Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit on 14 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA NIRMAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -09,
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT / SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Cr CASES 2919/2018
STATE Vs. ROHIT & ANR.
FIR NO. 623/2017
PS JAITPUR
JUDGMENT
a. CNR NO. DLSE020124832018
b. Name of the Mohd. Sahabuddin
Complainant
c. Name of the accused & (1) Rohit
his parentage and s/o Late Sh. Rakesh
address r/o H.No. 227, Gali no.3, Surya
Vihar, Part-III, Saitpur, Faridabad, Haryana.
(2) Yamin Khan s/o Sh. Shahid Khan r/o H.No. 149 & 112, VPO Tilpat, Old Faridabad, Haryana d. Offence charged U/s 279/337/304A IPC & under Section 56/66(1)/192 MV Act & 146/196 MV ACT e. Date of commission of 27.12.2017 offence f. Date of Institution 18.04.2018 g. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty Cr CASES 2919/2018 PAGE 1 OF 11 STATE Vs. ROHIT & ANR.
FIR NO. 623/2017 SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
PS JAITPUR NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.14
16:24:48 +0530
h. Order Reserved on 09.04.2025
i. Date of Pronouncement 14.05.2025
j. Final Order Acquitted
Present: Sh. Jayaditya, Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Rohit with Ld. counsel Sh. Randhir Singh. Ms. Aanchal, Ld. counsel for accused Yameen along with accused Yamin.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 27.12.2017, at about 4.32 pm -5.00 pm, at gali no.11, Jhuggi Shiv Puri, Meethapur, Badarpur, New Delhi,within the jurisdiction of PS Jaitpur, accused Rohit was found driving vehicle i.e. offending auto bearing registration no. HR38R7642 in a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the same, he hit Master Miraj @ Dallu, causing his death not amounting to culpable homicide and also hit Master Saddam causing simple injuries to him. It is further alleged that accused Rohit, on the above-mentioned date, time and place, was found driving the abovementioned auto, belonging to co-accused Yameen, without valid insurance, permit, fitness and thereby accused Rohit has committed offences punishable u/s 279/337/304A IPC & Section 56/66(1)/192 MV Act & Section 146/196 MV Act and accused Yameen has committed offences punishable u/s 56/66(1)/192 MV Act & Section 146/196 MV Act.
Cr CASES 2919/2018 PAGE 2 OF 11
STATE Vs. ROHIT & ANR.
FIR NO. 623/2017 SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
PS JAITPUR
NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.14
16:24:53 +0530
2. This case was registered on the statement of eye witness/complainant Mohd. Sahabuddin who stated that he works as a balloon seller. On 27.12.2017, he came back to his home after selling ballons at around 12.10 pm. At around 4.30-5.00 pm, one auto driver speedily and carelessly brought his auto from the man road towards Gali no. 11 colony, where their slums were built and outside the same slums, in the lane, his brother's son namely Miraj @ Dallu, aged about 04 years, his neighbour's namely Kalam children namely Kashim @ Saddam, aged about 12 years and Maqsood aged about 05 years were playing outside the said slums. The driver of the aforesaid offending auto hit his brother's son Miraj @ Dallu and also hit his neighbour Kalam's children and started running towards the colony. Thereafter, the complainant along with his other associates caught driver of the offending auto from the slum and huge crowd also gathered there, and started beating the driver of the offending auto bearing registration no. HR38R7642, whose name later on revealed as Rohit s/o Late Rakesh. In the meantime, somebody from the crowd made 100 number call. After sometime, police arrived at the spot and took all the three injured children to hospital. Accused Rohit had caused injuries to his brother's son namely Miraj @ Dallu and his neighbour's children Kashim @ Saddam and Maqsood while driving the offending auto at a very fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. During the course of investigation, it was also found out that accused Rohit was driving the offending auto without valid insurance paper, permit and fitness and the name of owner of the offending auto was revealed to be Yamin Cr CASES 2919/2018 PAGE 3 OF 11 STATE Vs. ROHIT & ANR.
FIR NO. 623/2017PS JAITPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.14 16:24:57 +0530 Khan. Accused Yamin Khan was also served with the notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C and he was also bound down in the present case for offences punishable under Section 56/66(1)/192/146/196 MV Act. After completion of investigation, final report in the form of charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304A & under Section 56/66(1)/192/146/196 MV Act was filed against both the accused persons for trial.
3. After taking cognizance of the offences by the court, both the accused persons were summoned. Pursuant to their appearance, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, copy of charge sheet was supplied to them. Subsequently, after perusal of the judicial file and hearing the parties, a prima facie case against the accused Rohit for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/337/304A IPC r/w Section 56/66(1)/192 MV Act & Section 146/196 MV Act was found to be made out and a prima facie case against the accused Yameen for commission of offence punishable under Section 56/66(1)/192 MV Act & Section 146/196 MV Act was found to be made out. Accordingly, on 12.02.2020, formal notice of accusation for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/337/304A IPC r/w Section 56/66(1)/192 MV Act & Section 146/196 MV Ac was served upon the accused Rohit and formal notice of accusation for commission of offence punishable under Section 56/66(1)/192 MV Act & Section 146/196 MV Act was served upon accused Yameen, to which they both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was posted for Prosecution Evidence.
Cr CASES 2919/2018 PAGE 4 OF 11
STATE Vs. ROHIT & ANR.
FIR NO. 623/2017 Digitally signed
PS JAITPUR SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.14
16:25:01 +0530
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against both the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, examined the following witnesses; viz.
i) PW-1 Mohd. Sahabuddin (eye witness),
ii) PW-2 Kalam Mohammad (eye witness),
iii) PW-3 Raiz (public/eye witness),
iv) PW-4 T.U. Siddiqui (mechanical inspector),
v) PW-5 HC Sandeep (police witness),
vi) PW-6 SI Shubh Narayan(IO),
vii) HC Dilpreet (MHCM, witness to register no.19),
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, also relied upon the following documents:
1) complaint of complainant as Ex. PW1/1,
2) mechanical inspection report of offending auto as Ex. PW4/A,
3) seizure memo of offending auto as Ex. PW5/A,
4) seizure memo of RC of offending vehicle and DL of accused as Ex. PW5/B,
5) arrest memo and personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW5/C & Ex. PW5/D respectively,
6) photographs of offending auto as Ex. P-1 colly,
7) Rukka as Ex. PW6/A,
8) site plan as Ex. PW6/B,
9) notice u/s 133 MV Act upon owner of offending auto namely Yameen as Ex. PW6/C,
10) dead body identification memo as Ex. PW6/D & Ex. PW6/E respectively,
11) dead body handing over memo as Ex. PW6/F,
12) copy of entry no. 3035, in register no.19 showing deposit of offending auto in Malkhana as Ex. PW7/A (OSR),
13) copy of entry no. 03/21/19, in register no. 21, showing auction of offending auto as Ex. PW7/B (OSR).
Cr CASES 2919/2018 PAGE 5 OF 11
STATE Vs. ROHIT & ANR.
FIR NO. 623/2017
PS JAITPUR Digitally signed
SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.14
16:25:04 +0530
6. In addition to the above-mentioned witnesses, both the accused also admitted MLC No. 956/17, dated 27.12.2017 of Master Saddam, MLC No. 957/17, dated 27.12.2017 of Master Dallu, Postmortem report no. 1824/17 and FIR no.623/17 along with DD no.
49A and DD No. 53A, both dated 27.12.2017 as Ex. A1 to A4 respectively in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C vide order dated 18.10.2023, hence, the said witnesses were dropped on the submissions of Ld. APP for State.
7. After prosecution evidence, statement of both the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating circumstance led against them during the trial by the prosecution witnesses were put to them, affording them an opportunity to give their explanation, if any. Both the accused pleaded innocence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, they preferred not to lead defence evidence and therefore, DE was closed vide order dated 12.02.2025. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
8. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. counsel for the accused and gone through the case file carefully. As all the eyewitnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile, It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that evidence of hostile witness can be read on material points and it can be used to prove the offences charged against the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished Cr CASES 2919/2018 PAGE 6 OF 11 STATE Vs. ROHIT & ANR.
FIR NO. 623/2017PS JAITPUR Digitally signed
SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.14
16:25:08 +0530
for the set offences.
9. Per contra, the Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel has argued that main witnesses have turned hostile and despite reading his evidence as a whole, nothing has come on record against the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted for the said offences.
10. The accused Rohit has been charged for the offence under section sections 279/337/304A IPC and section 55/66(1)/192, 146/196 of MV Act. It is noteworthy that for offence under 279/337/304A IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. That accident actually took place;
ii. that a vehicle was driven or ridden by the accused at the time of accident;
iii. that the accused was driving it on a public way; iv. the said vehicle was driven in a rash or negligent manner; v. as a result of such driving hurt has been caused to the victim; and vi. as a result of such driving death of any person has been caused.
11. While the first, second and third ingredients need to be established beyond reasonable doubt with the aid of eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence, the fifth and sixth ingredient needs to be proved with the help of medical documents and expert witnesses. As Cr CASES 2919/2018 PAGE 7 OF 11 STATE Vs. ROHIT & ANR.
FIR NO. 623/2017 SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL PS JAITPUR NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.14 16:25:12 +0530 far as the fourth ingredient is concerned the same is required to be proved with judicial measurements and with the judicial interpretation as already established.
12. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
13. It is noteworthy that PW1Mohd. Sahabuddin, PW-2 Mr. Kalam Mohammad and PW3 Raiz all are the star witnesses as alleged to be eye witness in the present case, upon whose statements prosecution was relying but all of them did not support the case of the prosecution and completely turned hostile. All of them even failed to identify the accused Rohit as well as the offending vehicle in the court.It was the testimony of these witnesses only which could have proved crucial in sustaining the conviction of accused as they all are the eye witness but rather their testimony has completely exonerated the accused from all the allegations levelled in present case.
14. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in ombnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was observed by the Apex Cr CASES 2919/2018 PAGE 8 OF 11 STATE Vs. ROHIT & ANR.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 623/2017 SEEMA by SEEMA
PS JAITPUR NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.14
16:25:17 +0530
Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under: -
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
15. Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of such hostile witnesses can be relied in part. In the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to help the prosecution. The alleged eyewitnesses have even failed to identify the accused Rohit as well as the offending vehicle in the court. Therefore, there is nothing on record to connect the accused Rohit with the commission of the offence under sections 279/337/304A IPC and section 55/66(1)/192, 146/196 of MV Act.
16. With Respect to accused No.2 Yameen also prosecution has failed to prove its case against him u/s 55/66(1)/192, 146/196 of MV Act. As the prosecution has failed to prove that the Registration of the alleged offending vehicle was in name of the accused Yameen, no witnesses has been examined qua the same and PW-6 SI Subh Narayan has stated himself that he had given notice under section 133 MV Act, Cr CASES 2919/2018 PAGE 9 OF 11 STATE Vs. ROHIT & ANR.
FIR NO. 623/2017PS JAITPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.14
16:25:21 +0530
Ex.PW6/A to accused Yameen. He has stated in his cross-examination " It is correct that accused Yameen khan handed over me one receipt with respect to the sale of offending auto to one Shrikant s/o Kuldeep. It is also correct that I had also served a hand written notice to said Shrikant after verification from the concerned Transport authority, But he could not be traced." Thus IO himself has verified the details of one Shrikant and thereby prosecution has failed to prove the case against Accused no.2 Yameen beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution.
18. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of accused person, the prosecution was required to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. eyewitnesses have turned completely hostile. There is no evidence to link the accused person with the crime charged against him. His driving the auto in rash and negligent manner is not proved during the trial. Further, the ingredients of the offence are not fulfilled from the material on record. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offences in question and thus, the accused person is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Cr CASES 2919/2018 PAGE 10 OF 11
STATE Vs. ROHIT & ANR.
Digitally signed
FIR NO. 623/2017 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
PS JAITPUR NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.14
16:25:27 +0530
19. Resultantly, the accused person namely, Rohit is hereby found not guilty. He is hereby acquitted of the offences under section 279/337/304A IPC and section 55/66(1)/192 MV Act & Section 146/196 of MV Act. Accused Yameen is found not guilty of offence under section 55/66(1)/192 MV Act & Section 146/196 of MV Act and hereby acquitted.
20. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.14
16:25:39 +0530
Announced in the Open (SEEMA NIRMAL)
On 14.05.2025 JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts,
New Delhi/14.05.2025
It is certified by me that this judgment contains 11 pages and each page is digitally signed by me. Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.14 16:25:43 +0530 (SEEMA NIRMAL) JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/14.05.2025 Cr CASES 2919/2018 PAGE 11 OF 11 STATE Vs. ROHIT & ANR.
FIR NO. 623/2017PS JAITPUR