Delhi District Court
State vs . Sandeep Kumar on 30 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI FIR No. : 948/05 PS : Paschim Vihar Offence complained of : 279/338 IPC Date of commission of offence : 28.10.2005 Unique Case ID No. : 02401R1330762006 C C No. : 2365/2/10 State vs. Sandeep Kumar S/o Rishal Singh R/o Village Hasanpur PS Murthal Post Office Murthal, Sonepat Haryana .............. Accused Sh. Nemi Chand S/o Ram Dayal R/o F1/63, Sultanpuri New Delhi ........... Complainant Date of Institution : 17.10.2006 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. Date of reserving judgment/ order : 30.01.2014 Date of pronouncement : 30.01.2014 Final Order : Acquitted FIR No.948/2005 State Vs. Sandeep Kumar BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION 1.
Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/338 IPC.
ALLEGATIONS
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 28.10.2005 at about 6.20 AM at DTC bus depot, Nangloi, near red light main Rohtak Road, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Paschim Vihar, the accused Sandeep Kumar was driving an Alto car bearing number DL4CAA 3503 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in such a manner, the accused hit against a scooter bearing no. DL4SAQ 3107 and caused grievous injuries to the complainant Nemi Chand. Thus, accused Sandeep Kumar is alleged to have committed offence punishable under section 279/338 IPC.
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the injured Nemi Chand, an FIR bearing number 948/05 under section 279/338 IPC was lodged at Police Station Paschim Vihar.
CHARGE
4. After investigation, chargesheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 27.03.2006.The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the charge sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 279/338 IPC was framed against accused Sandeep Kumar, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 02.02.2007 JUDICIAL RESOLUTION FIR No.948/2005 State Vs. Sandeep Kumar
5. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution that to beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:
1. That the accident actually took place.
2. That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
3. That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
6. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 10 witnesses.
7. Prosecution has examined only one witness i.e PW Satish Chand who deposed that he is the registered owner / superdar of the vehicle i.e scooter bearing no. DL4SAQ 3107 which was being driven by his brother Nemi Chand. Scooter was later on seized by the police and he got the same released on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW1/A.
8. During cross examination, he deposed that he was not the owner of the said vehicle involved in the present case and his deceased brother Nemi Chand was the registered owner of the same. He got the same released on superdari. He had not brought the brought in the court on that day. He further deposed that the said scooter had already been disposed off by the LRs of his deceased brother.
9. PW Nemi Chand is the eye witness and the injured. However, the said witness has expired during the trial. Vide order dated 30.09.2013, the name of the said witness was dropped from the list of witnesses.
FIR No.948/2005 State Vs. Sandeep Kumar
10.All the other remaining witnesses are merely formal witnesses and none of them is a witness to the accident, sufficient only to prove that Nemi Chand had suffered injuries and that an FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged on the same day at PS Paschim Vihar vide FIR bearing No.948/2005.
11.In absence of the testimony of eye witness, the prosecution can never prove that the injuries caused to Nemi Chand in the present case was a result of an act of accused and that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing number DL4CAA 3503 which was being driven by the accused Sandeep Kumar in a rash and negligent manner.
12.The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/s 279/338 IPC. The case is at the stage of PE, however, in absence of the testimony of complainant and the eye witness, there is nothing incriminating against the accused for proceeding further and recording the statement of remaining formal witnesses would be futile and wastage of judicial time, resources and money.
13.In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 ( Coram : 7 S. P. BHARUCHA, C.J.I., S. S. M. QUADRI, R. C. LAHOTI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, DORAISWAMY RAJU, Mrs. RUMA PAL, A. PASAYAT, JJ.) the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few FIR No.948/2005 State Vs. Sandeep Kumar provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. Section 309, dealing with power to postpone or adjourn proceedings, provides generally for every inquiry or trial, being proceeded with as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same to be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Courts finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following days to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. Explanation2 to Section 309 confers power on the Court to impose costs to be paid by the prosecution or the accused, in appropriate cases; and putting the parties on terms while granting an adjournment or postponing of proceedings. This power to impose costs is rarely exercised by the Courts. Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the FIR No.948/2005 State Vs. Sandeep Kumar accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts. In appropriate cases, inherent power to the High Court, under Section 482 can be invoked to make such orders, as may be necessary, to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. The power is wide and, if judiciously and consciously exercised, can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary on account of delay in proceedings or for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings. In appropriate cases, the High Courts have exercised their jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of first information report and investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law was clearly made out. Such power can certainly be exercised on a case being made out of breach of fundamental right conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay's case referred to such power, vesting in the High Court (vide paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it was clear that even apart from Article 21, the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting to an end, by making FIR No.948/2005 State Vs. Sandeep Kumar appropriate orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted."
14.Accordingly, in the opinion of the court, in the light of the above cited judgment, the court needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/338 IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused.
Final Order
15.In absence of the testimony of eyewitness Nemi Chand and in the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under s.258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Sandeep qua offences u/s 279/338 IPC and hereby releases the accused Sandeep under sections 279/338 IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
16.As per section 437A Cr.P.C accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of like amount. Time sought to furnish bail bond. Granted.
ANNOUNCED ON 30.01.2014 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court/30.01.2014 Certified that this judgment contains 7 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SAUMYA CHAUHAN)
MM07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court/30.01.2014
FIR No.948/2005 State Vs. Sandeep Kumar