Delhi District Court
State vs Ramesh Shahrawat on 23 October, 2024
Dated: 23.10.2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANYA DALAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-I (N/W)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New Case No. : R-529184/2016
Title of the case: : State vs. Ramesh Shahrawat
FIR No. : 1129/2006, PS Sultanpuri
Date of institution : 24.09.2013
Date of reserving Judgment : 14.10.2024
Date of pronouncement : 23.10.2024
(a) The date of commission 18.07.2006
(b)The name of complainant HC Bhagwan Singh, No. 172/NW.
(c) The name of accused Ramesh Sahrawat S/o Sh. Bhim
Singh R/o H. No. 42, Village-Chirag
Delhi, Delhi.
(d) The offence complained of 279/304 A IPC
(e)The plea of the accused Not guilty
(f)The final order Acquittal
(g)The date of such order 23.10.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The accused has faced trial for offences u/s 279/304-A IPC.
2. Stated succinctly, the facts germane for the prosecution of the case are that on 18.07.2006 at about 05:35 PM in front of Coca Cola Factory, Kanjhawala, Pooth klan, Delhi, the FIR No. 1129/2006 State vs. Ramesh Sahrawat Page No. 1 / 13 Digitally signed SANYA by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date:
2024.10.23 16:22:58 +0530 Dated: 23.10.2024 accused was found driving the truck bearing registration no. DL-1GB-5163 in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others or to be likely to cuase hurt or injury to any other person and also hit against TVS Vicky bearing registration No. DL- 9SF-8018 and caused the death of one person namely Lakhan Singh.
3. In pursuance of statement given by the informant, Sultanpuri P.S. registered in relation to the above incident a FIR no. 1129/2006, PS Sultanpuri and after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the aforementioned accused person u/s 279/304-A IPC. Cognizance of the offence was taken on 03.01.2017 and provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied.
4. Notice u/s 279/304-A IPC was framed and read over to the accused in Hindi on 03.05.2017 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 10 witnesses in support of its case during the course of trial.
6. PW-1 ASI Mahender Singh has deposed that he was posted as Duty Officer and his duty hours were from 04:00 PM to 12:00 PM. He deposed that he had received the rukka from HC Devender which was sent by HC Bhagwan Singh for getting the FIR registered. He deposed that on the basis of rukka, the present case FIR Ex. PW1/A was registered and made endorsement on rukka Ex. PW1/B and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to HC Devender.
FIR No. 1129/2006 State vs. Ramesh Sahrawat Page No. 2 / 13SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL Date: 2024.10.23 DALAL 16:23:02 +0530 Dated: 23.10.2024
7. PW-2 SI Bhagwan Singh and PW-9 SI Devender have deposed that on 18.07.2006, after receiving DD No. 79B, they went at the spot i.e. Budh Vihar, Pooth Kalan in front of Coca Cola Factory where they found one scooty bearing registration No. DL-NSF-8018 in red colour in an accidental condition and no eye witness could be found at the spot. PW-9 was left at the spot and PW-2 went to Bhram Shakti hospital as they got to know that the injured has already been shifted to Brahm Shakti Hospital and found the injured in an unconscious stage. PW-2 collected the MLC No. 1563 of the injured and prepared the tehrir i.e. Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, the FIR was registered and the motorcycle was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/B. The site plan was prepared vide memo Ex. PW2/C. The production of the case property was dispensed on account of not disputing the identity of the case property i.e. vehicle of injured person.
8. PW-3 Retd. ASI Devender Joshi has deposed that on 22.07.2007, he was posted as ASI at PS Sultanpuri. He deposed that on the same day, the investigation of the present case was assigned to him, thereafter, during investigation, he collected the photocopy of PM report of the deceased from the SGM Hospital. Further, he recorded the statement of Ram Prakash who had informed him that he was hit by the vehicle bearing registration No. DL- 1GB-5163 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Thereafter, he served the notice under Section 133 FIR No. 1129/2006 State vs. Ramesh Sahrawat Page No. 3 / 13 SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL Date: 2024.10.23 DALAL 16:23:05 +0530 Dated: 23.10.2024 M.V. Act upon the owner of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, he had given the case file to the MHCR.
9. PW-4 Retd. ASI Rajender Singh has deposed that on 25.02.2010, the investigation of the present case was assigned to him. Thereafter, during the investigation, he collected the photocopy of PCR form and recorded the statement of caller of 100 no. made by the witness namely Surender Kumar S/o Sh. Kali Ram. Thereafter, he had given the case file to the MHCR.
10.PW-5 Retd. SI Ravinder has deposed that in the year 2011, he was posted as ASI at PS Sultanpuri. He deposed that in the year 2011, the investigation of the present case was assigned to him. Thereafter, he searched for the owner of the TSR No. DL-1RD-3593 and came to know that from Transport Authority of Burari that the said TSR has been scraped and the new number has been taken by the owner is DL-1RK-0907 and the address of the owner is Dhobi Ghat Jhuggi, ITO, Delhi. Further, he went there and came to know that the jhuggi has also been moved from that place. Thereafter, upon enqurity from the PCR Model Town, he came to know that the record of the same has been destroyed and got obtained the certified copy of the MLC and PM report from the hospital. He further deposed that during investigation, he found that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1GB-5163 was with South District, Delhi and according to the MT South District record, the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle on the day of incident. In the investigation, witness FIR No. 1129/2006 State vs. Ramesh Sahrawat Page No. 4 / 13 SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.10.23 16:23:08 +0530 Dated: 23.10.2024 Ram Prakash Sharma was also examined as the eye witness. He deposed that he had collected the DL of the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A, prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the concerned court. The witness correctly identified the accused.
11.PW-6 Surinder Kumar has deposed that he does not remember the exact date of incident, however, it was in the year 2006. He deposed that on the day of incident, he was going to meet his relative at Sector-20, Rohini, through his motorcycle. He further deposed that when he reached at Budh Vihar, he saw one Tempo in front of him at some distance which was being driven at a high speed and also hit one two wheeler and fled away from the spot as the driver of the two wheeler fell down on the road and sustained injury. Thereafter, he made a call at 100 number. He deposed that he had not noted down the number of the offending vehicle. He deposed that with the help of public persons, the injured was kept in the auto and sent to the hospital, thereafter, he went to his relative's house. He deposed that he had not seen the face of the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of incident. His statement was recorded by the IO.
12. PW-7 Inspector Rajeev Ranjan has deposed that on 19.07.2006, he was posted as SI at PS Sultanpuri. He deposed that on the said date, he had joined the investigation of the present case with the IO and went to the SGM Hospital where he had sent the dead body of the deceased Lakhan Singh for postmortem vide PM No. FIR No. 1129/2006 State vs. Ramesh Sahrawat Page No. 5 / 13 SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.10.23 16:23:11 +0530 Dated: 23.10.2024 550/06. Thereafter, the dead body was identified and handed over to Ganga Prasad.
13.PW-8 ASI Ashok has deposed that on 18.07.2006, he was posted as Constable at PS Sultanpuri, Delhi. He deposed that on the said date at about 05:35 PM, he received the call through wireless operator regarding an accident occurred at Budh Vihar, Pooth Kala, Near Coca-Cola Factory, Delhi. Thereafter, he made the DD Entry No. 79B Ex. PW8/A which was handed over to Ct. Pradeep and the said information was given to HC Bhagwan Singh.
14.PW-10 Retd. HC Surender Singh has deposed that on 18.07.2006, he had received a PCR call from Bhraham Shakti Hospital in regard to MLC. Thereafter, he had transferred the said call to Control Room, West District.
15.Evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed. All the incriminating evidence which had come in evidence against the accused was put to the accused vide SA recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused chose not to lead DE.
16. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both sides.
17. It was argued by Ld. Defence counsel that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case hence, the accused may be acquitted.
18.On the other hand, it was argued by the Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
FIR No. 1129/2006 State vs. Ramesh Sahrawat Page No. 6 / 13SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL Date: 2024.10.23 DALAL 16:23:18 +0530 Dated: 23.10.2024 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
19.The accused in the present case has been charged for the offences u/s 279/304A IPC. The said sections are reproduced hereunder:
279 IPC. 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.
20. From bare reading of this provision, the three essential ingredients which constitute the offence of rash driving on a public way are as follows:
1. Person must be driving or riding on a public way.
2. He must be driving in a rash and negligent manner.
3. He must be driving in a manner likely to endanger human life or personal safety of any person.
"304-A IPC. Causing death by negligence. - Whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash and negligent act nor amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Perusal of these provisions makes it clear that offence under section 279 and 304-A IPC will be made out when death is a direct consequence of a rash or negligent FIR No. 1129/2006 State vs. Ramesh Sahrawat Page No. 7 / 13 Digitally signed SANYA byDALAL SANYA DALAL Date: 2024.10.23 16:23:23 +0530 Dated: 23.10.2024 act. Rashness conveys the idea of recklessness or doing an act without due consideration whereas negligence connotes want of proper care. A rash act implies an act done by a person with recklessness or with indifference to its consequences, the doer being conscious of the mischievous or illegal consequences does the act knowing that his act may bring some undesirable or illegal results but without hoping or intending them to occur. A negligent act, on the other hand, refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient precautions or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or illegal consequences.
21.Reference may be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled "Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (decided on 28.07.2000)", wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed in detail the constituents of a "rash or negligent act" and observed:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a 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 against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
22.Before proceeding further, let us discuss the meaning of the expressions "rash" and "negligent". These words i.e FIR No. 1129/2006 State vs. Ramesh Sahrawat Page No. 8 / 13 SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.10.23 16:23:26 +0530 Dated: 23.10.2024 "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However, as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1972 SC 685 as under :
"Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstance out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted............Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case".
23.In order to determine the same, this Court will now proceed to see the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
(a) The star witness of prosecution herein is PW6 namely Surender Kumar.
(b) PW-2 SI Bhagwan, PW-3 ASI Devender, PW-4 ASI Rajender, PW-5 SI Ravinder, PW-9 SI Devender and PW-10 HC Surender have deposed in respect of the investigation carried out by them in the present case.FIR No. 1129/2006 State vs. Ramesh Sahrawat Page No. 9 / 13 Digitally signed
SANYA by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.10.23 16:23:29 +0530 Dated: 23.10.2024
(c) PW-7 Inspector Rajeev has deposed in respect of sending of the body for postmortem vide PM No. 550/06.
(d) PW-8 ASI Ashok had deposed in respect of lodging of DD No. 79B which is Ex.
PW8/A.
24. The crucial witness of the prosecution is PW6 namely Surender Kumar, however, the present case was registered in pursuance of DD No. 79B dated 18.07.2006 and the complainant in the present case was HC Bhagwan Singh who has been examined as PW-2. As per the version of the said witness, on 18.07.2006 when he alongwith the IO reached at the spot then, he could not find any eye-witness at the spot and he got to know that the injured was shifted to Brahm Shakti Hospital who was unconscious and was not fit for statement.
25.As per PW-6 who could not specify the date and month of the alleged incident. He had seen one Tempo in front of him which was at a distance and was being driven in a high speed. As per the said witness, the driver of the Tempo hit a two wheeler and fled away from the spot and he could not note down the number of the offending vehicle but with the help of the public persons, he had shifted the injured in the hospital via auto. The witness has clearly stated that he could not see the face of the driver at the time of the incident. Now, on one hand, the said witness has failed to identify the accused as the perpetrator of the alleged offence and on the other hand, the witness FIR No. 1129/2006 State vs. Ramesh Sahrawat Page No. 10 / 13 SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL Date: 2024.10.23 DALAL 16:23:33 +0530 Dated: 23.10.2024 has further stated that he could not specify the vehicle number of the offending vehicle as well as the date of incident in question. Accordingly, as per the said witness, he could not putforth anything incriminating against the accused at all.
26.Admittedly, as per PW-6 many public persons were present at the spot who had allegedly shifted the injured to the hospital, however, not even one of them was cited as prosecution witness and none was asked to join the investigation of the case.
Reliance in this regard is placed on paragraph 6 of the judgment in Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
" ... According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent FIR No. 1129/2006 State vs. Ramesh Sahrawat Page No. 11 / 13 Digitally signed SANYA by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.10.23 16:23:37 +0530 Dated: 23.10.2024 witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras, 1957 SCR 981", has observed that there are three types of witnesses i.e.
(a) Wholly reliable.
(b) Wholly unreliable.
(c) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
When the witness is wholly reliable, the Court should not have any difficulty in as much as conviction or acquittal could be based on the testimony of such single witness. Equally, if, the Court finds that the witness is wholly unreliable, there would be no difficulty in as much as neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of such witness. It is only in the third category of witnesses that the Court has to circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.
27.Now, in the instant case on account of various lacunas in the testimony of the sole independent witness PW-6, the said witness falls within the category of wholly unreliable.
28.In terms of the direct evidence, there is no other eye witness of the incident in question despite the admitted case of the prosecution that there were lot of public persons present at the spot.
FIR No. 1129/2006 State vs. Ramesh Sahrawat Page No. 12 / 13SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.10.23 16:23:41 +0530 Dated: 23.10.2024
29.In terms of the circumstantial evidence, there is no material on record to suggest the culpability of the accused in a sense that the vehicle was being driven in high speed and in a rash or negligent manner by the accused on the relevant date and time and that the same had hit the accused in that manner.
30. The other witnesses examined were the police officials who have deposed only in respect of the investigation aspect and admittedly, none of the police official had actually seen the incident in question.
31.Hence, on the basis of overall analysis and appreciation, the Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences in question. Hence, accused Ramesh Sahrawat S/o Sh. Bhim Singh cannot be saddled with a criminal liability for the offences u/s 279/304A IPC. Accordingly, he stands acquitted for the said offences.
32.Bail bonds filed by the accused earlier stands extended towards compliance of section 437A Cr.PC and they shall remain in force for the period of six months from today.
33.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced, dictated and signed in the open court on 23th October, 2024 Digitally signed SANYA byDALAL SANYA DALAL Date: 2024.10.23 16:23:45 +0530 (Sanya Dalal) JMFC-01/North West/Rohini Courts 23.10.2024 FIR No. 1129/2006 State vs. Ramesh Sahrawat Page No. 13 / 13