Delhi District Court
State vs Angad Singh Dua on 5 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF RAJ KUMAR: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE 05 : CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI
COURTS : DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-001854-2014
FIR No. 428/2014
SC No. 9/2015 (28031/2016)
PS Civil Lines
U/s 279/304 IPC
State Vs. Angad Singh Dua
1. SC No. of this case : 9/2015 (28031/2016)
2. Date of commission of offence : 02.10.2014
3. Names and addresses of accused : Angad Singh Dua
S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh
Dua
R/o 1333, 2nd Floor,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi
4. Offence complained of : U/s 279/304 IPC
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
6. Final order : Acquittal
7. Date of institution : 24.12.2014
8. Date of such order : 05.02.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The criminal machinery of the State was put into motion in the present matter on receipt of DD entry no. 3A dated 02.10.2014 received by SI Ram Avtar who reached at the spot i.e. at Sham Nath Marg near Ganpati Apartment, Civil Lines, Delhi near Oberoi Hotel, along with Ct. Vikram and SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 1 of 40 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:11:38 +0530 he found that the car bearing no. DL8CR-8263 was in flames on account of the burning of the car. It was further found by the IO SI Ram Avtar that beneath the front portion of the car, the upper part of the body a human being about chest was stuck and and motorcycle bearing no. DL9SX-6203, which was in a accidental position, was lying at a distance of 15 metres away from the car towards ISBT side. The fire brigade vehicle arrived at the spot and the fire was doused.
2. As per the charge sheet, one eye-witness namely Jagdish Thakur met the IO at the spot and he handed over the present accused Angad Singh Dua, the driver of the above said car to the IO.
3. The present FIR bearing no. 428/14 u/s 279/304 IPC PS Civil Lines was lodged at the instance of the above said eye-witness Jagdish Thakur who stated that he was employed as a guard with Altos Security and his duty hours were from 08:30 PM to 08:30 AM on 02.10.2014 at Ganpati Apartments. It has been further stated that he was sitting on a chair outside the gate of Ganpati Apartments, then, at about 02:00 AM, he saw that a blue coloured car, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed, from the ISBT side to Sant Parmanand Hospital, changed its lane to the opposite side and the car hit very badly against the above said motorcycle bearing no. DL9SX-6203 of black colour. It has been further stated that the motorcycle was approaching from the opposite direction towards the ISBT side, when the same was hit by SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 2 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ RAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05
16:12:00
+0530
the above said car and as a result of the collision and impact, the motorcyclist fell down and he was stuck along with his motorcycle under the car. It has been further stated that the driver of the car i.e. the present accused stopped the car for a while and he looked at the front side, while sitting inside the car and then, he again drove the car at a very high speed, along with the motorcycle and the motorcyclist who were stuck beneath the car. It has been further stated that after a short distance, the motorcycle became detached from the car but the motorcyclist was dragged by the driver of the car for about 70-75 metres. It has been further stated that the above said car caught fire, as a result of which, the car was stopped by his driver and the driver of the car stepped down and came out of the car.
It has been further stated that the complainant Jagdish Thakur started rushing towards the car and he reached near it. It has been further stated that hearing the loud commotion created by the impact of the accident, some people gathered at the spot. As per the version of the complainant, the driver of the car/ accused was caught hold of by the complainant whose name was disclosed later on as Angad Singh Dua s/o Mohinder Singh Dua r/o 1333, Second Floor, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, aged about 28 years. The complainant has further stated that the life of the motorcyclist could have been saved, had the accused stopped the car in time. It has been alleged that the driver of the car, knowing fully well that the motorcyclist was stuck beneath the front portion of the car, dragged the SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 3 of 40 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:12:28 +0530 motorcyclist for quite a long distance. The complainant has further stated that the portion of the body of the motorcyclist about the chest was stuck under the front portion of the car. It has been further stated that the motorcyclist expired as a result of the above said dragging of the body of the motorcyclist under the car by the driver of the car for quite a long distance and as a result of the fact that the car was engulfed in fire. The present FIR was lodged u/s 279/304 of the IPC at the instance of the complainant.
4. The IO, in the charge sheet, has further stated that crime team was called at the spot and the statements of the witnesses were recorded u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C.. The owner of the motorcycle bearing no. DL9SX-6203 was found to be the deceased Deen Dayal who was identified by his brothers namely Rakesh and Babulal. The dead body of the deceased was handed over to the brothers of the deceased motorcyclist after the postmortem. Mechanical inspection of the above said two vehicles was got done and the accused was arrested. Separate DAR was filed in respect of the accident in question by the IO. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed u/s 173 of the Cr.P.C. by the IO. Perusal of the ordersheet dated 24.12.2014 passed by the ld. MM reveals that cognizance of the offence was taken and production warrants were issued against the accused.
5. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court. Vide orders dated 19.01.2015, charges u/s 279/304 IPC were SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 4 of 40 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:12:56 +0530 framed against the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses.
7. The eye-witness namely Sh. Jagdish Thakur has been examined by the prosecution as PW1 and in his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he was working as a security guard in Altos Security. PW1 has further stated that on 02.10.2014, he was on duty from 08:30 PM to 08:30 AM at Ganpati Apartments as Security Guard and at about 02:00 - 02:15 AM, he was sitting on the chair at the gate of Ganpati Apartments, Shamnath Marg. PW1 has further stated that he heard a noise and after that he saw one car make Santro was in a stationery condition and the said car had caught fire. PW1 has further stated that one motorcycle was lying adjacent to the car and a person came out from the car. PW1 has further stated that he went near the car and he saw that the neck of a person was stuck into the bumper of the car under the car. PW1 has further stated that only the arms of the person who was stuck under the car were visible and that person was already dead. PW1 has further stated that the person who had come out of the car gave a call from his mobile number and he was asked to sit on the pavement by PW1. PW1 has further stated that the police reached there and on enquiry by the police officials, he narrated all the facts to the police. PW1 identified the accused present in the court on that day and he stated that the accused was the person who had come SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 5 of 40 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:13:10 +0530 out of the car and he was asked by him to sit on the pavement. However, PW1 has stated that he had not seen the incident.
8. In the cross-examination by the ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW1 has admitted it to be correct that his statement was recorded by the police which was Ex. PW1/A(which has been wrongly mentioned as Ex. PW2/A in the cross-
examination of PW1) and the same was bearing his signatures. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he had seen the accused driving the aforesaid car in a rash and negligent manner and at a very fast speed which was approaching from the side of Kashmere Gate and leading towards Sant Parmanand Hospital. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he had seen that the driver of the car had left his lane and hit a motorcycle of black colour at Shamnath Marg which was approaching from the other side or that the car hit the motorcycle after leaving its lane and was approaching towards Oberoi Maiden Hotel. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he had seen that the motorcyclist had fell down in front of the car or that the motorcyclist and the motorcycle, both had stuck under the car. PW1 has denied the suggestion that the driver of the car stopped his car for a while sitting inside the car or that he had seen towards the front side of the car or that he drove the car at a very fast speed or that he dragged the motorcyclist and the motorcycle as well towards Sant Parmanand Hospital. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he had seen that the motorcycle had fallen apart from the SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 6 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:16:20 +0530 car. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he had seen that the driver of the car dragged the motorcycle and the motorcyclist upto a distance of 70-75 metres. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he had stated all these facts in his statement Ex. PW1/A(which has been wrongly mentioned as Ex. PW2/A in the cross-examination of PW1). PW1 was confronted with his statement Ex.
PW1/A(which has been wrongly mentioned as Ex. PW2/A in the cross-examination of PW1), wherein, all the above said facts have been recorded and mentioned.
9. However, PW1, in his further cross-examination, has admitted it to be correct that there was fire in the car and that he had run towards the car. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that many public persons had gathered at the spot after hearing the impact of the accident. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that the accused present in the court on that day got down from the car due to fire in the car. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that he had apprehended the accused present in the court on that day, when get got down from the car. PW1 states that he cannot tell if the name of the accused was revealed as Angad Singh Dua. PW1 does not remember if he had told the name of the driver as mentioned in his statement Ex. PW1/A(which has been wrongly mentioned as Ex. PW2/A in the cross- examination of PW1). PW1 has denied the suggestion that had the accused stopped the car after the accident, the life of the motorcyclist could have been saved. PW1 has denied the suggestion that the accused drove the car SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 7 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:16:33 +0530 deliberately even while he had seen the motorcycle was stuck in the car or that due to dragging of the motorcycle, the car got fire. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that the chest of the driver and his upper part were stuck in the upper front portion of the car. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that the fire brigade vehicle had also arrived at the spot and extinguished the fire. PW1 further states that he does not know the number of the car as well as of the motorcycle as he was illiterate. PW1 was confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A(which has been wrongly mentioned as Ex. PW2/A in the cross-examination of PW1), wherein, the registration numbers of both the above said vehicles were mentioned. By way of volunteer, PW1 states that the car and the motorcycle were present at the spot. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that he had produced the accused present in the court on that day before the police. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he had shown the spot to the police or that the site plan was prepared at his instance. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he was suppressing the true facts of the case in order to save the accused as he had been won over by him.
10. PW2 is the duty officer HC Subhash who had recorded DD no. 3A Ex. PW2/A and who had handed over the above said DD to SI Ram Avtar telephonically. PW2 has stated that in the intervening night of 01/02.10.2014, he was posted at PS Civil Lines as Head Constable and his duty hours were from 12:00 midnight to 08:00 AM. PW2 has stated that on that night at 02:15 AM, he received an SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 8 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:16:44 +0530 information from control room that "Civil Lines Delhi Vidhan Sabha se Age, Near Oberoi Hotel, Gadi main Aag". PW2 has further stated that the said information was given by Ct. Mahesh from control room and mobile no. 9910927666 and on receipt of the said information, he recorded DD no. 3A. PW2 has further stated that on the same night at 04:20 PM, he recorded FIR no. 428/14 u/s 279/304 IPC through computer operator on the basis of the Rukka sent by SI Ram Avtar through Ct. Vikram. Copy of the FIR has been exhibited as Ex. PW2/B, the endorsement on the rukka has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/C. The Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/D. However, it is seen that the exhibit numbers have not been correctly mentioned in the testimony of PW2 as the above said FIR has been exhibited as Ex. PW2/C, the endorsement on the rukka by PW2 has been exhibited as Ex. PW2/B and the certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has also been mentioned as Ex. PW2/D, as per record.
11. PW3 is Dr. Kamini, Medical Officer from Aruna Asaf Ali, Govt. Hospital, Delhi and this witness has stated that on 02.10.2014, she was working as Medical Officer at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and Angad Singh Dua was examined by Dr. Ujjawal, under her instructions and his MLC no. 1419/14 was prepared. PW3 has stated that there was smell of alcohol in the breed of Angad Singh Dua and the patient had himself admitted to consume the alcohol. PW3 has SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 9 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:17:02 +0530 further stated that however, the patient refused to give his blood sample. The MLC prepared by Dr. Ujjawal has been exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. In the cross-examination, PW3 has admitted it to be correct that MLC Ex. PW3/A was not bearing her signatures. PW3 has further stated that at the time of examining the patient, the breath analyzer was not in a working condition and for that reason, the said test could not be conducted. PW3 further states that there is no medical evidence which proves that at the time of medical examination Angad Singh Dua was in a drunken condition. By way of volunteer, PW3 states that the patient refused to give his blood sample. PW3 admits it to be correct that the above said refusal was not taken in writing from the said patient.
12. PW4 is Dr. Sandeep Garg who had conducted the postmortem at Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital on 02.10.2014 on the dead body of the deceased. PW4 has stated that on 02.10.2014, the dead body of one Deen Dayal was brought before him for conducting postmortem by SI Ram Avtar of PS Civil Lines and the dead body was identified by his brothers Rakesh and Babu Lal. As per PW4, there was alleged history of road accident following which the deceased got struck under car and the car caught fire and FIR no. 428/14 PS Civil Lines was registered on the same day. As per PW4, on examination of the dead body, the following external injuries were found.
SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 10 of 40 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:17:11 +0530 i. Dry flamed burns extending all over the body involving both palms and both soles. Burns are 1 degree to 3 degree(bone heep) with red line of demarcation at identifiable places. Abdominal muscles burnt out completely with exposing GIT and abdominal visceras having deposits of black carbon particles. Face unidentifiable with heat stiffening of joints with pugilistic attitude. Smell of petroleum product not identifiable over burnt areas. On dissection:
i. Linear fracture of right temporal bone present with fracture ends showing infiltration of blood. Thick film of sub dural haemorrhage present over bilateral cerebral hemespheres.
ii. Chest-fracture of second to seventh ribs present in mid axillary line bilaterally with extravassation of blood in surrounding tissues.
ii. Tracheal mucosa shows rustycoloured froth in the luman with reddening of mucosal walls. PW4 has further stated that he conducted postmortem vide his detailed report Ex. PW4/A. In the cross-examination, PW4 has stated that he had returned alleged history from the inquest papers.
13.PW5 Ct. Vikram who had accompanied the IO on 02.10.2014 to the spot. PW5 has stated that on reaching the spot, a car in fire was found on the road and half portion of a person was struck under the car. PW5 has further stated that the motorcycle bearing no. DL9SX-6203 was lying at a distance of about 15 metres from the car towards ISBT.
SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 11 of 40 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:17:39 +0530 PW5 has further stated that the fire brigade vehicle arrived at the spot and the fire was extinguished. PW5 has further stated that one guard Jagdish Thakur was present there and he produced the accused Angad Singh Dua, who was correctly identified by PW5 in the court. PW5 has further stated that the guard Jagdish Thakur told them that the accused was driving the said car and one person came under the car, who was crushed. PW5 has further stated that crime team reached at the spot, photographs of the spot were taken, SI Ram Avtar recorded the statement of the eye-witness, IO prepared the rukka which was handed over to him for registration of the FIR. PW5 has further stated the car bearing no. DL8CR-8263 was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW5/A, the motorcycle no. DL9ASX6203 was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW5/B, accused Angad Singh Dua was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/C and his personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW5/D. In the cross-examination, PW5 has stated that there was overwriting on the rukka Ex. PW2/D at point X. PW5 has further stated that rukka was written by SI Ram Avtar.
14.PW6 Sh. Babu Lal who had identified the dead body of the deceased vide identification memo Ex. PW6/A. PW6 has further stated that after postmortem, dead body of his younger brother Deen Dayal was handed over vide receipt Ex. PW6/B.
15.PW7 is SI Nagender from mobile crime team, North, Delhi and this witness has deposed that on 02.10.2014, he along SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 12 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:17:49 +0530 with Ct. Irshad(Photographer) and Ct. Chetan(Finger Print Expert) went to the spot i.e. in front of hotel Maiden, Rajpur Road, Shamnath Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi and at the spot, SI Ram Avtar along with other police officials were present. PW7 has further stated that on reaching the spot, one motorcycle bearing no. DL9SX-6203, Splender Hero Black Colour was found in a damaged condition from front. PW7 has further stated that one helmet, seat of motorcycle, broken headlight and some other accessories of motorcycle were found scattered at various places near the scene of the crime. PW7 has further stated that about 10 metres away, one Maruti Ritz car bearing no. DL8CR-
8263 white colour was found burnt and a male unidentified dead body fully burnt was found under the car front side. PW7 has further stated that about 45 metres away from the car, skid marks of the car having length of 10 metres were found on the road. Ct. Irshad took the photographs of the spot and the crime scene was inspected from 02:45 AM to 03:40 AM. PW7 has further stated that after inspection, he prepared the report Ex. PW7/A which was handed over by him to the IO. PW7 has further stated that his statement was recorded by the IO.
In the cross-examination PW7 has stated that he did not mention in his report Ex. PW7/A that the skid marks about 10 metres length of about 10 metres length were fresh and he did not take the photographs of the skid marks.
16.PW8 is Ct. Irshad who had taken the photographs of the spot and the photographs have been exhibited as Ex.
SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 13 of 40 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:18:18 +0530 PW8/1 to Ex. PW8/17. However, the negatives of the photographs were not produced by PW8 and he stated that the negatives of the photographs were lost by the IO.
17.PW9 is Arvinder Singh, the mechanical expert who had carried out the mechanical inspection of both the above said vehicles. PW9 has stated that the car bearing no. DL8CR-8263 was completely damaged due to fire and the damage was fresh in nature. PW9 has further stated that the mechanical system of the car was completely damaged due to fire and the said vehicle was not fit for road test. This witness has placed on record his detailed report as Ex. PW9/A. PW9 has further stated that the mechanical inspection of the motorcycle bearing no. DL9SX-6203 was also done by him at the written request of SI Ram Avtar and during inspection, he found the fresh damages as under:-
i. Front mudguard broken, ii. front wheel rim damaged, iii. front tyre damaged, iv. head light broken, v. both shocker bended and right side shocker damaged, vi. head damaged, vii. handle bended, viii.both side leg guard bended and scratched, ix. petrol tank damaged and right side scratched x. both side body cover broken, xi. both footrest bended and scrached xii. tail light and mudguard broken SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 14 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:18:31 +0530 xiii.engine not started xiv. track brake paddle bended xv. handle bended xvi. head light broken xvii.horn system damaged and the said motorcycle was not fit for road test.
PW9 has placed on record his detailed report in this regard as Ex. PW9/B.
18.PW10 is Sh. Chaman Lal, Retd. SO from Fire Department who has deposed that on 16.10.2014, at about 02:15 AM, a call regarding fire was received and after receiving the call, he along with his staff in vehicle no. WT-38 and WP- 16 reached at the spot i.e. 5, Shamnath Marg, Near Ganpati Apartments and found a car in fire. PW10 has further stated that he himself along with the help of his staff controlled the fire of the car make Ritz. PW10 has further stated that he was not remembering the registration number of the car. PW10 has further stated that a dead person in burnt condition from under the engine of the said car was taken out by them and one motorcycle belonging to the deceased was also lying there behind the above said car at a distance of 5 to 7 metres. PW10 has further stated he was not remembering the registration number of the motorcycle also.
In the cross-examination of the above said witness done by the ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW10 has admitted it to be correct that the above said call was received on 02.10.2014 at about 02:15 AM and he had stated the said fact in his SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 15 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:18:40 +0530 statement recorded by the IO. PW10 has admitted it to be correct that the registration number on the Ritz Car was DL8CR-8263 and registration number of the motorcycle of the deceased was DL9SX-6203 and he had stated these facts in his statement recorded by the IO. PW10 has admitted it to be correct that the said motorcycle was lying at the back side of the car at a distance of 35-40 metres. PW10 has further stated that he could not state the above facts in his statement recorded on 30.01.2014 as he was suffering from weak memory on account of the blockage of his head nerves. The photocopy of the information of fire dated 02.10.2014 was exhibited as Ex. PW10/A. In the cross-examination, PW10 has stated that they reached at the spot within ten minutes after receiving the above said information.
19.PW11 is Kishan Kumar Tiwari, Supervisor from Altos Security and Investigation(Pvt.) Ltd. and this witness produced the photocopy of the attendance/ duty register as Ex. PW11/A, photocopy of the Adhar card as Ex. PW11/B, certificate regarding duty hours and the period on the letterhead of the Security Company as Ex. PW11/C pertaining to the guard Jagdish Thakur. PW11 has further stated that the above said documents were handed over by him to the IO and the IO had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/D, bearing his signatures at point A. In the cross-examination, PW11 admits that the register was containing only the attendance of Jagdish Thakur for the months of August, September and October on the last SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 16 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:19:09 +0530 four pages. PW11 has further stated that the first two pages of the register were containing the attendance of the other guards and rest of the middle pages of the register were blank.
20.PW12 is Sh. Rakesh Kumar, the brother of the deceased and this witness had also identified the dead body of his brother vide identification statement Ex. PW12/A.
21.PW13 is Sh. Anuj Datt and this witness has stated that in the year 2014, he was running a photo studio in the name of AR Datt And Sons at 2-B, Shamnath Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi and on that day(probably 19.11.2014), IO SI Ram Avtar handed over five negatives for preparing the positives and five photographs were prepared from the above said negatives at his studio. The five photographs have been exhibited as Ex. PW13/1 to Ex. PW13/5. PW13 has further stated that he handed over the above said photographs along with the negatives to the IO and he also issued a certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act on 30.11.2015 regarding the preparation of the above said photographs. The certificate has been exhibited as Ex.
PW13/A, the photocopy of the relevant entry of the register/ job card as Ex. PW13/B and copy of receipt no. 1435 as Ex. PW13/C. This witness has further stated that the above said documents Ex. PW13/D and Ex. PW13/C were in the handwriting of the accountant Sh. HP Sareen. PW13 has further stated that he had also brought the sample of photo paper having the same marking on the SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 17 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:19:20 +0530 back of the paper on which the above said photographs were prepared and the same was Ex. PW13/D.
22.PW14 is ASI Karam Vir who has stated that he was working as MHC(M) on 02.10.2014 with PS Civil Lines and the above said two vehicles were deposited by the IO in the Malkhana. He has produced the relevant entry of register no. 19 as Ex. PW14/A.
23.PW15 is Sh. H.P. Sareen, the Account at AR Datt And Sons Studio and he has stated that on 19.11.2014, he was working as accountant with the said studio and he had prepared five photographs from the negatives. PW15 has further stated that he made the entry of the said photograph in the job register vide entry Ex. PW13/B and the five photographs as Ex. PW13/1 to Ex. PW13/5 were prepared from the negatives. This witness has further stated that the above said photographs together with the negatives were handed over to the Delhi Police official vide receipt Ex. PW13/C.
24.IO SI Ram Avtar has been examined by the prosecution as PW16 and this witness has deposed on the lines of the charge sheet filed by him. PW16 has stated that the endorsement made by him on the complaint was Ex.
PW16/A; the site plan prepared at the instance of the complainant Jagdish Thakur was Ex. PW16/B; the interest papers were Ex. PW16/C; the application for postmortem was Ex. PW16/D; the seizure memo pertaining to the RC(car), insurance(car) and DL of the accused etc. was Ex. PW16/E; the copy of the RC in the name of the mother of SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 18 of 40 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:19:29 +0530 the accused was Ex. PW16/F; copy of the insurance was Ex. PW16/G; copy of the DL of the accused as Ex. PW16/H; victim impact report was Ex. PW16/I and two fresh photographs of the car and two fresh photographs of the bike produced by MHC(M) were Ex. PW16/P1(colly.). PW16, in his examination-in-chief, has also spoken about the copy of the FIR Ex. PW2/C, seizure memo of the car Ex. PW5/A, seizure memo of the motorcycle Ex. PW5/B, arrest memo of the accused Ex. PW5/C, personal search memo of the accused Ex. PW5/D, handing over memo of the dead body of the deceased Ex. PW6/D, mechanical inspection reports of the car and the motorcycle Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B, the five photographs Ex. PW13/1 to Ex. PW13/5.
25.In the cross-examination, PW16 states that he reached the spot at around 02:30 AM. PW16 does not know if information to the PCR was made by the accused, on the basis of which, DD no. 3A was recorded. PW16 further states that he did not collect the PCR form in the present case but the mobile number of the caller was mentioned in DD no. 3A. PW16 further states that he did not clarify as to whom the above said number was belonging. PW16 further states that PCR vehicle was present at the spot, when he reached at the spot. PW16 further states that he is not aware a fire extinguisher is kept in every PCR vehicle.
PW16 further states that the vehicle was in flames on the road in front of Oberoi Maidens Hotel and the Parmanand Hospital is also situated nearby. IO further states that he SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 19 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:19:46 +0530 did not call for the fire extinguisher from the said hotel and the hospital; that he did not attempt to extinguish the water from nearby apartments. PW16 further states that the vehicle was having CNG fittings and as such, they were afraid of going near the vehicle. PW16 again states that he was not aware at that time, if the vehicle had CNG fittings. PW16 further states that since many vehicles were fitted with CNG kit and as such, he thought it prudent to stay away from the vehicle as CNG vehicles catch fire easily. By way of volunteer, PW16 states that later on, he came to know that the vehicle was having a fitting of CNG kit. PW16 further states that he did not collect the report of fire brigade officials in the present case. PW16 further states that he had cited fire brigade officials as witness in the present case.
26.IO of the case, in his cross-examination, admits it to be correct that there is movement in the body of the person who was entangled in the front portion of the car when he reached the spot. IO has denied the suggestion that the death has taken place due to the lapses of the police officials. IO of the case further states that he had called crane from the police officials. IO of the case further states that he did not cite the driver of the crane as a witness in the present case. IO denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not collect the PCR form and other documents i.e. the log book since the phone call was made to the control room by the accused. IO admits it to be correct that the PCR officials at the spot convey the SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 20 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:19:57 +0530 information about the situation at the spot to the control room which is reflected in the PCR form as well as in the log book. IO has denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not collect the above said documents since the version as set up by him was different from the version what was mentioned in the above said documents and the actual incident.
27.IO further states that crime team had reached the spot immediately after his arrival. IO further states that he is not aware as to when the crime team left the spot. IO further states that till the time, crime team was present at the spot, he was not aware as to who was an eye witness and as such, the complainant was not produced before the crime team. IO further states that the photographs were taken by the crime team of the car between 03:40 and 04:00 AM. IO further states that after taking the photographs, report of the crime team was prepared which was handed over to him. IO further states that it took half an hour for him to record the statement of the complainant and the rukka. IO further states that he started recording the statement of the complainant at around 04:15 AM. IO again states that he started recording the statement of the complainant at 04:00 AM. IO has denied the suggestion that the complainant Mr. Jagdish Thakur had not witnessed the occurrence and that he had wrongly cited him as an eye-witness in the present case. IO further states that occurrence did not take place in his presence. IO further states that he has no personal SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 21 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:20:24 +0530 knowledge about the manner in which the occurrence took place.
28.IO admits it to be correct that the guards are posted at the gates of Oberoi Maiden's Hotel and Parmanand Hospital.
IO further states that he did not make any enquiry from them. IO admits it to be correct that there is a market opposite to Parmanand Hospital. IO states that he did not verify if any guard is posted in the market as well. By way of volunteer, IO states that it was night time and the market was far away from the spot.
29.IO further states that he did not make any written request to the mechanical expert for inspecting the vehicle. IO admits it to be correct that Delhi Police has in-house mechanical inspection expert. IO further states that he had made a call to the Delhi Police Mechanical expert but he did not respond. IO further states that he did not mention this fact anywhere in the judicial record or in the case diary. IO admits that Mr. Arvinder, the mechanical expert summoned by him was a private expert. IO states that he did not file any document to reflect whether he was on the panel of Delhi Police or not. IO admits it to be correct that as per mechanical inspection report, formal application to conduct inspection was made by him. IO admits it to be correct that the documents Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B have been prepared at his request for mechanical inspection of the vehicle.
30.IO further states that he did not request his mechanical expert to specifically verify if there was any dent or any SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 22 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:20:34 +0530 other evidence of head on collision on car in writing. IO admits it to be correct that in report of the mechanical expert Ex. PW9/A, there is no mention of any damage due to the accident between the two vehicles. IO admits it to be correct that even in the rukka, he has not mentioned any such damage to the car. IO admits it to be correct that he did not collect any pieces of headlight, backlight, glass of the motorcycle from the spot. IO admits it to be correct that he did not get any such articles photographed, if they were lying at the spot. IO admits it to be correct that he did not get the motorcycle photographed at the spot. IO admits it to be correct that even the photograph of the complete car at the spot is not on record. IO admits it to be correct that the photograph showing the exact position of the car and motorcycle are also not on record nor are there any photographs of any articles which might have been scattered at the spot and at which place. IO admits it to be correct that from the photographs of the scratch, it is not visible as to it is of which exact location. IO admits it to be correct that even in the site plan prepared by him at the spot, neither the articles scattered at the spot are shown nor he had shown the location of the scratch etc.
31.IO states that he did not get the skid marks photographed. IO states that even the skid marks have not been shown by him in the site plan. IO further states that he did not get the skid marks lifted along with the earth control for the FSL examination. IO further states that he cannot comment if the skid marks were new or old. He cannot give the SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 23 of 40 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:20:43 +0530 dimensions of the skid marks i.e. the width. He did not get the skid marks at the spot examined from the FSL expert to establish the vehicle which had caused it. He did not get it compared with the tyre of the vehicle which was burnt.
32.IO admits it to be correct that the place of occurrence is a heavy busy road with heavy traffic during day time and traffic movement is round the clock. IO further states that the motorcycle was damaged as per the inspection report from both the sides. IO further states that he did not ask the mechanical expert to opine the manner in which the motorcycle was damaged. He did not ask crime team or the mechanical expert to verify if there was any evidence of accident between both the vehicles. He did not find any evidence on the motorcycle in the form of paint of car, etc. on the motorcycle to establish collision between the two vehicles. He further states that no such opinion was given either by the mechanical expert or by the crime team. He further states that he did not get the investigation done from forensic/ crime team regarding the reason as to why, the car caught fire. He admits it to be correct that a CNG vehicle is prone to catching fire easily. He further states that he did not get the CNG equipment examined.
33.IO further states that he did not find any trail of blood, clothes or skin between point A and point C in the site plan nor did he show it in the site plan. IO did not find any article of motorcycle or car between point A to point B of site plan or at point A. IO cannot give the distance between the skid marks and the car.
SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 24 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:20:54 +0530
34.IO admits it to be correct that it is mandatory for getting the blood test conducted of the accused after the accident as per law. He admits it to be correct that accused was in custody when he was taken for his medical examination. IO admits that the blood sample of the accused was not taken in the present case. IO further states that the accused refused to give his sample of the blood. IO admits it to be correct that there are no photographs reflecting the dragging marks.
35.After the conclusion of the PE, statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. The accused claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused has stated that on the day of incident, he was returning from his workplace in his car and he was driving the car at a permissible speed on the left side of the road but all of a sudden, his car caught fire. The accused further states that he stopped his car and during that time, he could not see anything in front of him and he came out of the car. The accused further states that he was totally shocked by the incident of burning of his car. The accused further states that the public persons gathered at the spot and they made him to sit on pavements at some distance behind the car and they also gave him some water to drink. The accused further states that he made a call to the police but in the meantime, the public started shouting that a person was struck in front of his car. The accused further states that he immediately ran towards SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 25 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:21:07 +0530 his car and saw a person struck under the front portion of his vehicle. The accused further states that one unknown public person present at the spot told him that the motorcycle was coming at a very high speed and fell due to skidding and the motorcyclist slided in the car, while the motorcycle continued to skid ahead. The accused further states that he was not feeling well but he immediately ran towards oberoi Maiden's Hotel to get fire extinguisher or water to save the person but in the mean time, police reached at the spot advised him to stay away from the car. The accused further states that the security guard of Maiden's Hotel went inside to bring the fire extinguisher at his request but in the mean time, the fire brigade reached at the spot and extinguished the fire. The accused further states that later on he was taken to the police station by the police and from there he was taken to the hospital for his medical examination. The accused further states that he was pressurized to put his signatures on the MLC on the pretext that it was required for identification purposes. The accused further states that subsequently, he was falsely implicated in the present case. The accused further states that no accident took place in his car and the death of the person was an unfortunate incident without any fault or omission on his part. The accused further states that he did not consume liquor on that day.
36.No evidence in defence has been led by the accused.
37. I have carefully gone through the entire material available on record and heard the rival submissions of both the ld.
SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 26 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:22:01 +0530 Counsel for the accused and that of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. I have also meticulously perused the arguments in writing filed on record by the ld. Counsel for the accused.
38. The charges against the accused, in the present case, have been framed u/s 279 & 304 of the IPC. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence u/s 279 of the Cr.P.C. are as under:-
i. Driving of a Vehicle or riding on a public way. ii. Such driving or riding must be so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
Section 304 of the IPC provides the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This Section provides for two kinds of punishments applying to two different situations, which are as under:-
i. If the act by which death is caused, is done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine.
ii. If the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years or with fine or with both.
SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 27 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05
16:22:23
+0530
39. It is well settled law that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused person has a right to maintain silence in a criminal trial. Every accused person is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof from the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond any reasonable doubt.
An accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot take place of proof.
40. The complicity of an accused person can be proved either by ocular evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
41.Applying the above said standard, this court has to consider and see as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case by way of cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence against the present accused u/s 279/304 of the IPC, the necessary ingredients of which have already been discussed hereinabove.
42. During the course of arguments, ld. Addl. PP for the state has vehemently argued that the main star witness of the prosecution namely Jagdish Thakur who was the security guard and who has been examined as PW1 has turned hostile on major aspects, though, he has supported the case of the prosecution partially. It has been further argued that as many as 16 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and the prosecution has been able to prove its SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 28 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:22:50 +0530 case by way of circumstantial evidence. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has heavily relied upon the testimony of the IO who has been examined as PW16 and the testimony of Ct. Vikram who had accompanied the IO to the spot and who has been examined as PW5. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has also relied upon the testimony of PW3 Dr. Kamini, who had proved the MLC of the complainant, the testimony of PW7 SI Nagender Giri from Mobile Crime Team North Delhi, the testimony of PW10 Sh. Chaman Lal from the fire department and the testimony of PW11 Sh. Krishan Kumar Tiwari Supervisor from Altos Security. The crux of the arguments of the prosecution is that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused person in the present case by way of circumstantial evidence, if not by way of ocular evidence. Whereas, on the other hand, ld. Counsel for the accused, in the written final arguments and orally as well, has argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case even on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It has been argued that the sole eye-witness PW1 Jagdish Thakur has resiled from his previous statement completely and he has stated that he had not seen the accident at all. It has been further argued that if the cross- examination of the IO who has been examined as PW16 is carefully gone through, it becomes evidently clear that the entire case of the prosecution is demolished. It has been further argued that besides PW1, no other public witness has been cited by the prosecution in the list of witnesses and no other public witness has been examined besides SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 29 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05
16:23:02
+0530
PW1. It has been further argued that there is nothing on record to infer that there was a collision in between the car of the accused and the motorcycle of the deceased. It has been further argued that nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution to show the collision, what to talk of the Head-on collision. It has been further argued that as per the cross-examination of PW16, the alleged skid marks were neither photographed nor the same have been shown in the site plan. It has been further argued that PW16 admitted in the cross-examination that he himself cannot comment if the skid marks were new or old and he cannot give any dimension of the skid marks. It has been further argued that even PW7 admitted in the cross-examination that it has not been mentioned in his report Ex. PW7/A that the skid marks about 10 metre length were afresh. It has been further argued that the IO of the case PW16 has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that there was nothing on record to show as to how the car of the accused caught fire. It has been further argued that the IO of the case in the cross-examination, has admitted that there was neither any tail of blood, clothes or skin in between point A to point C in the site plan Ex. PW16/B, nor he had shown the same in the site plan. It has been further argued that PW16 admitted that he did not find any articles belonging to the motorcycle or the car in between point A to point B. It has been argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was dragged for about 70-75 metres or that the motorcycle was dragged about 50- SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 30 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05
16:23:15
+0530
55 metres by the accused. It has been further argued that the IO of the case failed to engage some in-house mechanical expert and there is no explanation as to why a private mechanical expert was engaged by the IO. Ld. Defence counsel has vehemently argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case even on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the entire story put forward by the prosecution is a manipulated one.
43. Coming to the ocular evidence, the only and sole eye-
witness, who has been examined by the prosecution is PW1 Sh. Jagdish Thakur. PW1, in his examination-in- chief, has categorically stated that he had not seen the incident in question. PW1 has stated that he had seen a car which was engulfed in fire and the accused coming out of the car. PW1 has further stated that he had seenthat the neck of a person was stuck into the bumper of the car and that person was found dead but so far as the factum of the accident as narrated by him, in his complaint Ex. PW1/A is concerned, he has completely resiled from the same. In his statement Ex. PW1/A, on the basis of which, the FIR in question of lodged, PW1 has categorically stated that he had seen the accident in question by his naked eyes. PW1 has stated that at about 02:00 PM, he was sitting outside Ganpati Apartments and he had seen that a blue coloured car was being driven rashly and negligently and the car driver i.e. the accused by leaving his own lane, shifted to the other lane and gave a strong blow to the motorcycle which was being driven towards ISBT side. PW1 has SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 31 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:23:29 +0530 categorically stated that as a result of the head-on collision, the motorcyclist and the motorcycle as well struck under the front portion of the car. PW1 has further stated that the accused stopped his car for while and then, again drove the car at a very fast speed, as a result of which, the motorcyclist was dragged for about 70-75 metres.
44. The above said incident of the accident has been completely denied by PW1 even in his examination-in- chief. Even in his cross-examination by the ld. Addl. PP for the State, the above said eye-witness denies the suggestion that he had seen the accused driving the car in a rash and negligent manner or that he had seen the accident or that he had seen that the driver of the car dragged the motorcycle and the motorcyclist for about 70-75 metres.
45. PW16, IO of the case in the cross-examination, admits that the accident did not take place in his presence and he has no personal knowledge about the manner in which the accident took place. IO of the case admits that the guards are posted at the gates of Oberoi Maiden's Hotel and Parmanand Hospital but he did not make any enquiry from them. From the cross-examination of PW16, it is apparently clear that there could have been other guards and eye-witnesses to the above said accident in question but no effort was made by the IO to examine any other witness or eye-witness so as to depose about the accident in question. PW1, in the cross-examination, denies that he had shown the spot to the police or that the site plan was prepared at his instance. PW1 and IO of the case are the SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 32 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05
16:23:43
+0530
two star witnesses of the prosecution. As stated hereinabove, besides PW1, there is no other eye-witness who deposed about the accident/ incident in question, as such, I am of the opinion that going by the ocular evidence, the necessary ingredients of Section 279/304 of the IPC are not being fulfilled and as such, the guilt of the accused has not been proved at all by the prosecution, so far as the ocular evidence is concerned.
46. Now coming to the circumstantial evidence, it has to be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as 'Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra' cited as (1984) 4 SCC 116 has laid down the five golden principles for appreciation of circumstantial evidence and has termed the same as Panchsheel of the Proof of Case based on circumstantial evidence. The said five golden principles are as follows:-
i. The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be and not merely 'may be' fully established.
ii. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt of accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypotheses except that the accused is guilty. iii. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency.
iv. They should exclude every possible hypotheses except the one to be proved.
SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 33 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:23:57 +0530 v. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Thus, before recording the conviction of any accused, the abovesaid five conditions must be satisfied. The prosecution has to establish its case on the basis of abovesaid five golden principles and to secure conviction of any accused, the prosecution must fulfill the above said five requirements.
47. Now going by the narration of facts, the case of the prosecution, the evidence led by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that in order to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the following circumstances:-
i. That the accused was driving his car bearing no.
DL8CR8263 on the wrong side of the road at about 02:00 PM on 02.10.2014 in a rash and negligent manner;
ii. That the accused left his lane, shifted to the other lane and hit the motorcycle bearing no. DL9SX6203 and there was a head-on collision in between the two vehicles on account of the negligence of the accused;
iii. That knowing fully well that the motorcyclist and the motorcycle as well was struck under the front portion of the car, the accused again drove the car at a high speed SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 34 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ RAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05
16:24:22
+0530
and thus dragged the motorcycle and the motorcyclist for about 70-75 metres;
iv. That the accused was under the influence of Alcohol at the time of the alleged accident;
v. That there were skid marks of the car or that of the motorcycle on the road;
vi. That the car of the accused caught fire on account of the dragging of the motorcycle which was struck under the car;& vii. That the motorcyclist expired on account of the above said accident which was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the accused.
48.Since the ocular evidence in the form of two star witnesses PW1 and PW16 has failed to prove that the accident had taken place in between the car of the accused and the motorcycle of the deceased, the vital question to be considered by this court is that as to whether, the prosecution has been able to prove the same by way of circumstantial evidence without any break in the chain of the circumstances.
49.This court has to consider and see as to whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the point that there was head on collision in between the car of the accused and the motorcycle of the deceased on account of the rash and negligent driving of the accused under the influence of alcohol. In this regard, it has to be seen that the IO of the case i.e. PW16 has admitted that he did not SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 35 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:24:38 +0530 request his mechanical expert to specifically verify if there was any dent or any other evidence of head on collision in writing. PW16 admits it to be correct that in the report of mechanical expert Ex. PW9/A, there is no mention of any damage due to the accident in between two vehicles. PW16 admits it to be correct that even in the rukka, he had not mentioned any such damage to the car and that he did not collect any pieces of headlight, backlight, glass of the motorcycle from the spot. PW16 admits it to be correct that he did not get any such articles photographed, if they were lying at the spot.
50.There are categorical admissions on the part of PW16 to show that he neither asked the mechanical expert to opine the manner in which the motorcycle was damaged nor he asked the crime team or the mechanical expert to verify if there was evidence of accident in between both the vehicles. IO of the case has categorically admitted that even the motorcycle was not photographed and the photographs of the complete car at the spot are not there on record. IO has further admitted that the photographs showing the exact position of the car and the motorcycle are not on record nor there are any photographs of any article which might have scattered at the spot. PW16 admits it to be correct that even from the photographs of the scratch, it is not visible as to it is of which location. PW16 admits it to be correct that even in the site plan prepared by him at the spot, neither the articles scattered at the spot have been shown nor the location of the scratch SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 36 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:24:51 +0530 has been shown. PW16 has further admitted that he did not find any evidence on the motorcycle in the form of paint, etc. of the car to establish a collision in between the two vehicles and that no such opinion was given either by the mechanical expert or by the crime team.
51.Now coming to the skid marks, PW16 has categorically admitted that neither the skid marks were got photographed nor the same have been shown in the site plan. PW16 has admitted that neither he himself comment if the skid marks were new or old nor he can give any dimension of the skid marks. PW7 who is from the mobile crime team has admitted in the cross-examination that he did not mention in his report Ex. PW7/A that the skid marks about 10 metre length were fresh. PW16 admitted that neither he got the skid marks lifted along with the earth control for FSL examination nor got the skid marks at the spot examined from the FSL expert in order to establish the vehicle which had caused it. PW16 also admitted that he did not get the skid marks compared with the tyre of the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident. It has also not been mentioned as to whether the skid marks were behind the car or ahead of the car.
52.From the cross-examination of PW16 who is the IO of the case, it is apparently clear that no evidence has been brought on record to show that the motorcycle was dragged for about 50-55 metres and the motorcyclist was dragged for about 70-75 metres. PW16 has admitted in the cross-examination that no investigation was got done by SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 37 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05
16:25:01
+0530
him from the forensic/ crime team regarding the reason as to how the car caught fire.
53.PW16 has categorically admitted that there was no trail of blood, clothes or skin in between point A to point C in the site plan Ex. PW16/B and that he did not show the same in the site plan. PW16 has admitted that he did not find any articles of the motorcycles or the car between point A to point B or at point A. There is no photograph reflecting the dragging marks.
54.I am of the opinion that it has also been rightly pointed out by the ld. Defence counsel that there is no explanation on the part of PW16 as to why a private mechanical expert was engaged by him and as to why, no request was made by him to the in-house mechanical inspection expert of Delhi Police for carrying out the mechanical inspection of the two vehicles.
55.Furthermore, it has to be seen that PW1 has denied the suggestion that the site plan Ex. PW16/B was prepared at his instance. There is an overwriting on the rukka as to the time, when it was sent for registration of the FIR through PW5 Ct. Vikram.
56.To my mind, the prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the alleged accident. The accused was in custody but neither his blood test was conducted nor breathe-analyzer test was conducted.
57.Sh. Chaman Lal from Fire Department, in his examination-in-chief, has wrongly told the date of SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 38 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05 16:25:11 +0530 occurrence as 16.10.2014. He is not able to tell the registration number of both the vehicles. In the cross- examination, PW10 states that he was suffering from blockage of head nerves but nothing has been placed on record by PW10 to show that he was suffering from blockage of head nerves and as such, I am of the opinion that the testimony of PW10, otherwise also, is not reliable.
58.Going by the above said discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the chain of circumstances, in the present case, is not complete so as to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 279/304 of the IPC. There is absolutely no evidence to show that there was at all a collision, what to talk of the head on collision, in between the car of the accused and motorcycle of the deceased. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the alleged accident was caused by the accused on account of his rash and negligent driving or that the accused caused the death of the deceased motorcyclist on account of the alleged accident. The prosecution, in the considered opinion of this court, has utterly failed to prove by leading convincing or cogent evidence, the factum of the accident and as such, the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden placed upon him and therefore, the accused is liable to be exonerated.
59.Resultantly, the Accused Angad Singh Dua is acquitted of the charges u/s 279/304 of the IPC.
60.Bail bonds u/s 437A of the Cr.P.C. have already been furnished and accepted which shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 39 of 40 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2024.02.05
16:25:24
+0530
61.File be consigned to Record Room, after compliance of necessary formalities.
Digitally
signed by RAJ
RAJ KUMAR
(Announced in the Open Court) KUMAR
Date:
2024.02.05
16:25:53
(Judgment contains 40 pages) +0530
(Raj Kumar)
ASJ-05, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
05.02.2024
SC 28031/2016 State Vs. Angad Singh Dua FIR no. 428 /2014 PS Civil Lines Page no. 40 of 40