Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Singh on 6 August, 2013
FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 IN THE COURT OF VIDYA PRAKASH: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI FIR No.: 336/00 PS: DBG Road U/s 279/338/304A IPC State Vs. Ram Singh Unique ID No.: 02401R1380472008 J U D G M E N T:
______________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case : 729/2
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. Anil Sharma S/o Sh. Giriraj Sharma R/o C175, Jeevan Park, Pankha Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of offence : 30.12.2000
(d) Name of the accused : Ram Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Bharose
R/o WZ552, Nangalrai, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 279/338/304A IPC
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 25.07.2013
(h) Final Order : Convicted U/s 279/338/304A IPC
(i) Date of such order : 06.08.2013
State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 1 of 20
FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The facts of the case in brief are that on 30.12.2000, upon receipt of DD no.10A regarding some road accident, ASI Diwan Singh alongwith Constable Prem Kumar reached the spot i.e. near the red light of Faiz Road, DBG Road crossing where they found one bus bearing registration no. DL1PA5350 alongwith one motorcycle bearing registration no. DL4SZ5407 in accidental condition besides blood on the road. They came to know that three persons who were on the said motorcycle, were got injured and all those three persons had gone to some hospital for treatment. IO ASI Diwan Singh clicked photographs of the spot through his camera. During enquiry, IO ASI Diwan Singh came to know that those injured persons had gone to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital for treatment. IO accordingly, went to the said hospital leaving Constable Prem Kumar at the spot. In the said hospital, IO collected MLC of injured persons namely Anil Sharma and Baby Palak. Injured Baby Palak was reported to have already expired in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Thereafter, IO collected the MLC of both the victims and returned back to the spot and conducted necessary proceedings. Thereafter, FIR in the matter was registered and accused was arrested from the spot itself. After completion of necessary investigation, prepared the challan and filed the same before the Court through concerned SHO.
2. After completion of investigation, accused stood chargesheeted for State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 2 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 offences punishable u/s 279/338/304A IPC.
3. After filing of the charge sheet in the case, accused was supplied the documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C and after hearing arguments, vide order dated 10.11.2003, Notice in terms of Section 251 CrPC for offences punishable u/s 279/338/304A IPC was served upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove charges against accused, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and thereafter PE in the matter was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he stated that he was falsely implicated in the present matter.
5. I have heard arguments advanced at Bar by the Ld. APP for the State and Sh. Jati Ram, Advocate for accused and perused the entire material on record.
6. Before adverting to adjudication upon the arguments advanced at Bar, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter, which is as under.
7. PW1 Sh. Anil Sharma, the complainant herein, deposed that on 30.12.2000, he alongwith his wife and daughter baby Palak had gone to Mandir and on their returning, they reached at red light of Desh Bandhu Gupta Road at about 11:15 AM. While he was waiting for the green signal at the said light, one bus bearing registration no. DLIPA5350, being driven by accused Ram Singh, came from back side and hit his motorcycle from behind as a result of which baby Palak who was in the lap of his wife, fell down on State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 3 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 the road and her stomach was crushed due to the impact of the bus. The said driver was negligent in driving the said bus due to which accident took place. He also sustained injuries on his left face. They went to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Police met them in the said hospital and his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded by the police.
In his cross examination, he stated that the said bus was of route no.853. He denied the suggestion that accused had tried to save him. He admitted that baby Palak fell down from the lap of her mother who was pillion rider at that time.
In his further cross examination conducted on 22.05.13,(witness was recalled U/s 311 Cr.PC on request of accused) PW1 testified that several other vehicles were standing on both sides of his motorcycle at red light traffic signal. He denied the suggestion that accident had taken place on account of his own negligence as he had applied sudden brakes on green light turning to yellow light before red light signal, and his motorcycle dashed against some other vehicle due to which his baby had fallen down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. He also denied the suggestion that there was dent on front side mudguard of his motorcycle and also that accused had taken his bus number DL1PA 5356 towards foot path in order to save them. He explained that he could not tell the police that his baby had been pressed below the tyre of the bus as he himself had also received serious injuries and had also suffered partial paralysis attack. They were taken to hospital by passerby in his car but he could not note down the registration number of the said car. State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 4 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 The bus of the accused had also climbed upon his motorcycle during the course of accident. Police had recorded his statement in the hospital at about 12.15/12.30 P.M. He even could not attend cremation ceremony of his baby, as he was hospitalized at that time. He was not shown any vehicle by police official during the course of investigation. Site plan mark A was not prepared in his presence. He did not see the accused at the spot at the time of accident.
However, during his reexamination by Ld APP for the State, he deposed that he had come to know about the name of driver of offending bus at the spot itself and had mentioned the same in his complaint/statement Ex PW1/A and he had also seen the accident at the spot itself. In view of said contradictory statements, Court question was put to the witness on which he clarified that his statement made before the Court on 19.01.04 and during re examination is correct. He clarified that he got confused during cross examination on behalf of accused due to which he made the statement that he did not see the accused at the spot.
8. PW2 Smt. Monika Sharma, wife of complainant, deposed on the similar lines as of PW1. She further deposed that due to the impact of hitting, baby Palak fell down on the road and her stomach crushed and her intestine came outside. Baby Palak died at the spot. Her husband also sustained injuries on his face. They were taken to the hospital where police reached later on and her statement was recorded by the police. She did not pay any attention towards route number of bus or registration number of the bus, however same could be disclosed by her husband.
State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 5 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 In her cross examination, she stated that front portion of the said bus hit their motorcycle. Due to the impact, they all fell down on the road just attached to the bus and motorcycle fell down for some distance. She was sitting on the motorcycle and accused did not try to bring his bus on pavement to save them.
During her further cross examination conducted on 01.05.13 (witness was recalled U/s 311 Cr.PC on the request of accused) she deposed that there were many vehicles at red light traffic signal. She denied the suggestion that her husband(PW1) had applied sudden brake due to stopping of two other vehicles on the red light as a result of which child in her lap, slipped and sustained injuries. She could not notice in case her husband had also fallen down from the motorcycle due to accident. However, her husband had sustained injuries due to hitting of bus and not due to falling down of motorcycle. He could not tell the exact speed of the bus but reiterated that bus was being driven at high speed and had hit against their motorcycle from behind. They were taken to the hospital by public persons and she was conscious after the accident.
9. PW3 Sh. Vijay Pal, uncle of the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint as narrated to him by the complainant. However, Court made an observation that the testimony of this witness was only hearsay as he was not the eye witness of the accident.
This witness was not at all cross examined on behalf of accused despite being accorded opportunity in this regard.
State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 6 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013
10. PW4 HC Bhuri Singh was the Duty Officer on the relevant date and time who proved the recording of FIR in the matter. He exhibited his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW4/A and copy of FIR as Ex.PW4/B. This witness was not at all cross examined on behalf of accused despite being accorded opportunity in this regard.
11. PW5 Sh. Giri Raj Sharma, deposed that on 31.12.2000, he received dead body of his grant daughter from the hospital who died in the said accident.
This witness was also not at all cross examined on behalf of accused despite being accorded opportunity in this regard.
12. PW6 Constable Prem Kumar deposed that on 30.12.2000, on receipt of DD no.10A, he alongwith IO ASI Dewan Singh reached at the spot where they found one bus no. DL1PA5350 and one motorcycle no.DL4SZ5407 in accidental condition. They came to know that injured had already been removed to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Thereafter, IO went to the said hospital leaving him behind at the spot. Thereafter, IO came back to the spot at about 02:00 PM and handed him one rukka. Accordingly on the instructions of IO, he went to the PS and got the case FIR in the matter registered. Thereafter, he came back to the spot with rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to the IO. Driver of the offending vehicle met them at the spot. Both the aforesaid vehicles were seized vide memos Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B. IO also seized documents of the offending bus vide Ex.PW6/C. Driving license State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 7 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 of accused was also seized vide memo Ex.PW6/D. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW6/E. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW6/F. In his cross examination, he stated that information was received at about 11:00 AM in the morning.
In his further cross examination conducted on 20.06.13(witness was recalled U/s 311 Cr.PC on the request of accused), he testified that IO himself had taken the photographs of the spot with camera which was taken by IO while going to the spot but could not tell as to how many photographs were taken by IO and as to whether same were filed alongwith the chargesheet or not. He stated that the driver of the bus was arrested from the spot itself and the complainant had seen the accused at the spot.
13. PW7 Sh. T.U. Siddiqui, Motor Vehicle Inspection Officer proved his reports Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B in respect of one blueline bus bearing registration no. DL1PA5350 and one Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration no. DL4SZ5407 respectively. He stated that the front bumper of the bus was found damaged and its front head light was also broken. He further stated that front mudguard and rear dicky of the said motorcycle was pressed and damaged.
During his cross examination, he stated that the bumper of the bus was minor damaged.
In his further cross examination held on 20.06.13(witness was recalled U/s 311 Cr.PC on the request of accused) he admitted that he did not visit the State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 8 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 spot and had inspected the vehicles at PS DBG Road itself. He explained that in road accidents, different types of damages may occur to the vehicles depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the manner in which the accident takes place. He deposed that front mudguard of the motorcycle was damaged as per inspection report Ex PW7/B but volunteered that there was possibility of damage being caused to front mudguard of motorcycle on account of falling down of motorcycle on the road after being hit by the bus. It is interesting to note that suggestion has been given to the witness on behalf of accused that body of the said bus was also damaged on account of pelting of stones by some public persons. He denied the suggestion that reports Ex PW7/A and PW7/B had been issued by him at the instance of IO.
14. PW8 Dr. Sunil identified the signature of Dr. Siri Niwas on postmortem report of Baby Palak. He proved the said report as Ex.PW8/A. This witness was also not at all cross examined on behalf of accused despite being accorded opportunity in this regard.
15. PW9 Dr. Mahesh Mangal proved MLC with regard to injured Anil Kumar as Ex.PW9/A. This witness was also not at all cross examined on behalf of accused despite being accorded opportunity in this regard.
16. PW10 Sh. Prakash Veer Singh was the owner of the offending bus. He deposed that on receipt of notice u/s 133 M.V. Act, he furnished his reply Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that he took the said bus on superdari vide State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 9 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 superdarinama Ex.PW10/B. He also deposed that accused Ram Singh was assigned duty to drive the said bus in the morning of 30.12.2000.
This witness was also not at all cross examined on behalf of accused despite being accorded opportunity in this regard.
16. This is all as far as prosecution evidence is concerned in the matter.
Arguments advanced and case law relied upon :
17. In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences charged against him, prosecution was required to prove the following points:
1. That it was the accused who was driving the offending bus at the time of accident;
2. That the accused was driving the offending bus in rash and/or negligent manner;
3. That the accused had caused accident in question while driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner; and
4. That due to accident, death of Baby Palak was caused and grievous injuries were also caused to injured/complainant namely Sh Anil Sharma(PW1).
18. Ld defence counsel assailed the testimony of PW1 namely Sh. Anil Sharma by referring to his cross examination wherein he admitted that he did not see the accused at the spot at the time of accident but took saumer salt during reexamination by Ld APP for the State. The said argument was countered by Ld APP who submitted that PW1 has explained in response to the Court question that he got confused during cross examination due to which he stated during cross of having not seen the accused at the spot but State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 10 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 ultimately reaffirmed the factum that he had seen the accused at the spot.
After giving my anxious consideration to the submission made on behalf of both the sides on the aforesaid aspect, I am entirely in agreement with the submission made on behalf of State. It is relevant to note that the accident in question took place on 30.12.00 and the statement of PW1 was recorded for the first time during trial on 19.01.04. At that time, he categorically testified before the Court that accused Ram Singh present in the Court, was driving offending bus no. DL1PA 5350 and caused the accident by hitting his bus from behind his motorcycle number DL4SZ 5407. No question was put to him during cross examination conducted on behalf of accused at that time on the said aspect. Rather suggestion had been given to him by accused that his minor daughter namely baby Palak had fallen down from the lap of her mother due to impact of the accident. It was only after the gap of seven years or so, the said witness was recalled. In this backdrop, it was quite obvious for the witness to get confused but ultimately, he has clarified in response to the Court question that he had seen the accused at the spot and had also duly identified him before the Court on 19.01.04.
19. Ld defence counsel also made a feeble attempt to create doubt in the case of prosecution and contended that this Court should discard the testimony of PW1. He submitted that Ex PW1/A is completely silent that baby Palak had received crush injury as stated by PW1 during his testimony recorded during trial. In other words, the submission of Ld defence counsel is that PW1 improved his version during trial when compared with his statement State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 11 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 Ex PW1/A recorded by the police due to which it is not safe to rely upon his testimony. Again, said argument is without any force and is liable to be rejected. No doubt, there is no mention in statement Ex PW1/A recorded by police that girl child had received crush injuries but it is mentioned therein that said child had fallen down from the lap of her mother and expired on the spot itself. PW1 has only explained the cause of death of child in his testimony recorded before Court when he stated that the stomach of the baby was crushed due to impact of the aforesaid bus. Same was further clarified by the witness in his cross examination recorded on 22.5.13 when he stated that his baby had been pressed below the tyre of the said bus. At that time, he had also given explanation that he could not tell this fact to the police in his statement Ex PW2/A as he himself had also received serious injuries on account of the accident.
20. The next bone of contention raised by Ld defence counsel was that prosecution story as unfolded by prosecution witnesses examined during trial, does not match with the mechanical inspection report Ex PW7/B of motorcycle of the complainant. Ld defence counsel argued that the back portion of motorcycle would have been got damaged in the event of motorcycle being hit from its back side by any vehicle but the mechanical inspection report Ex PW7/B shows that there were damages on its front side mudguard. He further submitted that the said report rather supports the defence of accused that accident had taken place with some other vehicle which stopped at red light traffic signal ahead of the motorcycle of the State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 12 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 complainant when he applied sudden brake due to traffic signal turning from green to yellow and ultimately to red light. The said argument was refuted by Ld APP who argued that damages could have occurred even on front mudguard of motorcycle when it falls down on the road and no such inference as suggested by Ld defence counsel, can be drawn in this case.
21. No doubt, the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW7/B shows existence of damage on front mudguard region of the motorcycle of complainant(PW1) but it has been sufficiently explained by PW7 who had conducted mechanical inspection of both the vehicles, that there is every possibility of front mudguard of motorcycle being damaged on account of its falling down on the road after being hit by the bus. Even otherwise, one can always take notice of this fact that the motorcycle would have fallen down on the road after being hit by the offending vehicle from its behind and in that process, the possibility of its front mudguard region being damaged, cannot be ruled out.
22. The next limb of argument raised by Ld defence counsel is that PM report Ex PW8/A, should not be looked into as the concerned doctor who had prepared the same, did not enter into the witness box. However, the said argument is totally misconceived besides being not convincing at all for the simple reason that PW8 namely Dr. Sunil of Maulana Azad Medical College has proved the PM report after identifying the signature of Dr. Sri Niwas who prepared the said report, at point B. Not only this, he explained before the Court that Dr. Sri Niwas had already left the services of the hospital and was somewhere settled in Chandigarh. He also opined that death in this case took State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 13 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 place due to hemorrhage and shock consequent upon blunt force impact to the abdomen and such injuries were quite possible in vehicular accident. The accused preferred not to cross examine the said witness at all. In other words, the testimony of PW8 has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. In view of this, it is not open to the accused to dispute PM report Ex PW8/A or to contend that the said report should be over looked by the Court.
23. There is no merit in the other contention raised on behalf of accused that nature of injuries as mentioned in column no. 8 of PM report Ex PW8/A, do not corroborate with the case of prosecution or the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 recorded in this case. Ld defence counsel claimed that there were external injuries found available on dead body of baby Palak but there is no mention of any crush injuries which shows that those external injuries could have been caused by light vehicle. However, there is an apparent fallacy in the said argument and same deserves to be rejected in its entirety. It is mentioned in column no. 8 of PM report Ex PW8/A that rigormoitis were present all over the body. The external injuries have been mentioned in column no. 10 of the said report. Thereafter, internal injuries are also mentioned in column no. 11 thereof which clearly shows that such type of injuries could have been caused on account of mid portion of body being crushed by heavy vehicle.
24. The perusal of PM report Ex PW8/A clearly shows that it corroborates the case of prosecution as well as the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses examined during trial. The time since death also corroborates with the time of accident. Even otherwise, the accused does not dispute that the State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 14 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 death of baby Palak had been caused due to road accident. He himself has taken the defence that accident had taken place between motorcycle of complainant(PW1) and another vehicle at the given time, date and place.
25. Likewise, it stands proved from the testimony of PW9 namely Dr. Mahesh Mangal of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital that PW1 had received grevious injuries on account of accident in question as there was head injury and injury on his left ear for which the patient was also operated in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. The report Ex. PW9/A proved by this witness, has also not been challenged by the accused who preferred not to cross examine the witness despite grant of opportunity.
26. I do not find any logic in the contention of Ld defence counsel that accident did not take place due to bus of accused as in that eventuality, it would not have been possible to take out the dead body on account of heavy weight of the bus. It is nowhere the case of prosecution that the dead body of baby Palak remained below the tyre of the offending bus. Rather, the case of prosecution is that body of baby Palak had been crushed by the bus which ran over the body after hitting against the motorcycle of the complainant.
27. I do not find any substance in the argument of Ld defence counsel to throw out the entire case of prosecution on account of minor contradictions appearing in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined in this case. It is immaterial as to how much time had been taken in reaching the PS when compared to the distance between the spot and PS DBG Road. The entire testimony of PW6 cannot be discarded merely because he could not tell the State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 15 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 distance between offending bus and motorcycle when he reached the spot. As has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as " State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki & Anr." reported at (1981) 2 SCC 752, in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful the witnesses may be and these discrepancies are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like.
28. The entire prosecution story cannot be viewed with suspicion merely because the photographs of the spot taken by IO, have not been placed on record. In the judgment reported at 2012 VII AD (S.C) 541, it has been held that merely because PW3 and PW6 have failed to perform their duties in accordance with the requirements of law and there has been some defect in the investigation, it will not be to the benefit of the accused persons to the extent that they would be entitled to an order of acquittal on this ground. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that where the eye witness account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities may not be accepted as conclusive.
29. In another matter titled as "Ram Bihari Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar & Ors." reported at ( 1995) 6 SCC 31), Supreme Court noticed that if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcement State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 16 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 agency but also in the administration of justice.
30. In the case of Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab {(2004) 3SCC 654}, Supreme Court held that in the case of a defective investigation, the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.
31. Recently, the above said proposition of law has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as " Babu & Anr Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai" reported at 2013 VIII AD(SC) 72 wherein it has been observed that a defect in the investigation, does not create a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused and the Court cannot discard the prosecution case on the ground that there was some defect in the investigation.
32. The prosecution has justifiable ground for not producing the IO during trial as it was reported on summons issued to IO namely ASI Diwan Singh that the said witness was suffering from paralysis and was confined to bed. In this background, no adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution for non examination of IO during trial.
33. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that accused was driving bus no. DL1PA 5350 plying on route no. 853 on given time, date and place with accident is shown to have taken place. The only defence raised by accused is State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 17 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 that accident had taken place when some other vehicle on account of negligence of complainant when he applied sudden brakes in order to stop motorcycle as another vehicle ahead of said motorcycle got stopped when traffic signal turned from green to red light. However, the accused could not prove the said defence during the trial. Rather the admission on the part of accused that public persons had pelted stones on his bus, is another circumstance pointing out towards the guilt of accused. The public persons who were present at the spot, would have pelted the stones out of anger only when it was noticed that accused had caused the accident with the bus. The accused put suggestion during cross examination of PW1 that he had climbed over foot path in order to save the complainant but the type of damage occurred to the bus as per report Ex PW7/A, do not corroborate with the defence raised by the accused. Rather, it corroborates with the case of prosecution. It shows that its front head light were got broken and there were damage/dent on its front bumper which would have occurred only when the bus had hit the motorcycle.
34. In the matter titled as " Paras Nath Vs. State of Delhi" reported at 2003(3) JCC 1500(Delhi), the facts were quite similar to the facts of the present case as even in the said other case, the appellant had hit the scooter from behind but claimed that there was no negligence on his part. In this backdrop, our own High Court held that negligence was clearly attributed to the appellant and rashness or negligence can be determined from the manner in which accident took place. In the present case also, the accused herein is State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 18 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 shown to have hit the motorcycle of complainant(PW1) from its behind and keeping in view the circumstances as available on record and the manner of causing the accident, rashness and/or negligence can be inferred on the part of accused herein. In view of the same, both the authorities reported at AIR 1972 SC 1435 and AIR 1972 SC 2127 relied by Ld defence counsel, are entirely distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. In both the said authorities, the facts were entirely different and on analysis of peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases, it was held that rashness and/or negligence could not be established on the part of accused. However, in the present case, it has been sufficiently proved by prosecution that there was sheer negligence on the part of accused in driving the aforesaid bus at the time of accident in question.
35. Even otherwise, it is nowhere the case of accused that he was previously known to PW1 and PW2 prior to accident or that there was any ill will or enmity between him and the complainant which led to his false implication in the present case. The accused has also failed to impute any allegation upon IO of this case due to which IO got him falsely implicated in this case. The testimonies of both the star witnesses i.e PW1 namely Sh Anil Sharma and PW2 namely Smt Monika Sharma, are found to be natural, truthful and trustworthy. Their testimonies are duly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses examined during trial. The documentary evidence proved during trial, also corroborates the prosecution story as well as the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. In the MLC of deceased child, it is State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 19 of 20 FIR NO. 336/00; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/338/304A IPC DOD:06.08.2013 mentioned that she had sustained injuries with alleged history of road traffic accident on account of motorbike being hit by the bus. The brief history as mentioned in column no. 6 of PM report Ex PW8/A, shows that the said child was reported to be travelling in the lap of her mother on motorcycle being driven by her father and accident having taken place between said motorcycle and bus bearing registration no. DL1PA5350. Both the said documents have been prepared at the first instance and immediately after the accident in question. Thus, there was no possibility of medical record being manipulated in order to falsely implicate the accused. It is nowhere the case of accused that the brakes of the offending bus was not in working condition due to which he could not apply the brakes resulting into accident in question.
36. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has been successful in establishing on record that the accused herein was driving the offending bus no. DL1PA5350 in rash and/or negligent manner and while driving the bus in the aforesaid manner, he hit the bus against motorcycle belonging to PW1 as a result of which, the baby child namely Palak fell down from the lap of PW2 and died on the spot after receiving crush injuries and PW1 namely Sh. Anil Sharma also received grievous injuries on his person. Consequently, accused namely Ram Singh stands convicted in respect of offences U/s 279/338/304A IPC.
Announced in the open Court (Vidya Prakash)
on 06.08.2013 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
State V/s Ram Singh (" Convicted ") Page 20 of 20