Delhi District Court
State vs . Mange Ram Fir No.281/07 on 30 October, 2018
State vs. Mange Ram FIR no.281/07
1
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
ROHINI COURTS NORTH DISTRICT, DELHI
Presided Over by : GAGANDEEP SINGH
STATE Vs. Mange Ram Date of Institution 18.12.2008
FIR No. 281/07 Judgment Reserved on 27.08.2018
PS Alipur Date of Judgment 30.10.2018
Under 279/337/304A IPC
Section
JUDGMENT
a) New Regn. No. of the case 5289795/16
b) Date of offence 10.09.2007
c) Name of the complainant Sudhakar Singh, S/o Sh Bharat Singh, R/o
H.No.929, Gali No.21A, Swatantar Nagar,
Narela, Delhi.
d) Name & address of the accused Mange Ram, S/o Sh. Bishan Ram, R/o
Village Moda Khera, District Hissar,
Haryana.
Present address: Driver, Haryana
Roadways, Chandigarh Depot.
e) The offence complained of 279/337/304A IPC
f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order Acquitted
h) Date of order 30.10.2018
State vs. Mange Ram FIR no.281/07
2
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.The FIR in question was got registered on the statement of complainant Sudhakar Singh recorded on 10.09.2007. He alleged that he along with his friend Jainuddin(since expired) had gone to Saiwali, Harayana on motorcycle bearing No.DL8SNA3282. After finishing the work, they were returning back and Janinuddin was driving the said motorcycle. At about 3.15 p.m., they reached at Singhu Border and were to cross the road for going towards Narela. At that point of time, the offending bus bearing No.HR 683379 being driven in high speed and rash and negligent manner came and struck against their motorcycle. They both fell down from the motorcycle and his friend along with motorcycle came beneath the front portion of the bus. He along with other public persons rescued his friend Jainuddin and PCR officials came at the spot. They both were shifted to SRHC Hospital where his friend was declared "brought dead". On the basis of said statement, the FIR was got registered. The offending bus was seized. The accused as driver of bus was arrested and released on bail. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed.
2. The cognizance upon the same was taken by Ld. Predecessor on 18.12.2008 and the accused was summoned to face the trial. The notice in terms of Section 251 Cr.PC was framed against the accused for the offences u/s 279/337/304A IPC on 07.05.2010 to State vs. Mange Ram FIR no.281/07 3 which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined eleven witnesses in all.
4. PW1 is ASI(Tech) Devender Kumar who mechanically examined the bus bearing No.HR683379 and motorcycle bearing No.DL8SNA3282 on 11.09.2007 and furnished the reports Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B respectively.
5. PW2 Mohd. Arif is the registered owner of the victim's motorcycle and got released the vehicle on superdari.
6. PW3 HC Jai Bhagwan is the duty officer who proved the registration of FIR as Ex.PW3/A.
7. PW4 Mahender Singh is the official from Haryana Roadways who got the offending bus bearing No.HR683379 released on superdari. He further deposed that accused was driver of bus on the day of accident.
8. PW5 Sanjay Verma is the photographer who clicked the photographs at the spot. Inadvertently, the said photographs were not exhibited during his testimony.
9. PW6 Sudhakar Singh is the complainant/injured. He deposed that on 10.09.2007, he along with his friend Jainuddin were coming back from Saiwali, Haryana on motorcycle bearing No.DL8SNA3282. The motorcycle was driven by his friend and he was the pillion rider. At about 3.15 p.m., they reached Singhu Border and started turning towards Narela side when Haryana Roadways bus bearing No. HR683379 came from State vs. Mange Ram FIR no.281/07 4 Delhi side in high speed being driven in rash and negligent manner. It hit against their motorcycle from the front side. His friend Jainuddin along with motorcycle came under front wheel of the bus and received major injuries. The driver of the bus was apprehended by the public at the spot. He with the help of public persons rescued his friend. PCR shifted them to hospital where his statement Ex.PW6/A was recorded.
10. PW7 Aslam deposed that on 10.09.2007, he was standing at Singhu Border when he saw a bus bearing No.HR6S3379 coming from Delhi side in a rash and negligent manner and hitting one motorcycle. Two persons were sitting on the motorcycle and they came beneath the bus. Accused was driving the said bus. One of the injured was his cousin brother. Police officials shifted them to SRHC Hospital. The police officials got prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/A at his instance. The accused was also arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/C. But, in the cross examination, he turned hostile and stated that he came to know about accident from public persons at the spot.
11. PW8 Dr. Munish from BJRM Hospital proved the postmortem report of deceased Jainuddin as Ex.PW8/A.
12. PW9 Afzal identified the dead body of deceased Jainuddin at BJRM Hospital.
13. PW10 Dr. Rajesh Kumr from SRHC Hospital proved the MLC of deceased as Ex.PW10/A and that of injured Sudhakar Singh as Ex.PW10/B.
14. PW11 ASI Shridhar identified the documents prepared by the IO i.e. rukka State vs. Mange Ram FIR no.281/07 5 Ex.PW11/A, seizure memos Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW11/D, Ex.PW11/E and arrest memo Ex.PW7/C.
15. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC in which the accused claimed innocence and further stated that no accident was caused by his vehicle and his vehicle had already crossed the cut. He sought the opportunity to lead defence evidence but no evidence was led by the accused.
16. I have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. Counsel for the accused and gone through the record.
17. It was argued on behalf of the accused that the testimony of PW6, who is the complainant as well as injured, is unreliable and stood rebutted by the photographs proved on record. Further, it was argued that there are no skid or tyre mark on the spot which again rebuts his version of bus being driven in a high speed. It was further argued that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself as they were driving the motorcycle on the wrong side which is reflected in the photographs. Further, the reliance was also placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Abdul Subhan vs. State 133(2006) DLT 562 to support the arguments.
18. The issue of accused being the driver of the offending bus bearing No.HR683379 and he being found at the spot is not disputed. The accused himself admitted the said fact in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. The witness from Haryana Roadways PW4 Mahender State vs. Mange Ram FIR no.281/07 6 Singh also categorically deposed in this regard. Thus, the issue of identification of the accused and he being the driver of the offending bus stands proved.
19. The other issue of deceased having expired due to the injuries in the road side accident is also not disputed. The postmortem report Ex.PW8/A records the cause of death as cerebral damage due to blunt force impact.
20. The only issue in dispute is as to whether the accident in question was caused by the offending bus and it being result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver.
21. The prosecution in order to prove the said disputed facts has basically relied upon the version of PW6 Sudhakar Singh and PW7 Aslam. Both of them are stated to be the eye witnesses to the accident in question. PW7 Aslam firstly claimed that he was present at the spot by chance when the accident occurred having been caused by one bus. He is also the cousin brother of the deceased. The accused was also arrested at his instance. But, in the cross examination, he clarified that though he was present at the spot but when he had reached there, the accident had already taken place. His version regarding manner in which accident occurred and the bus being involved in it is based upon hearsay evidence. The said facts were disclosed to him by the public persons. Thus, the version of PW7 on the issue of rash and negligent driving being responsible factor for the accident in question and it having been caused by the offending bus is liable to be rejected State vs. Mange Ram FIR no.281/07 7 and he cannot be termed as the eye witness.
22. The other eye witness examined by the prosecution PW6 Sudhakar Singh is also the injured as well as the complainant in the present matter. He was the pillion rider on the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased at the time when accident occurred. He was also medically examined on the same day vide MLC Ex.PW10/B. Therefore, the issue of his presence at the spot is not disputed. The only content of dispute is as to whether the version given by him as to the manner of accident and it having been caused by bus bearing No.HR683379 is truthful or not. As per him, the accident occurred while they were trying to turn towards Narela side from Singhu Border when the bus came from Delhi side and hit against their motorcycle from front side. He further explained his version in the cross examination by claiming that there was no signal at the turn towards Narela at that point of time. He further elaborated that they were in stationary condition and looking for right time to cross the road when the accident took place. The explanation as to the manner in which the accident occurred given by him in the examination in chief and in the cross examination are inherently contradictory to each other. If his version as recorded in the FIR as well as in examination in chief is correct, the accident had occurred while they were in the process of crossing the road towards Narela. But, he in the cross examination, claimed that the motorcycle was in stationary condition on the turn when the accident took place. The said version given by State vs. Mange Ram FIR no.281/07 8 him puts the entire case of the prosecution in the dock.
23. The site plan Ex.PW7/A describes the position of the accident at point A which is right in the middle of G.T. Road going towards Kundli thereby rebutting the version given by PW6. Similarly, the photographs clicked by PW3 Mark X3 too rebuts the said version given by him. The position of the motorcycle as well as the bus was right in the middle of the road going towards Haryana. His version of trying to cross the G.T. Road for going towards Narela is further contradicted by the photographs as in none of the said photographs, no such turn is reflected. On the contrary, the photographs corroborate the claim of the accused of he having already crossed the turn and no accident having been caused by his bus. The first photograph quite apparently reflects that one dumper seems to be turning from Singhu Border side towards Narela and the said point is right behind the bus in question. Thus, the photographs as well as the site plan contradicts the version of PW6 as to the manner as well as place of the accident occurred.
24. The PW6 further in his examination in chief as well as in the FIR claimed that both the deceased as well as the motorcycle came beneath the front tyre of the bus. He, thereafter, with the help of public persons, rescued his friend entangled under the wheel. The said version also stands rebutted by photograph Mark X3 as well as rukka Ex.PW11/A. The photograph quite apparently reflects that the motorcycle is quite at a distance from the front tyres of the bus and it is not the case of the prosecution that the State vs. Mange Ram FIR no.281/07 9 bus having been reversed after the accident. Similarly, the contents of the rukka also records the fact that the motorcycle of the victim was lying ahead of the bus and not beneath as claimed by PW6. The said contradictions reflect that testimony of PW6 to be untrustworthy.
25. The other piece of corroborating evidence produced by the prosecution is the Mechanical Inspection Report Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B of both the vehicles involved in the accident. Ex.PW1/B the Mechanical Inspection Report of motorcycle records the fresh damages at the left rear side body and right side body. The said Mechanical Inspection Report also in no manner corroborate the version given by PW6 as to the manner in which the accident occurred. In no way, the left rear side of the vehicle could have sustained scratches while they were crossing the road.
26. Similarly, the site plan Ex.PW7/A too is also incomplete document not describing all the relevant facts as mandated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Abdul Subhan vs. State(supra). The site plan is one of the crucial document in cases involving accident and should be prepared with all the care and caution describing each point. The importance of the said site plan was highlighted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 13.1 which seems to have been ignored in the present matter too. The said facts too goes against the prosecution.
27. Lastly, the version given by PW6 as to the manner of the accident is incomplete.
State vs. Mange Ram FIR no.281/07 10 He merely deposed that the bus came from Delhi side in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Apart from that, he failed to describe as to the manner of driving and manner of accident in question. The mere reproduction of words "high speed and rash and negligent driving" does not proves the manner of driving to be negligent. He further in the cross examination expressed ignorance to depose about the term "high speed". Thus, on the said point alone, the case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected. To support this view also, I am being guided by the above noted judgment titled as Abdul Subhan vs. State (supra).
28. In light of the above said reasons, it has to be held that the prosecution has successful failed to prove its case beyond the standard of reasonable doubts. The testimony of PW6, who is sole eye witness, is untrustworthy and unreliable for reaching to the conclusion of guilt. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the charges under section 279/337/304A IPC.
Digitally signedby GAGANDEEP
GAGANDEEP SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.10.30
Announced in open Court. 16:32:18 +0530
Delhi, Dated the 30.10.2018 GAGANDEEP SINGH
This Judgment contains 10 pages Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
and each page is signed by me. Rohini/New Delhi