Delhi District Court
State vs Manish Srivastava on 15 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT; DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY: MS. DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
Cr. Case No. 25385/2018
In the matter of :
State Vs. Manish Srivastava
FIR No. 139/2018
PS : Dwarka Sector-23
U/s: 279/337/338 IPC
1. CNR No. of the case : DLSW02-027661-2018
2. Date of commission of : 16.05.2018
offence
3. Date of institution of the : 16.07.2018
case
4. Name of the Complainant : Mrs. Anuradha Kundoo
W/o Dalbir Singh
R/o C-503, Plot No.3, Sector-23,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
5. Name, parentage and : Manish Srivastava
address of accused S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Srivastava
R/o B-51, Top Floor,
Dilshad Colony,
Delhi - 11009.
6. Offence charged : U/s 279/338 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Date of final arguments 01.04.2026
State Vs. Manish Srivastava
Digitally
FIR No. 139/2018 signed by
PS Dwarka Sector-23 DEEPALI Page No.1 of 13
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.15
17:06:43
+0530
9. Date of judgment 15.05.2026.
10. Final Order : Accused Manish Srivastava
stands acquitted for offence u/s
279/338 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Present case emanates from complaint filed by one Mrs. Anuradha, W/o Sh. Dalbir Singh, on the basis of which aforesaid FIR was registered u/s. 279/337 IPC. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed u/s. 279/337/338 IPC. Upon filing of chargesheet, cognizance of the offence was taken, accused namely Manish Srivastava was summoned, thereafter, copy of chargesheet was supplied to him and charge was framed u/s. 279 and 338 IPC against accused. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:-
2.1. PW-1/Mrs. Anuradha Kundoo- She is the complainant and deposed regarding the events as on the date of incident and investigation done in her presence.
2.2 PW-2/Divya Vijayraghwan- She is the daughter of the complainant who had booked the cab in question on the date of incident after visiting the doctor towards their home.
2.3 PW-3 / Chander Prakash- He is the mechanical inspector who inspected the vehicle i.e. Chevrolet Beat bearing registration no.
State Vs. Manish Srivastava FIR No. 139/2018 Digitally signed by PS Dwarka Sector-23 DEEPALI Page No.2 of 13 DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.15 17:06:56 +0530 UP-14FT-8654 and filed the inspection report.
2.4 PW4/ASI Karan Singh - He is the IO of the present case who has undertaken the investigation in the present case upon receiving the DD no.
39A dated 16.05.2018 regarding accident of vehicle bearing registration no. UP-14FT-8654 near Booster Pump, Sector-20, Dwarka.
2.5 PW5/Sahil (Technicial), Venketesh Hospital - He has proved the handwriting of Dr. Vinay Gupta who has left the services of the said hospital.
2.6 PW6/Dr. Vinay Gupta - He was working in Venketshwar Hospital and prepared the MLC no. 768 and 769 of the complainant and her daughter.
2.7 PW7/HC Ajay Yadav - He had joined the investigation with the IO.
3. All the witnesses were duly cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused. During the course of evidence, Prosecution relied upon following documents including those admitted by accused persons u/s. 294 Cr.PC:-
S. Exhibits Documents
No.
1 Ex.PW1/A Complaint of the complainant dated
24.03.2019.
2 MarkX1 (colly) Medical documents/ discharge summary
which were filed by the IO.
3 Ex.PW1/B (colly) Complaint with signature of complainant at
Point A.
4 Ex. PW1/C Protest Petition
5 Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-2 Photographs of the cab.
6 Mark - X4 Statement of Ms. Diya Vijayraghwan
u/s 161 CrPC.
State Vs. Manish Srivastava
FIR No. 139/2018
PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.3 of 13
Digitally
signed by
DEEPALI
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.15
17:07:02
+0530
7 Ex. PW3/A Mechanical Inspection Report of vehicle
bearing registration no. UP-14-FT-8654.
8 Ex. PW4/A Rukka.
9 Ex. PW4/B Site Plan.
10 Ex. PW4/D Seizure memo of vehicle bearing registration
no. UP-14-FT-8654.
11 Ex. P-7 (colly) Four photographs of the spot.
12 Ex. PW5/A Reply to summons alongwith authority letter
and last address of Dr. Vinay Gupta given by
Sahil, Technician on behalf of Venketeshwar Hospital.
13 Ex. PW6/A and MLC bearing No. 768 and 769.
Ex. PW6/B 14 Ex. PW6/C Request Letter of police for taking statement of victims.
15 Ex. A-1 Copy of FIR No. 330/2022 16 Ex. A-2 Copy of FIR & Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
17 Ex. A3 DD No. 19A dated 27.07.2022.
4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC on 15.01.2026, wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to him wherein he did not opted to lead defence in order to prove his defence. As such, the matter was listed for final arguments.
5. Final arguments heard. Record perused. I have heard Ld. Counsel for accused and Ld. APP for the State as well as perused the material and evidence on record.
6. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the complainant as well as State Vs. Manish Srivastava FIR No. 139/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 DEEPALIPage No.4 of 13 SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.15 17:07:15 +0530 her daughter have suffered injuries when the vehicle being driven by the accused in which the complainant alongwith her daughter was traveling was hit by another vehicle, due to the fault of the accused. It is highlighted by the Ld. APP that the accused driver was driving the vehicle in high speed which could also be inferred from the mechanical report which reflects that the damage being suffered by the vehicle. Further, the complainant / victim as well as her daughter (PW2) have also identified the accused before the court. Hence, the accused be convicted for the charged offence.
Per contra, Ld counsel for the accused has argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is stated that the accused was not driving the vehicle in high speed or has jumped the red light as alleged. Initially, the IO had filed the untrace report as the another vehicle which hit the victim vehicle could not be traced. Upon this, the protest petition was filed by the complainant only in order to extort money from accused Manish Srivastava. It has been argued that the complainant has made false allegations against the accused only because the actual culprit could not be traced. Further, there are major contradictions in the testimony of the complainant which reflects the improvement made upon by the complainant. As such, accused be acquitted of the charged offence.
7. As per the prosecution's case, on 16.05.2018, at around 07:40 p.m when they reached near Jal Board Office, Sector -20, T-Point, Dwarka, within the jurisdiction of PS Sector 23, accused who was a cab driver of the offending vehicle was driving his vehicle in a high speed and jumped the red light, as a result of which it got hit by another vehicle and the complainant alongwith her daughter suffered grievous injuries.
State Vs. Manish Srivastava
FIR No. 139/2018
PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.5 of 13
Digitally
signed by
DEEPALI
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.15
17:07:21
+0530
8. The complainant in her initial statement / complaint Ex. PW1/B, as admitted by her, has stated that on the day of incident, she alongwith her daughter (PW2) were coming after meeting with the doctor to their home. At around 07:40 p.m when the reached near Jal Board Office, Sector-20, T- Point, then her cab was got hit by another vehicle. It is stated that the collusion was so strong that she could not see as to whether which vehicle had hit the another vehicle. Then, a public person made a call on 100 number, upon which the PCR van came to the spot and took her and her daughter to the hospital.
It is to be noted that after the investigation which was undertaken by the IO, untrace report was filed before the court. However, being not satisfied with the investigation, protest petition Ex. PW1/C was filed by the complainant, upon which directions were given for further investigation on the aspect of negligence of the cab driver in which the complainant and her daughter were traveling. However again, untrace report was filed by the IO. The court considering that the complainant has clearly stated that the driver of the Uber cab had jumped the red light due to which the vehicle in which she was traveling collided with another vehicle, cognizance was taken and accused Manish Kumar Srivastava was summoned.
9. It be noted that the initial statement of the complainant Ex. PW1/B was recorded on 17.05.2018 i.e. the next day, when the incident took place. After this statement, no further statement was given by the complainant or her daughter in order to show the fault of the present accused. In the initial complaint Ex. PW1/B, the complainant has nowhere disclosed that her cab driver i.e. accused was driving the vehicle in a high speed or has jumped a State Vs. Manish Srivastava FIR No. 139/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.6 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.15 17:07:27 +0530 red light due to which the accident took place. Rather it has been clearly stated that the collusion was so strong that she could not see as to which vehicle hit the another vehicle. In the statement, it has also been stated by the complainant i.e. the day before she could not give her statement due to unfit medical condition, however today she is giving her written statement. During her deposition before the court as PW1, the complainant has alleged that her cab driver i.e. 'my driver was driving the cab in high speed and the traffic signal was red at that time. When I asked the cab driver to stop the car when he jumped the red light and while we were in the centre of the intersect another vehicle collided with the car and due the impact out car turn over and my daughter sustained injuries'. This allegation is totally missing in the initial statement Ex. PW1/B dated 17.05.2018. During her cross examination, when the witness has been confronted with these allegations, the complainant PW1 has stated that she was not in her senses at the time statements Ex.PW1/B was given by her and the signatures were obtained by the police. It is also stated that no other vehicle were visible on the road at the time of the incident.
Perusal of Ex. PW1/B clearly reflects that the complainant has stated that a day before she was not in a fit medical condition due to which statement could not be given by her but now the same is being given in written which reflects that she was oriented while giving her statement. PW-4 ASI Karan Singh has also stated in his cross examination that the statement was written by the husband of the complainant on her dictation which was duly signed by her in his presence. It is stated by the IO ASI Karan Singh that at that time of giving the statement, complainant Ms. Anuradha was already in the general ward of the hospital. Witness PW-4 i.e. State Vs. Manish Srivastava FIR No. 139/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 DEEPALI Page No.7 of 13 SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.15 17:07:33 +0530 IO ASI Karan Singh has also admitted that at the time of giving the statement, the daughter of the complainant Ms. Divya had also not given any statement regarding the fact that accused had jumped any red light and accident took place because of his negligence. As per the IO, no additional complaint was given by the complainant or by her daughter except Ex.PW1/B and Ex. PW4/D1. PW-4 / IO has also stated that at the time when he reached at the spot the car was not over turned. This statement of the IO to this effect is also corroborated by the mechanical expert PW-3 Sh. Chander Prakash who has stated that no damage was found on the roof of the vehicle and in his opinion, the vehicle was not over turned. PW-7 HC Ajay Yadav who was involved in the investigation with the IO ASI Karan Singh has also stated that at the time when he alongwith the IO reached at the spot, the car was not over turned as stated by the complainant rather the same was parked at the road.
10. It be noted that the complainant as well as her daughter in their statements have remain silent qua the allegations which have been leveled after filing of the untrace report. Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW4/D1 do not reflects any such allegations against the accused. Though the complainant upon being contradicted has stated that she was not in her senses, PW-6 i.e. Dr. Vinay Gupta from Delhi Government Dispensary who had treated the complainant as well as her daughter on 16.05.2018 while he was working in Venketshwar Hospital has admitted during his cross examination that 'as per the MLC, both the victims were in conscious states and in sense". Perusal of MLC Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B also reflects the same finding i.e. the complainant as well as her daughter were conscious and oriented. Thus, the State Vs. Manish Srivastava FIR No. 139/2018 DEEPALI PS Dwarka Sector-23 SRIVASTAVA Page No.8 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.15 17:07:40 +0530 explanation given by the complainant for not mentioning the allegations against the accused in her earlier statements seems doubtful and could not be relied upon. It could also be seen that the complainant has admitted during her cross examination that the fact that the IO obtained her signature without reading out her complaint statement has also not been made part of the protest petition which also infers that the complainant has improved upon this aspect, only at the time of her deposition before the court.
11. PW-2 Divya Vajayraghwan, deposed that on the day of incident, she had booked a cab from Uber and a cab bearing registration no. UP-14- FT-8654 was assigned. After visiting the doctor, they left for home in that cab, but when the cab reached near Jal Board Office situated at Sector-20 road, cab driver was driving his cab in high speed and also jumped red light. She deposed that her mother i.e. PW-1 had asked accused to slow down the speed of the vehicle but driver / accused of the said cab did not stop and due to which their cab hit with some other vehicle and due to which glasses of the vehicle got damaged and she also sustained bleeding.
However, when the witness has been confronted with her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC as Mark X-4, she has disputed her statement recorded by stating that no such statement was recorded by the IO and had denied the suggestion that the accused had not jumped the red light. It be noted that the Ld. Predecessor of this court has also noted the demeanor of the Ld. Counsel for the witness and had directed him not to prompt and guide the witness which also raises adverse apprehensions about the credibility of witness PW2 Ms. Divya Vijayraghwan.
State Vs. Manish Srivastava FIR No. 139/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 DEEPALI Page No.9 of 13 SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.15 17:07:45 +0530
12. Though both the complainant as well as her daughter have leveled the allegations of rash and negligent driving against the accused in the deposition before the court and after the untrace report was filed by the IO and further investigation was conducted by the IO, in light of the various contradictions, their testimonies cannot be made the sole basis for convicting the accused. The complainant has deposed in contradiction to other prosecution witness with respect to her being in conscious state, over-turning of the vehicle as well as having witness the incident. As such, the prosecution had to corroborate the testimony of the complainant with any independent witness who could have the witnessed the incident alongwith the role of the accused. Though, a person has informed the police upon which the PCR van reached at the place of incident but as per the prosecution case, he had not witnessed the incident. No other independent witness has been examined by the prosecution which could corroborate the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2.
13. During their depositions before the court, though the statement about the place of incident is in consonance with her initial complaint PW-1/B, however victim improved upon her version before court, to the extent that the accident took place due to the fault of the cab driver and not of any other person. It is to be noted that in the initial complaint Ex. PW1/B, as well as the protest petition, no apprehensions have been casted upon the voluntariness / credibility of the initial statement but at the time of deposition before the court, the complainant as well as PW2 have disputed their earlier statements. In the initial complaint, complainant has stated that the collusion was so strong that she could not see as to which vehicle hit the another vehicle but in her deposition before the court, it has been stated that another State Vs. Manish Srivastava FIR No. 139/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Digitally Page No.10 of 13 signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.15 17:07:52 +0530 vehicle collided with their vehicle due to which their vehicle turned over.
14. The prosecution has also not examined any public/independent witness who could testify to the fact, that the incident took place in his/her presence. None of the formal witnesses have also deposed regarding the incident to have been seen by them. At the same time, no CCTV footage or any video has been placed on record in order to prove the complicity of the accused or as to show that the accused has jumped the red light due to which it got hit by another vehicle or its involvement or the manner in which the same was being driven by the accused in order to prove the rash and negligent act. The victim/PW-1 apart from the reason that the initial statement was given at the time when she was not in her sense has not been able to explain as to why the allegations against the accused were missing from her initial complaint. The explanation of her, not being in senses have also not been proved and has remain doubtful in the light of the testimony of the doctor (PW-6) who treated her.
15. As the another vehicle which hit the vehicle, in which the complainant was traveling remained untraced, no clear finding could be given by the mechanical expert with respect to the reasons and the nature of the accident. At the same time, the opinion of the mechanical expert reflects that the vehicle of the complainant was not over turned as alleged.
16. In order to prove rash and negligent act in an accidental case, evidence must be led in order to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle owe a duty to take care and follow the rules, which he has not taken care of or have violated/breached the same by his reckless or negligent behaviour.
State Vs. Manish Srivastava FIR No. 139/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Digitally signed by Page No.11 of 13 DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.15 17:07:57 +0530
Further, his rash and negligent act must have direct nexus with the incident.
In the case of "Mahadev Prasad Kaushik VS. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr" (2008), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case of criminal negligence and act of commission or omission where a reasonable and prudent person, who follows the ordinary conduct or behaviour that was formulated by the State to guide us in a civilized society, would not commit such an act or perform it respectively. That means the commission of an act is said to be negligence when a prudent person will not never do it in such similar circumstances. Also, if a person omits to do something, which a reasonable man will do no matter what, such omission by him/her will constitute negligence. Besides this, negligence as an essential ingredient of criminal negligence has to be established by the prosecution and such negligence must be grossed. Only then, it could amount to criminal negligence.
17. In the facts of the present case, though it cannot be denied that the complainant has suffered injuries on account of being hit by a vehicle from its side, the prosecution has not led any evidence in order to prove the manner and circumstances in which the victim vehicle was being driven by the accused to make it a case of rash and negligent driving. At the same time, no other eye witness has been examined who could depose with respect to the rash and negligent act of the accused. Further, the contradictory statements of the PW-1 regarding the manner of driving by the accused even raise doubt about the involvement of the accused.
18. In the absence of clinching evidence against the accused in order to show any act which is in the nature of rash and negligent, it has to be State Vs. Manish Srivastava FIR No. 139/2018 PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.12 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.15 17:08:05 +0530 concluded that defence of accused is a probable defence and accordingly, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.
19. Culpable rashness or negligence on the part of the accused cannot be presumed. The burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove that it was the accused who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. However, it has not been conclusively proved by the prosecution that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the alleged incident in a rash and negligent manner. As already stated above, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, accused is entitled to be acquitted in the present case of the charge u/s 279/338 IPC. Accordingly, accused stands acquitted of the said charge.
20. In view of the above discussion, accused Manish Srivastava is entitled to be acquitted, therefore, acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 279/338 IPC.
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Pronounced in the open Court Date: 2026.05.15 17:08:11 +0530 on 15th May, 2026. (Deepali Srivastava) Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dwarka Courts: New Delhi.
State Vs. Manish Srivastava
FIR No. 139/2018
PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.13 of 13