Delhi District Court
State vs . Jai Chandra Yadav on 28 March, 2018
FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar
U/s. 279/304A IPC
State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav
IN THE COURT OF Ms. MANU GOEL KHARB
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DWARKA COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. : 145/13
U/s : 279/304A IPC
P.S : BHD Nagar
State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav
Date of Institution of case:14.01.2015
Date of Judgment reserved:17.03.2018
Date on which Judgment pronounced:28.03.2018
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. : 4268616/2016
Date of Commission of offence : 18.06.2013
Name of the complainant : Mahesh Chand Bhardwaj,
S/o Lt. Sh. Om Prakash
R/o RZ 67B, H Block, Dharm
Pura, Colony, Najafgarh, Delhi.
Name and address of the accused : Jai Chandra Yadav S/o Ram
persons Sogarath R/o Village Bhutha, PS.
Pupri Distt. Sitamarhi, Bihar.
Offence complained of : 279/304A IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Date of order : 28.03.2018
Final Order : CONVICTED
Page 1 of 21
FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar
U/s. 279/304A IPC
State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18.06.2013, at about 07:00 am, in front of Sacred Heart Provincial House, Dichaon Road, Najafgarh, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS BHD Nagar, one Jai Chandra Yadav (hereinafter called the accused) was allegedly found driving a truck bearing registration no. DL 1GB 4354 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), in a rash and negligent manner, likely to endanger human life and personal safety of others. While driving the offending vehicle in aforesaid manner, he struck against one motorcycle bearing no. DL 9S AH 1959 and thereby caused death of Satpal Singh, not amounting to culpable homicide. The present case FIR No. 145/13, P.S. BHD Nagar was lodged for the offences under Section 279/304A IPC.
2. After the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the Court on 14.01.2015 against the accused for the offences under Section 279/304A IPC.
3. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C for was framed against accused Jai Chandra Yadav for the offences under Section 279/304A IPC vide order dated 04.06.2016, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case prosecution has examined as many as eight Page 2 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav witnesses in all. Out of these eight witnesses, PW2 Mahesh Chand is the eye witness o the incident and remaining all are formal witnesses.
5. PW1 Manish Kumar is the son of the deceased Satpal in the present case. He deposed that on 18.06.2013, at about 07:05 a.m., he received a call regarding the accident of his father and taking him to Metro Lifeline Hospital. PW1 reached at Metro Life Line Hospital from where his father was referred to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital where his father expired during treatment. Body of his father was transferred to mortuary of RTRM hospital. Witness correctly identified the dead body of his father and his dead body identification statement is Ex. PW1/A and dead body handing over memo is Ex. PW1/B. He deposed that he came to know that the said accident was caused by one truck bearing no. DL 1GB 4254.
6. PW 2 Mahesh Chand is the complainant / eye witness of the accident in the present case. He deposed that on 18.06.2013 at about 06:30 am, he was going from his house at Dharampura Colony, Najafgarh, to the house of his mama. Witness was on his car bearing no. DL 2C AL 7267 and met his brotherinlaw Satpal in front of MLA office. Satpal was on motorcycle at that time and was smoking bidi after stationing his motorcycle. After some talks, Satpal went to his office on his bike and witness went to the house of his mama. When Satpal reached near Secret Heart Provisional House, one truck bearing Page 3 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav no. 4354 came from the side of Dichaon in a very high speed and in zig zag manner and it struck against the motorcycle of Satpal due to which he fell down on the road and truck dragged Satpal to some distance. Thereafter, accused stopped his truck and the witness also stopped his car. Witness apprehended the accused at the spot whose name was revealed as Jai Chand. PW2 correctly identified the accused in the Court. He further deposed that one public person made a call at 100 number and police reached there and Satpal was shifted to Metro Life Line Hospital through PCR and from there he was shifted to Mata Chanan Devi hospital. PW2 informed Manish Kumar regarding the accident. IO recorded the statement of PW2 as Ex. PW2/A and prepared the site plan at his instance as Ex. PW2//B. Motorcycle of Satpal was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/C and offending vehicle ie. Truck bearing no. DL 1GB 4354 was seized vide memo as Ex. PW 2/D. Helmet of Satpal was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/E and accused Jai Chandra Yadav was arrested vide memo as Ex. PW2/F and personal search memo of accused is Ex. PW2/G. Witness correctly identified the offending vehicle and the motorcycle through the photographs and proved the same as Ex. PW 2/H (colly). Witness identified the helmet of the deceased as Ex. P1, offending vehicle as Ex. P2 and the motorcycle as Ex. P3.
In his crossexamination, witness deposed that the accident happened in the month of June during summer vacations but he could not remember the exact date. Deceased met him on the Dichaon Road Page 4 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav at about 06:0006:30 am and they chatted for about 57 minutes and thereafter, witness left for his house and the deceased left for his destination. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the accident or seen the accused while driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
7. PW 3 Puran Chand conducted the mechanical inspection of offending truck bearing no. DL 1GB 4354 and Motorcycle of the victim bearing no. DL 9S AH 1959 and filed his report which are Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B respectively. Witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
8. PW4 SI Azad Singh (MACT Cell) deposed that on 25.09.2013, he received the case file for investigation. He prepared challan and filed the same in the Court.
9. PW5 Insp. Rajendra Singh deposed that on 18.06.2013, he I received DD no. 9A regarding accident and went alongwith Ct. Sachin to the spot ie. Dichau Road where they found one truck bearing no. DL 1GB 4354 and one motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor bearing no. DL 9S AH 1959 on the spot. They also found one eyewitness Mahesh Chand Bhardwaj and the driver of the truck i.e. Jai Chand. Mahesh Chand handed over Jai Chand to the witness. Therefater PW5 received DD no. 14A through HC Mahipal regarding admission of the Page 5 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav injured in Mata Channan Devi Hospital, Janak Puri. PW5 left HC Mahipal on the spot for its security and himself went to Mata Channan Devi hospital alongwith Ct. Sachin and Mahesh Chand Bhardwaj where they found Satpal admitted in hospital. Satpal expired during the treatment and was declared dead by the doctors. Witness got the dead body of Satpal shifted to RTRM hospital for PM and recorded the statement of eye witness Mahesh Chand Bhardwaj which is already Ex.PW2/A. He sent the rukka through HC Mahipal from the spot for registration of FIR. After sometime, HC Mahipal came alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka on the spot. PW5 prepared Site plan already Ex PW2/B at the instance of Mahesh Chand Bhardwaj and then seized both the vehicles vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/D, seized the helmet of motorcycle rider and the documents of offending vehicle, DL of accused vide memo Ex. PW2/E, Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B respectively. He arrested the accused Jai Chand vide arrest memo PW 2/F and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW2/G and then released the accused on bail as the offence was bailable. He got conducted the postmortem of Satpal on the same day and recorded the identification statement of son of the deceased Manish Kumar and Yaad Ram (brother of deceased) vide memo Ex.PW1/A and Ex. PW5/C and handed over the dead body of deceased to Manish Kumar vide receipt Ex. PW1/B. He got the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles done on 19.06.2013 vide reports Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B and proved the Page 6 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav photographs and negatives Ex. PW2/H of the offending vehicle and the motorcycle. He collected the PM report from the doctors and send the case file to MACT Cell for further investigation.
10. PW6 Chetan Prakash Sharma, deposed that on 25.06.2013, IO gave him the notice u/s 133 M. V. Act Ex. PW 6/A regarding the truck no. DL 1GB 4354 and replied that on the date of accident, i.e. 18.06.2013, his truck was being driven by accused Jai Chandra Yadav. He further deposed that he had given all his legal rights to Rohit Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar by Special Power of Attorney dated 19.06.2013 Ex. PW6/B. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court. In his crossexamination by defence counsel, he deposed that Rohit used to employ the driver with his consent for the aforesaid vehicle.
11. PW7 Dr. Parvinder Singh deposed that he is working in RTRM hospital as Specialist Forensic Medicine since 2004. He further deposed that on 18.06.2013, he prepared PM Report no. 123/13 Ex. PW7/A and as per the report the cause of death of victim Satpal Singh is haemorrhagic shock following multiple injuries described in PM Report. All the injuries were ante mortem and recent and caused by hard blunt trauma / striking against hard rough surface / object and could be possible in the manner as alleged.
In his crossexamination by defence counsel, he deposed that Page 7 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav it is likely that aforesaid injuries could be caused because of falling upon some hard surface.
12. PW8 ASI Mahipal Singh deposed that on 18.06.2013, DO gave him the DD entry no. 14A and at about 09:40 am, call came from Mata Channan Devi hospital regarding the death of injured whose accident had occurred at Dichau Road on that day. PW8 took the said DD entry to the spot in about 2025 minutes and gave the same to SI Rajender. Witness deposed that on the spot he saw one truck bearing no. DL 1GB 4354 parked on the side of the road alongwith one motorcycle bearing no. DL 9S AH 1959 in accidental condition and one broken helmet kept on the said bike. The truck was filled with Indane Gas Cylinders and the said motorcycle was of blue colour of make Hero Honda Splendor Pro. The driver of the truck namely Jai Chander Yadav was also present on the spot and IO handed over to the driver to PW8. Thereafter, IO left the witness for safety of the spot and SI Rajender, Ct. Sachin and the public / eye witness Mahesh Chand Bhardwaj left for the Mata Channan Devi Hospital. IO came alongwith Mahesh Chand Bhardwaj on the spot at about 02.00 pm and prepared a tehrir and handed over the same to PW8 for registration of FIR. Witness went to the PS and got the FIR registered at about 02.45 pm and after that came back to the spot at about 03.30 pm and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. IO thereafter, prepared the seizure memo of motorcycle and truck and helmet as Ex.
Page 8 of 21FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav PW2/C, PW2/D & PW2/E, seized the DL of driver as Ex. PW5/B, seized the documents of truck vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. IO arrested the accused Jai Chandra vide memo Ex. PW2/F and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW2/G. Thereafter, witness came to the PS alongwith the accused, truck, motorcycle, helmet and the IO and deposited the truck, motorcycle and helmet in the Malkhana. Witness correctly identified the offending vehicle and the motorcycle through its photographs Ex. PW2/H. Witness correctly identified the broken helmet and the accused in the Court. Witness was not cross examined despite opportunity.
13. Accused also gave a statement u/s 294 CrPC in which he admitted the genuineness and preparation of FIR no. 145/13 as Ex. P1, DD Entry no. 9A and 14 A both dt. 18.06.2013 as Ex. P2 & Ex. P3, MLC no. 4766/13, dt. 18.06.2013 prepared by Dr. Rohit Gupta, Mata Channan Devi Hospital, Janak Puri, Delhi as Ex. P4. Hence, corresponding witness were dropped from the list of witness.
14. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed on 06.01.2018.
15. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Jai Chandra Yadav was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 03.02.2018 wherein he pleaded his innocence and stated he was falsely implicated in the present case as the victim wants compensation from Page 9 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav the insurance company. Accused refused to lead defence evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
16. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also perused the case file carefully.
17. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in view of testimonies of PW 2 and hence, prayed for conviction of the accused.
18. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel has submitted that case of the prosecution is full of contradictions and improbabilities. It has been argued that there are material contradictions between the testimonies of injured witnesses and hence, has prayed for acquittal of the accused in view of the above.
19. It is to be seen that accused Jai Chandra Yadav has been charged with for the offences u/s 279/304A IPC.
Section 279 IPC reads as " Rash driving or riding on a public way: Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six Page 10 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Section 304A IPC provides as : " Whoever, causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
20. For proving these offences, prosecution has to prove following ingredients:
a) that the accused was driving the offending truck on the date of alleged accident.
b) that the accused was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner;
c) that while driving the said vehicle in the aforesaid manner, the accused hit against the motorcycle of the victim Satpal and caused his death (not amounting to culpable homicide)
21. From the deposition of PW2 and PW7 and perusal of Ex. PW7/A and Ex. P4, it is proved that death of Satpal has occurred due to accident caused by a vehicle.
From the deposition of PW2, PW5 and PW8, it is proved that the truck bearing registration no. DL 1G B 4354 was also found at Page 11 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav the spot in an accidental condition. The presence of the truck on the spot at a time which is contemporaneous with the time when the accident occurred is clearly indicative of the fact that truck bearing no. DL 1G B 4354 caused the accident.
From the testimony of PW6 Chetan Prakash Sharma and PW5 IO/ Inspector Rajendra Singh, it is proved that notice under Section 133 CrPC Ex. PW6/A was served to PW6 and from the reply to the notice it is proved that at the time of accident the truck bearing registration no. DL 1G B 4354, was being driven by accused Jai Chandra Yadav.
From testimonies of PW2, PW5 and PW8 it is proved that accident occurred in front of Sacred Heart Provincial House, Dichaon Road, Najafgarh which is a public way.
So, it is proved that death of deceased Satpal occurred due to accident with the truck bearing registration no. DL 1G B 4354, which was being driven on a public way by accused Jai Chandra Yadav.
22. Now, the only ingredient of Section 279/304A IPC left to be proved is whether the accused was rash and negligent or not?
23. In the judgment titled as "Kuldeep Singh v. State of Page 12 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav Himachal Pradesh" reported as 2008 CRI. L. J. 3932 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"......Two elements either of which or both of which may be proved to establish the guilt of an accused are rashness/negligence, a person may cause death by a rash or negligent act which may have nothing to do with driving at all. Negligence and rashness to be punishable in terms of Section 304A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judgment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime as well as the life of the person who may lose his life as a result of the crime. Section 304A discloses that criminality may be that apart from any mens rea, there may be no motive or intention still a person may venture or practicesuch rashness or negligence which may cause the death of other. The death so caused is not the determining factor....."
24. Negligence and rashness are mandatory elements of an offence under section 279 or 304A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and caution incumbent upon a persons in a given set of circumstances whereas Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. A rash and negligent Act is a reckless act, which means 'regardless' or heedless of the possible harmful consequences of one's acts. The question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly Page 13 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case.
25. In the judgment titled as Rathnashalvan Vs. State of Karnatka reported as 2007(3) S.C.C. 474 : A.I.R. 2007 SC 1064 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held :
"........"Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted...."
26. Judicial precedents have also described a 'rash and negligent' act as a 'reckless' act. In the judgment titled as "Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh" reported as 2008 CRI. L. J. 3932 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted R. Vs. Caldwell (1981) 1 All ER 961, wherein it was observed that : "Nevertheless, to decide whether someone has been reckless', Page 14 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav whether harmful consequences of a particular kind will result from his act, as distinguished from his actually intending such harmful consequences to follow, does call for some consideration of how the mind of the ordinary prudent individual would have reacted to a similar situation. If there were nothing in the circumstances that ought to have drawn the attention of an ordinary prudent individual to the possibility of that kind of harmful consequence, the accused would not be described as 'reckless' in the natural meaning of that word for failing to address his mind to the possibility; nor, if the risk of the harmful consequences was so slight that the ordinary prudent individual on due consideration of the risk would not he deterred from treating it as negligible, could the accused be described as reckless in its ordinary sense, if, having considered the risk, he decided to ignore it. (In this connection the gravity of the possible harmful consequences would be an important factor. To endanger life must be one of the most grave). So, to this extent, even if one ascribes to 'reckless' only the restricted meaning adopted by the Court of Appeal in Stephenson and riggs, of foreseeing that a particular kind of harm might happen and yet going on to take the risk of it, it involves a test that would be described in part as 'objective' in current legal jargon. Questions of criminal liability are seldom solved by simply asking whether the test is subjective or objective...."
27. Adverting to the facts of the case, eye witness Mahesh Chand Page 15 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav Bhardwaj (PW2) deposed before the court that the offending truck came from the side of Dichaon in a very high speed and in a zig zag manner and struck against the motorcycle of Satpal due to which Satpal fell on the road and the right wheel of the truck ran over him. Thereafter, the truck dragged the body of Satpal to some distance. The testimony of PW5 is duly corroborated by the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW3/B as per which the fresh scratch marks were found on the right side guard, silencer and head light cover of the motorcycle of the deceased. Even a perusal of site plan Ex. PW2/B succintly show the manner in which the accident took place. Skid marks of about 41 cms long were found on the spot and blood stains were also found on the road which clearly show the impact with which the truck had hit the motor cycle of the deceased.
Eye witness as well as the IO of the case were duly cross examined by the defence counsel but no suggestion was given that the accident was not caused by the truck bearing no. DL 1G B 4354 or that the same was not being driven by the accused at the time of accident. Even no suggestion was given regarding the site plan prepared by the IO at the instance of the complainant. It is a settled law that a fact, if not controverted, is deemed to be admitted by implication.
28. It was argued by the defence counsel that the identity of the offending vehicle is not properly proved as PW2 did not state the complete registration number of the offending vehicle in the court and Page 16 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav merely deposed that truck bearing no. 4354 caused the accident. However, in the opinion of the court there is no dispute about the identity of the offending vehicle as PW2 has correctly identified the offending truck in the court through the photographs of the truck Ex. PW2/H. Not deposing the complete registration number is only a minor contradictions but same cannot be categorized as material inconsistency and can be attributed to lapse of time and memory. Minor contradictions are bound to occur while a witness is narrating an incident before the court.
It has been held in the judgment titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and anr reported as AIR 1981 SC 1390 that normal discrepancies in evidence are those which 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 those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material disclosure are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. Clearly, due to lapse of time between the accident and the date of evidence/statement before the court, some minor/ normal discrepancies are bound to creep in the testimony of witnesses. Thus the testimony of PW2 cannot be discarded merely because there is a minor discrepancy in his statement about the registration number of the Page 17 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav offending vehicle and same can by no stretch of imagination be categorised as material or fatal for the prosecution case.
29. It is true that speed is not the only criteria for determining as to whether the accused was rash or negligent and the mere fact that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at a high speed is not sufficient to bring home the charge of rash and negligent driving. However it is equally true that speed may be an important criterion for determining the degree of rashness and negligence in a given set of facts and circumstances. Driving a vehicle at a very high speed on the highway may not amount to rashness or culpable negligence. But if a person drives the same vehicle in a crowded market place at a very high speed, the answer might be the opposite.
30. In the judgment titled as "Paras Nath v. State of Delhi" re ported as 2004 CRI. L. J. 731 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that:
".......Merely because the witnesses did not use the words rashness or negligent in his testimony and instead used the words high speed, cannot be taken that the appellant was not driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, what is important is to find out if the driver of the offending vehicle was driving in public place rashly and in negli gent manner so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt Page 18 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav or death to any other person. Rashness or negligence can be determined from the manner in which the accident had taken place....."
31. At any rate there is no calibrated instrument of definite precision, which could give a clear arithmetical result so as to establish rashness or negligence. On facts of the present case, the offending vehicle was overtaking the motorcycle and moving at a speed, which is higher for the place at which it was being driven i.e. public way Every prudent driver understands that in case the vehicle is not slowed down and is being driven at a high speed the act is fraught with predictable dangers and the consequences may be disastrous. It is incumbent upon a driver of a heavy vehicle to adopt extra care and caution so that the safety of other persons on the road is not jeopardized. The accused did not bother to slow down the speed and failed to apply the brakes in time re sulting in the accident. This act of the accused was manifestly and in dubitably fraught with rashness and negligence. Apart from the mishap, which took place the accused was clearly driving the truck on a public way in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others.
32. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that police has not joined any other independent witness except PW2 who supports the case of prosecution, however, it is a settled law that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single wit Page 19 of 21 FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav ness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corrobora tion.
In the case in hand, a perusal of the testimony of complainant/ PW2 Mahesh Chand Bhardwaj shows that his testimony was unrebutted and unchallenged on all material aspects and could not be shaken even during crossexamination. Moreover, law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove a relevant fact. In the case of Joseph Vs. State of Kerala [AIR 2003 SC 507(510)], Hon'ble Apex Court held : "....Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses in any case be required for the proof of any fact and, therefore, it is permissible for a court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eyewitness. But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. By this standard, when prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eyewitness, it should be wholly reliable."
33. From the aforesaid discussion, court is satisfied with the trustworthiness and credence of the complainant i.e. PW2 Mahesh Chand Bhardwaj and finds it safe to wholly rely upon his testimony.
Page 20 of 21FIR No. 145/13, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 279/304A IPC State Vs. Jai Chandra Yadav
34. In the view of the above discussion, court is of the opinion that the prosecution has clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the truck bearing No. DL 1G B 4354, in a rash and negligent manner on public way so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and consequently he is liable for the offence U/s 279 IPC. The prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accident took place and deceased Satpal Singh expired on account of the rash and negligent act/driving of the accused Jai Chander Yadav and consequently he is liable for the offence U/s 304 A IPC.
35. In these facts and circumstances, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore hold the accused Jai Chander Yadav S/o Sh. Ram Sogarth guilty of offences punishable under section 279/304A IPC and he is accordingly convicted for the same.
Announced in open Court today on 28th of March, 2018. (Manu Goel Kharb) Metropolitan Magistrate07 Dwarka District Court/Delhi Digitally signed by MANU MANU GOEL GOEL KHARB Date:
KHARB Page 21 of 212018.03.28 15:46:59 +0530