 0653 and she was driving her scooty in the service lane. When she reached near the flyover Chirag Delhi, the offending vehicle came from behind and hit her scooty from the backside. Thereafter she fell down on the road, however the driver of the offending vehicle did not stop her vehicle and she was dragged upto 15-16 feet from the hitting point. PW1 further stated that she sustained injuries on her leg and her right leg got fractured and she also sustained some scratched injuries on her right arm. PW1 further stated that accused FIR No. 287/2016 State Vs. Saroj Gandhi 4 of 7 BHANU Digitally by BHANU signed PRATAP PRATAP SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 SINGH 17:01:18 +0530 got angry and abused in filthy language i.e. randi and ye log tere yaar hai or khasam hain. Thereafter, PW1 called at 100 number and PCR van took PW1 along with eye witnesses namely Mr. Suman and Mr Dhiraj to PS Malviya Nagar where PW1 gave written complaint to the IO.
07. PW1 in her cross-examination stated that at the time of incident the speed of offending vehicle was 30-40 km/h.
08. PW3 Dhiraj stated in his examination in chief that on 23.02.2016 at about 10:00 AM he was present at BRT Coridor, Chirag Delhi Red Light and in the meantime one small four wheeler vehicle/car was coming from Khanpur Side and going towards BRT Corridor, Red Light and hit the scooty of the complainant from backside and at that time one girl was driving the scooty and she fell down from the scooty.
09. Perusal of the above testimony of PW3 shows that PW3 has not deposed regarding the speed of the vehicle of the accused. Further PW3 did not depose that the vehicle of the accused was being driven in high speed. PW1 has stated in her cross-examination that the speed of the vehicle was 30-40 km/h. This Court is of the view that the speed of 30-40 km/h cannot be considered as high speed in the facts of the present case. Further PW1 and PW3 have not deposed the manner in which the vehicle of accused was being driven immediately before the incident. Further both PW1 and PW3 have not deposed whether there was violation of lane driving by the accused. Further there is no evidence on record to show that the accused was violating any traffic signal at the time of incident.
FIR No. 287/2016 State Vs. Saroj Gandhi 5 of 7 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2025.05.26 17:01:30 +0530 Therefore this Court is of the view that the testimony of PW1 and PW3 is not sufficient to prove that the accused was driving her vehicle in high speed or in rash or negligent manner.
10. PW4 Tasnimuddin Siddiqui, Mechanical Inspector prepared the mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles which are Ex.PW4/B. The damages mentioned in the mechanical inspection report do not indicate that the vehicle of the accused was being driven in high speed. Further there is no other public witness to prove that the vehicle of the accused was being driven in high speed or in rash or negligent manner. Further there is no eye witness to prove the attending circumstances of the incident like the manner in which the vehicle was being driven immediately before the incident. Therefore the mere fact that there was a collision between the vehicle of the accused and the vehicle of the complainant is not sufficient to show that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no sufficient evidence on record to prove that the accused was driving her vehicle in high speed or in rash or negligent manner.
11. The allegation of PW1 regarding the offence of Section 509 IPC is not proved in the present case as mere abuse or insult does not constitute offence under Section 509 of IPC. Further the allegations regarding the insult of modesty of PW1 are not corroborated by PW3 Dhiraj or any other prosecution witness. Therefore, there is no sufficient evidence on record to prove the offence under Section 509 of IPC.
FIR No. 287/2016 State Vs. Saroj Gandhi 6 of 7 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2025.05.26 17:01:37 +0530 Conclusion
12. In view of the above reasons, this Court has arrived to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the present case beyond reasonable doubt as there is no evidence on record to show culpable rashness or criminal negligence on part of the accused. Further, there is no evidence on record to prove the offence under Section 509 of IPC. Therefore, accused is not guilty in the present case. Accordingly, accused Saroj Gandhi stands acquitted for the offences u/s 279/338 of IPC and u/s 509 of IPC.
Announced in open court on 26.05.2025.
(BHANU PRATAP SINGH) JMFC-02(South)/Saket Courts New Delhi/26.05.2025 FIR No. 287/2016 State Vs. Saroj Gandhi 7 of 7 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2025.05.26 17:01:44 +0530