Delhi District Court
State vs Prem Singh on 22 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. TARUN YOGESH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
State V/s Prem Singh
FIR No: 66/13
PS: Saket
U/s : 279 & 338 IPC and 185 of MV Act
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. / ID No. of the Case : 6RO108972013
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 17.02.2013
3. Date of institution of the case : 27.04.2013
4. Name of the complainant : Ct. Puran Chand,
No. 2881/SD, PS Saket.
5. Name of accused, parentage : Prem Singh
S/o Sh. Pan Singh
R/o H. No. AII, 239,
Madangir, Ambadkar Nagar,
New Delhi62.
6. Offence complained or proved : U/s : 279 & 338 IPC and U/s
185 of MV Act
FIR No: 66/13 PS Saket State Vs. Prem Singh Page 1 of 12
7. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Final Order : Convicted.
9. Date of Final Order : 22.01.2015
B RIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION :
01. Accused Prem Sigh S/o Sh. Pan Singh has been tried for offences U/s 279, 338 IPC and U/s 185 of M.V. Act upon allegation of having driven motorcycle No. DL3SBE6156 rashly and negligently under influence of liquor on 17.02.2013 at about 09:05 PM at M.B. Road near Asian Market Picket, Saket and hit injured HC Rasul Ahmad causing grievous injury upon his person.
02. Chargesheet filed by ASI Kuldeep Singh (IO) reveals that information regarding HC Rasul Ahmad (injured) being hit by alleged motorcycle near Asian Market Picket, M.B. Road was received vide DD No. 25A, PS Saket and thereafter he alongwith Ct. Gopal reached at the spot and met Ct. Subhash and Ct. Sandeep. Offending motorcycle was found at the spot in accidental condition and injured Rasul Ahmad and accused Prem Singh were stated to have been shifted to Max Hospital by Ct. Puran Chand. ASI Kuldeep alongwith Ct. Gopal reached at Max FIR No: 66/13 PS Saket State Vs. Prem Singh Page 2 of 12 Hospital and collected MLC No. 3013 of injured Rasul Ahmad. Statement of Ct. Puran Chand (complainant) was recorded wherein he alleged that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by accused Prem Singh. Thereafter ASI Kuldeep Singh prepared tehrir for offence U/s 279 & 337 IPC which was sent to PS Saket through Ct. Gopal for registration of FIR.
03. During investigation, ASI Kuldeep Singh (IO) alongwith Ct. Puran Chand (complainant) returned to the spot of accident and prepared site plan at his instance. Statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C of witnesses were recorded and offending motorcycle was seized. Statement of injured HC Rasul Ahmad was recorded after his discharge from hospital. Accused Prem Singh was arrested on 18.02.2013 and released on police bail. His documents were seized & verified. Mechanical inspection of offending motorcycle was got conducted. Since accused Prem Singh was reported to be under influence of liquor in his MLC, so, his blood sample collected by doctor was sent to FSL, Rohini. After obtaining final opinion of grievous injury upon MLC of injured, offence U/s 337 IPC was substituted by section 338 IPC and chargesheet for offences U/s 279 & 338 IPC was FIR No: 66/13 PS Saket State Vs. Prem Singh Page 3 of 12 filed in court on 27.04.2013. Supplementary chargesheet for offence U/s 185 of M. V. Act alongwith FSL report No. 2013/C1677/4997 was subsequently filed in court on 26.06.2013.
04. Substance of accusation for offence(s) U/s 279 & 338 IPC and U/s 185 of M.V. Act in the form of notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. were given to accused on 21.01.2014 and 25.08.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
05. Prosecution has adduced its evidence by examining thirteen witnesses on judicial record. HC Rasool Ahmad (injured), Ct. Sandeep, Ct. Puran Chand (complainant) and Ct. Subhash have entered the witnessbox as PW01, PW02, PW05 & PW12. Police witnesses namely Ct. Gopal, Ct. Chandra Prakash, ASI Kuldeep Singh (IO), Ct. Kripal, HC Satish Kumar and HC Praveen have deposed as PW04, PW06, PW07, PW09, PW10 & PW13. Other witnesses who have testified for prosecution include Dr. Abdul Hai Gojwari, Dr. V. G. R. Shastri, Motor Vehicle Inspector Sh. T. U. Siddiqui and Sh. Jitender Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL, Rohini examined as PW03, PW08, PW11 and PW14 respectively.
FIR No: 66/13 PS Saket State Vs. Prem Singh Page 4 of 12
06. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused Prem Singh was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C and has denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving besides disputing depositions of prosecution witnesses examined against him. He nonetheless has admitted about accident involving HC Rasool Ahmad resulting in his falling down from motorcycle, getting unconscious and being shifted to Max Hospital.
07. Accused Prem Singh has examined himself as DW01 upon his application U/s 315 Cr.P.C and testified of having reached near Asian Market riding his motorcycle bearing no. DL3SBE6156 on 17.02.2013 where some barricades were placed on the road. Police personnels present near the barricades signaled him to stop and one of them put a 'danda' ahead of front wheel of his motorcycle. However the danda got stuckup in the wheel as a result of which he fell down, sustained injuries and lost consciousness. He has was crossexamined by ld. APP for the State and denied the suggestions put to him.
08. Final arguments were addressed by Ld. APP for the State and Adv. Sh. B. S. Rawat for accused.
09. Ld. APP for the State has adverted to testimonies of injured FIR No: 66/13 PS Saket State Vs. Prem Singh Page 5 of 12 HC Rasool Ahmed, complainant Ct. Puran Chand & policewitnesses present near barricade at Asian Market policepicket, M.B. Road besides alluding to depositions of PWs Dr. Abdul Hai Gojwari and Dr. V. G. R Shastri for seeking conviction of accused Prem Singh for offences U/s 279, 338 IPC and U/s 185 of M.V. Act.
10. Ld. defence counsel percontra has argued for acquittal of accused by referring to some contradictions in the depositions of injured (PW01), complainant (PW05) and policewitnesses (PW02 & PW12) for disputing their presence at the spot of accident. Ld. defence counsel has also pointed to the delay in sending blood sample to FSL, Rohini for raising doubts over veracity of FSL report besides disputing collection of blood sample of accused.
11. Having heard their rival submissions, it would be prudent to advert to the testimonies of witnesses examined by prosecution and defence for adjudicating upon the guilt or innocence of accused Prem Singh.
12. PWs Injured HC Rasool Ahmad, Ct. Sandeep, Ct. Pooran Chand and Ct. Subhash have deposed about their presence near FIR No: 66/13 PS Saket State Vs. Prem Singh Page 6 of 12 barricades at M.B. Road, Asian Market policepicket when the offending motorcycle being driven rashly and negligently by accused hit HC Rasool Ahmad resulting in grievous injury upon his person. All police witnesses were crossexamined by ld. defence counsel and have denied the suggestion about accident being caused as HC Rasool Ahmad had tried to put his danda (lathi) in front of (between the spokes) of the motorcycle. Testimony of witnesses has remained unshaken during cross examination and is also admitted by accused in his deposition recorded as DW01. Presence of these policewitnesses at Asian Market, Police picket, M. B. Road is also corroborated by Ct. Kripal (PW09) who has proved their departure entry as Ex.PW 9/A.
13. Though, accused Prem Singh has testified about a danda being put ahead of the front wheel of his motorcycle which got stuck up with in the wheel resulting in his falling down on road and sustaining injuries, but his plea of defence is not corroborated by the mechanical inspection report proved as Ex. PW 11/A which does not disclose any damage caused to the wheels or the spokes of the motorcycle.
14. Since accused Prem Singh is alleged to have consumed FIR No: 66/13 PS Saket State Vs. Prem Singh Page 7 of 12 alcohol at the time of accident, so, it is also necessary to advert to depositions of Dr. Abdul Hai Gojwari (PW03) and Sh. Jitender Kumar (PW14). During his examinationinchief, Dr. Abdul Hai Gojwari has testified to have examined accused Prem Singh who was conscious, inebriated and seemed to have consumed alcohol. MLC of accused Prem Singh bearing no. 3014, prepared at Max Hospital has been proved as Ex. PW 3/A and bears the signature of witness at point A. Though, seizure memo of blood sample and sample seal was not put to witness Dr. Abdul Hai Gojwari, but, the seizure memo bearing signature of doctor (PW03) has been compared U/s 73 of Evidence Act, 1872 with signature of PW03 appended upon his testimony recorded on 06.03.2014 and is found to be genuine.
15. Notwithstanding the contention raised by ld. defence counsel about delay in sending blood sample and seal to FSL, Rohini for its chemical analysis, it is relevant to record that blood sample bearing seal of MDDVHI, Saket was deposited in malkhana, PS Saket on 17.02.2013 and was sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Chander Prakash on 04.03.2013 vide RC No. 163/21/13. The entry in Register no. 19 has been proved by FIR No: 66/13 PS Saket State Vs. Prem Singh Page 8 of 12 HC Satish Kumar MHC(M) as Ex. PW 10/A and his testimony stands corroborated by Ct. Chander Prakash (PW06) who has deposed to have collected pullanda with the seal of MDDVHI, Saket & sample seal from MHC(M) vide RC No. 163/21/13 dated 04.03.2013 and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini against acknowledgment.
16. Accused Prem Singh has deposed of having lost consciousness after the accident and to have been asked by the doctor to undergo some test after regaining consciousness at hospital. Therefore, collection of his bloodsample by Dr. Abdul Hai Gojwari for checking blood alcohol levels (recorded in MLC) which was sent to FSL, Rohini for chemical analysis cannot be disputed. Sh. Jitender Kumar (PW14) has deposed about sealed parcel with seal of MDDVHI, Saket being marked to him which was found containing dark brown liquid approx 2 ml kept in small vaccutainer and upon GCHS examination was found containing ethyl alcohol 147.2 ml / 100 ml of blood. He has proved his report as Ex. PW 14/A bearing his signature at point A and his testimony has remained unchallenged during his crossexamination.
17. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment titled FIR No: 66/13 PS Saket State Vs. Prem Singh Page 9 of 12 "Prabhakaran Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2007 SC 2376" has observed : "7.... 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 circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
"8.....The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway J. in these words: "Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken FIR No: 66/13 PS Saket State Vs. Prem Singh Page 10 of 12 sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the negligence of the civic duty of circumspection." (See In re: Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad. H.C.R. 119).
18. "Negligence" in the context of road traffic accidents has been regularly defined by Hon'ble Courts as failure to exercise the required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver.
19. Therefore, considering Report No. FSL 2013/C/1677 proved on record as Ex. PW 14/A, drunk driving by accused Prem Singh resulting in hitting policepersonnel (HC Rasool Ahmad) near barricades at Asian Market policepicket in itself is sufficient to constitute rash and negligent driving of motorcycle, in addition to offence U/s 185 of M.V. Act. Hence, FIR No: 66/13 PS Saket State Vs. Prem Singh Page 11 of 12 having driven offending motorcycle no. DL3SBE6156 under influence of liquor and caused accident by hitting injured Rasool Ahmad near barricade at Asian Market Picket, M.B. Road on 17.02.2013 at about 09:05 PM, prosecution has successfully proved its allegation of rash and negligent driving under influence of liquor against accused Prem Singh. PW08 Dr. V. G. R. Shastri has proved MLC of injured HC Rasul Ahmad as Ex. PW 8/A wherein injury upon his person was opined to be grievous.
20. Therefore, on the basis of testimonies of witnesses examined on judicial record, accused Prem Singh S/o Sh. Pan Singh is held guilty of offences alleged in the chargesheet and is accordingly convicted for offences U/s 279 & 338 IPC and U/s 185 of M.V. Act.
21. Matter be now listed for submissions and order on question of sentence on 27.01.2015 at 02:00 PM.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 22 January, 2015 nd (TARUN YOGESH) ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI FIR No: 66/13 PS Saket State Vs. Prem Singh Page 12 of 12