Delhi District Court
State vs . Praveen Brar on 21 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR, MM-04,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
STATE Vs. PRAVEEN BRAR
FIR No. 82/2011
PS: MIANWALI NAGAR
U/S: 279/304-A IPC
JUDGMENT
Sr. no. of the case : 292/2/11
Unique Case ID no. : 02401R0325702011
Date of commission of offence : 02.04.2011
Date of institution of the case : 21.07.2011
Name of the complainant : HC Rajender Singh
Name of accused and address : Praveen Brar
S/o Sh. Dev Raj Brar
R/o F-06, Avani Vihar,
Daldal Seoni, Mowa,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 279/304-A IPC and u/s
3/181 M.V. Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted u/s 279/304A
IPC. Separately convicted
u/s 3/181 MV Act on
pleading guilty.
Date on which reserved for judgment : 21.01.2016
Date of announcing of judgment : 21.01.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION ALLEGATIONS :
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/304-A IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.04.2011 at about 08.00 PM at main Rohtak Road near metro pillar no. 313 towards Peeragarhi the accused was driving a Safari Car bearing no. HR13E8695 in a rash and negligent manner. While so driving he hit against a pedestrian namely Luv Kush Kumar who died due to the injury sustained in the accident. During the investigation it was revealed that the accused was not having proper FIR No. 82/2011, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 1/6 driving license. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused.
CHARGE :
3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, notice for offence punishable under section 279/304-A IPC and 3/181 MV Act served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial accused voluntarily pleaded guilty for commission of offence u/s 3/181 MV Act without prejudice to his defence.
4. Prosecution has examined following witnesses in support of its case.
5. PW1 Sh. Rahul Prasad exhibited on record dead body identification memo of deceased Luvkush Kumar as Ex.PW1/A and his statement as Ex.PW1/B.
6. PW2 Sh. S.P. Deswal, General Manager at Swastik Pipes deposed that offending vehicle bearing no. HR-13E-8695 belongs to their factory and accused was an employee in the factory. It is stated by him that accused was driving the vehicle on 02.04.2011. He exhibited his reply to notice U/s 133 MV Act as PW2/A.
7. PW3 ASI Janglesh was the Duty Officer, who exhibited on record DD entries no.23A and 24A regarding accident in question as Ex.PW3/A and PW3/B. He also exhibited FIR as Ex.PW3/C and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW3/D.
8. PW5 SI Balwinder Singh stated that vide DD No.31A dated 08.04.2011, he came to know that victim Luvkush had expired in Safdarjung Hospital. Thereafter, he written a letter Ex.PW5/A to MS of the hospital for constitution of board to conduct postmortem. Prior to postmortem he recorded identification statement made by brothers of the victim, which is Ex.PW1/B. After postmortem he handed over the body of the victim to his brother.
9. PW6 ASI Rajender Singh stated that on 02.04.2011 he was posted at PS Mianwali Nagar. At about 08:15 PM DD entry no.23A was handed FIR No. 82/2011, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 2/6 over to him regarding accident in question. On that, he alongwith Ct.
Gurvinder went to the spot of accident, where the offending TATA Safari was standing and one PCR van was also there. At the spot he came to know that injured has been taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. He left Constable Gurvinder at the spot and went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. He collected MLC of the injured, however, the injured was unfit for statement. He tried to search the eye witness at the hospital and also at the spot after return, however, he could not find any. Thereafter, he prepared rukka (Ex.PW6/A) on the basis of DD and sent Ct. Gurvinder to the police station for registering the FIR. On receiving copy of the FIR, he prepared site plan Ex.PW6/B, seizure memo of offending TATA Safari Car is Ex.PW6/C. It is stated that on 03.04.2011 he came to know about the owner of the vehicle from the documents available in the vehicle. The vehicle was registered in the name of Swastik Pipes. He gave notice U/s 133 MV Act (Ex.PW6/D) to Director of the same. The same was replied vide reply Ex.PW2/A. It is stated that on 04.04.2011, accused came to the police station and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW6/F. RC of the vehicle seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/G, learning licence of accused was seized vide memo Ex.PW6/H and insurance of the vehicle seized vide memo Ex.PW6/I. Thereafter, he came to know that victim had been shifted to Safdarjung Hospital and he was still not fit for statement. He got mechanical inspection of the vehicle done, report of same is Ex.PW6/J. On 07.04.2011 he went to Spesic Centre in search of eye witness and met one person namely Sonu who stated that he made call to the police regarding the accident, statement of said Sonu was recorded and site plan was again prepared at the instance of Sonu, which is Ex.PW6/K. On 08.04.2011 he came to know that injured had expired, he got postmortem of the deceased conducted. He moved application for conducting judicial TIP of accused, however, accused refused to take part in TIP. It is stated by him that when accused and the witness were going out of the Court, the witness identified the accused. He exhibited postmortem report of the deceased as Ex.PW6/L. He exhibited photographs of the offending vehicle FIR No. 82/2011, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 3/6 as PW6/P.
10. PW4 Ct. Gurvinder deposed on the same lines as PW6.
11. In the present case there was only one eye witness of the alleged incident i.e. Sh. Sonu Sharma. However, presence of this witness could not be secured despite issuing summons and warrants through DCP concerned. Since, the only eye witness Sonu Sharma remained unserved even through DCP concerned, it would be a futile exercise to proceed with the prosecution evidence. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs. reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "in case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date". As such, PE was closed.
THE DEFENCE :
12. Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
THE ARGUMENTS:
13. Ld. APP for state has argued that on a combined reading of prosecution witnesses testimony, offence U/s 279 and 304-A IPC are proved beyond doubt.
14. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has argued that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused. It is argued that the identity of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle has not been proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. Further none of the witness have stated regarding manner of driving by the accused.
THE FINDINGS:
Offence U/s 279 and 304-A IPC:
15. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel FIR No. 82/2011, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 4/6 for the accused have been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully.
16. The prosecution in this case had to prove the following :
i) Firstly, the identity of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle; AND
ii) Secondly, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the accused, causing death of victim Luvkush Kumar @ Prasad.
17. In present case the only eye witness of the case namely Sonu Sharma could not be examined as he remained untraceable despite sending summons/warrants through DCP concerned. In the absence of testimony of the eye witness Sonu Sharma it cannot be held that accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident in question.
18. In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 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 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 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 accused, having effect of discharge.
This provision is almost never used by the Courts.
FIR No. 82/2011, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 5/619. It has been held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put to an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
20. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/304A IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused. It is to be noted that accused has already pleaded guilty, convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable u/s 3/181 MV Act.
21. In the present matter, case of the prosecution was based solely on the testimony of eye witness namely Sonu Sharma who could not be examined before the Court as stated above. Thus, there is no cogent evidence on record to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of accident or that he was driving in rash and negligent manner.
22. 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 Parveen Brar qua offences u/s 279/304A IPC and hereby releases the accused Parveen Brar under sections 279/304A IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
23. Accused has furnished fresh bail/surety bonds in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The same has been accepted. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 21.01.2016 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 6 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 82/2011, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 6/6