Delhi District Court
Gopal Dutt Faloriya vs State on 21 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-019220-2024
Criminal Appeal No.: 499/2024
GOPAL DUTT FALORIYA,
S/o. Shri. Khem Chand,
R/o. A-66, Karam Pura,
Delhi . ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ... RESPONDENT
Date of filing : 07.12.2024
Date of institution : 09.12.2024
Date when judgment was reserved : 17.03.2026
Date when judgment is pronounced : 21.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')/pari materia with Section 415 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') against the judgment dated 27.08.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned judgment'), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-02/Ld. JMFC-02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. Trial Court/Ld. JMFC') in case bearing, 'State v. Gopal Dutt Faloriya, Cr. Case No. 3425/2020', arising out of FIR No. 294/2018, P.S. Timarpur, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), and the consequent order of sentence dated 19.11.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order'), passed by the Ld. Trial Court, awarding the appellant;
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 1 of 52
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:17:50
+0530
simple imprisonment for a period of 03 (three) months along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (six) months for the offence under Section 304A IPC; simple imprisonment for a period of 03 (three) months along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 (one) month for the offence under Section 279 IPC; and simple imprisonment for a period of 03 (three) months along with fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 (one) month for the offence under Section 337 IPC, sentences to run concurrently. Further, the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,989/- (Rupees Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Nine only) towards expenses incurred by prosecution, besides it was directed that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter impugned judgment and impugned order are collectively referred to as the 'impugned judgment and order').
2. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 28.12.2018, on receipt of PCR Call vide DD No. 24A, regarding a fatal accident, the concerned police officials, reached at the spot, i.e., at outer ring road towards ISBT Gopalpur, near Wazirabad flyover (hereinafter referred to as the 'spot'). Markedly, at the spot, one truck bearing registration no. DL-1GC-7459 of Hindustan Petroleum Company (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') and an accidental motorcycle of Honda CD Delux make, black and blue in colour, bearing registration no. DL-5SAD-1317 (hereinafter referred to as the 'accidental C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 2 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:17:54 +0530 motorcyle') were found present (हिन्दूस्तान पेट्रोलियम की गाडी Truck No. DL1GC 7459 सड़क के वीचो वीच खड़ी थी जिस गाडी के पीछे m/cycle NO DL 5S AD 1317 H/Honda C.D Deluxe बारंग काला व नीला खडी थी). Correspondingly, it was determined that blood was lying on road, next to the said motorcycle, while it was noted that the victims had already been shifted to Hospital. At the same time, it was found that several persons had gathered at the spot, whereupon, the concerned police official(s), shifted the accidental motorcycle on one side of the road, after photographs of the accidental vehicle was taken by the concerned police official. Correspondingly, the concerned police official(s) established the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle as Gopal Dutt Faloriya, S/o. Shri. Khem Chand (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant'), whereupon the offending vehicle was also shifted to one corner of the road. Thereafter, the concerned police official/ASI proceeded for Sushruta Trauma Centre Hospital, where under MLC No. 15072/18, one unknown person was found admitted with an alleged history of being found on road side, "...RTA (Hit & run ) Pt brought dead...". Congruently, under MLC No. 15073/18, another unknown person, aged 3 years was found under treatment, who was stated to be shifted to Hospital by some public persons. Markedly, under said facts and circumstances, the instant FIR was registered, and investigation ensued. 2.1. Remarkably, during the course of ensuing investigation, the concerned police official(s), contacted the PCR caller, namely, Nasir Ali S/o. Ali Sher ( hereinafter referred to as the 'eyewitness'), who proclaimed himself to be the eyewitness of incident (दौराने तफ्तीश मन ASI ने PCR call करने वाले शख्स से बजरिये फोन बात की जिसने अपना नाम व पता नसीर अली पुत्र अली शेर पता म.न. 124/A-1, गली न. 9, गाँव C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 3 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:18:00 +0530 वजीराबाद, दिल्ली उम्र 32 वर्ष वतलाया और अपने आप को मौका का चश्मदीद गवाह बतलाया।). Ergo, the eyewitness was called at the spot and the site plan was inter alia prepared by the Investigating Officer/IO. In the meanwhile, identity of the deceased was determined to be Shashank Kujjur (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and the identity of the victim/injured was determined to be, 'E 1', S/o. of Shashank Kujjur (hereinafter referred to as the 'victim/injured'). Ergo, the relatives of the deceased were contacted and their statements were recorded (इसके बाद मन ASI ने मृतक के भाई व जीजा को शामिल तफ्तीश कर दरियाफ्त अमल में लाई व उनका ब्यान अलग से दर्ज किया गया।). Congruently, the arrest, search and disclosure proceedings of the deceased were conducted (जो बाद दरियाफ्त बाद गुजरने हालात गिरफ्तारी मुलजिम गोपाल दत्ता कलेरिया को मुकदमा हजा में हस्ब जफ्ता गिरफ्तार किया गया व गिरफ्तारी से सम्बंधित तमाम कागजात पुर किये गए।). Subsequently, postmortem examination of the deceased was got conducted vide PM No. 2079/18 and the body of the deceased was handed over to his relatives (दिनांक 29.12.18 को मृतक शशांक कु जूर का vide PM न. 2079/18 से पोस्ट मार्टम कराया तथा बाद PM मृतक की डेड बॉडी को ... उसके वरिशान के हवाले किया गया।). Congruently, mechanical inspection of the vehicles in question was got conducted and the opinion on nature of injuries of the victim was obtained, where the nature of victim's injuries was opined to be 'simple'. Thereafter, on recording of statements of various witnesses and on conclusion of investigation in the instant case, the chargesheet came to be filed before the Ld. Trial Court.
2.2. Markedly, upon such chargesheet being filed, Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 28.04.2022, took cognizance of offences under Sections 279/337/304A IPC. Concurrently, upon 1 Master 'E'/PW-7, specified at Sr. No. 7 of the list of prosecution witnesses and identity deliberately withheld as being a minor at the relevant point in time.C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 4 of 52
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:18:05 +0530 compliance of the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C. on 22.07.2022, and on arguments on the aspect of notice having been addressed by/on behalf of the State and the appellant, Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 03.11.2022, served notice on the appellant, in terms of the provisions under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 279/337/304A IPC, inter alia under the following observations;
"...Submissions on the point of service of notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. heard.
There is sufficient material on record to show that prima facie case u/s. 279/337/304A IPC is made out against the accused and accordingly, notice is served upon accused for offence u/s. 279/337/304A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial ..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.3. Apposite here to further reproduce the relevant extracts of notice dated 03.11.2022, served on the appellant, as under;
"...I, ***, MM-02, Central do hereby charge you namely Gopal Dut Fuloria S/o Sh. Khem Chand Fuloria, R/o. A-block, Karampura, West Delhi as under:-
It is alleged against you that on 28.12.2018 at about 11:35 am, at outer ring road towards ISBT Gopal Pur, near Wazirabad flyover within the jurisdiction of PS Timarpur, you were found driving Truck(tanker) bearing registration no. DL IGC-7459 in a rash or negligent manner and while driving the above said vehicle in the aforesaid manner, you drove your vehicle over the deceased, who was riding along with 2 children on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL5SAD1317 causing his death (not amounting to culpable homicide) and caused simple injury to the one of the two children. Therefore, you have committed offence(s) punishable under Section 279/337/304A IPC within the cognizance of this court.
Show cause why you should not be punished for the above-said offences by this Court..."
(Emphasis supplied) C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 5 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:18:10 +0530 2.4. Significantly, during the course of trial, prosecution examined 12 (twelve) witnesses/prosecution witnesses, who deposed in their respective testimonies, regarding the following;
Prosecution Particulars of Description witness no. the witness PW-1 Avinash Singh Deposed inter alia regarding him removing the victim from the spot to the Hospital on 28.12.2018, with the assistance of other public persons.
PW-2 HC Ashwani MHC(M) at relevant point in time.
Testified inter alia regarding the deposit of case property in malkhana by ASI Om Prakash.
PW-3 Asrita Tiga Wife of the deceased, who inter alia deposed of being informed of accident/incident on 28.12.2018 as well as of the factum of demise of her husband/deceased and injury on her son Ethan, pursuant to such accident/incident.
PW-4 Kailash Chand Deposed inter alia regarding him reaching at PS. Timarpur on 04.01.2019 by the IO and of him/PW-4, taking photographs of truck bearing no. DL-1GC-7459 with its owner from different angles on the said date.
PW-5 Om Singh Deposed inter alia of him working as a helper in truck bearing no.
DL-1GC-7459 on 28.12.2012 as well as of the appellant's driving the said truck on the said date. Further, as per PW-5, on the said date, while they were proceeding for Shastri Park, Delhi and the truck was filled with petrol, at around 11:30 a.m., noise of hitting some vehicle with the truck was heard. It was further deposed by PW-5 that the appellant, consequently, stopped the truck and noted that a motorcycle was lying on the road along with the rider and a child and that both the said rider and child were injured.
PW-6 Master 'A' Son of the victim, who inter alia (specified at Sr. deposed that in the year 2018, No. 6 of list of incident had taken place and, on that C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 6 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:18:15 +0530 prosecution day, PW-6 along with his brother witnesses) and father were riding on a motorcycle, when a truck came from behind and hit the motorcycle. PW-6 further deposed that they fell from their motorcycle and his/PW-6's brother as well as father sustained injuries, whereupon they were shifted to Hospital. Further, as per PW-6, his mother came to the police station and thereafter, he went to his mother to Hospital, where it was determined that his father had passed away.
PW-7 Master 'E' Victim in the instant case. Deposed (specified at Sr. inter alia regarding him proceeding No. 7 of the list with his father and brother for of prosecution hanging out in their motorcycle. witnesses) PW-7 further testified that one tempo hit their motorcycle from behind, whereupon their motorcycle fell on the ground. Further, as per PW-7, he and his father suffered injuries, while PW-7's brother was not injured.
PW-8 Satish Kumar Deposed inter alia regarding the Sapra appellant being an employee of his company, i.e., HPCL and on the date of incident of him/appellant, driving the said vehicle. Correspondingly, PW-8 asserted that on 28.12.2018, the appellant caused the accident at around 11:35 a.m., near Wazirabad flyover and he/PW-8 issued a letter regarding the same to the SHO of PS Timarpur.
PW-9 SI (Retd.) Ram Deposed inter alia regarding him Mehra working as Incharge of PCR van Sugar-11 on 28.12.2018 and at around 11:35 a.m., of him/PW-9's responding to PCR Call regarding an accident near Wazirabad as well as responding to the same. PW-9 further testified that the driver of the truck and its helper were found at the spot, whilst the injured persons were shifted to Hospital.
Correspondingly, as per PW-9, he handed over the driver to the IO and Ct. Sanjeev, when they reached at C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 7 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:18:19 +0530 the said spot.
PW-10 Nasir Ali Eyewitness of the incident in question. Deposed inter alia of the offence in question and identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the said offence.
PW-11 HC Sanjeev Deposed inter alia regarding him Chahar joining the investigation in the present case along with IO/SI Om Prakash and of getting the FIR registered at the instance of the IO.
PW-12 IO/SI (Retd.) Investigating Officer in the present Om Prakash case. Deposed inter alia of the investigation conducted by him as well as of filing of the present chargesheet before the Ld. Trial Court.
2.5. Pertinent to note here that the aforenoted witnesses/prosecution witnesses further exhibited/proved the following documents and objects, during the course of their respective evidence;
Exhibit Description of Exhibit Exhibited no./Material by/Proved objects by/Attested by Ex. P1 (Colly.) Photographs of offending vehicle PW-1/Avinash (1-10) bearing registration no. Singh DL-1GC-7459 and accidental motorcycle bearing no.
DL-5SAD-1317.
Ex. PW2/A Photocopy of entry no. 3116 in PW-2/HC register no. 19 regarding deposit Ashwani of motorcycle bearing no.
DL-5SAP-1317 and truck
bearing no. DL-1GC-7459 in
malkhana.
Ex. P2(Colly.) CD and photographs of truck PW-4/Kailash
bearing no. DL-1GC-7459 with Chand
its owner.
Ex. PW8/A Letter issued by PW-8 to SHO PW-8/Satish
regarding the appellant's driving Kumar Sapra
the offending vehicle on the date
of incident.
Ex. PW10/A Site plan of the incident spot. PW-10/Nasir Ali
Ex. PW10/B Seizure memo of the offending PW-10/Nasir Ali
vehicle.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 8 of 52
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2026.04.21
16:18:23
+0530
Ex. PW10/C Seizure memo of the accidental PW-10/Nasir Ali
motorcycle.
Ex. PW10/D Seizure memo of the driving PW-10/Nasir Ali
license of the appellant.
Ex. PW10/E Seizure memo of the documents PW-10/Nasir Ali
pertaining to the offending truck.
Ex. PW10/F Arrest memo of the appellant. PW-10/Nasir Ali
Ex. PW10/G Personal search memo of the PW-10/Nasir Ali
appellant.
Ex. PW10/G1 Disclosure statement of the PW-10/Nasir Ali
appellant.
Ex. PW12/A Tehrir PW-12/SI (Retd.)
Om Prakash
Ex. PW12/B Bail bonds furnished by the PW-12/SI (Retd.)
appellant. Om Prakash
Ex. PW12/C Request application filed at PW-12/SI (Retd.)
Mortuary, PS. Subzi Mandi. Om Prakash
Ex. PW12/D Postmortem related documents. PW-12/SI (Retd.)
(Colly.) Om Prakash
Ex. PW12/E Dead body handing over memo. PW-12/SI (Retd.)
Om Prakash
2.6. Markedly, during the course of proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court, the appellant admitted the following documents, in terms of the provisions under Section 294 Cr.P.C. on 03.11.2022;
Exhibit no. Description of Exhibit
Ex. AD1 FIR No. 294/2018, PS. Timarpur (present FIR) under
Sections 279/337/304A IPC.
Ex. AD2 Endorsement on rukka.
Ex. AD3 Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872
Ex. AD4 DD No. 24A, dated 28.12.2018.
Ex. AD5 DD No. 25A, dated 28.12.2018.
Ex. AD6 DD No. 26A, dated 28.12.2018.
Ex. AD7 Mechanical Inspection Report in respect of vehicle
bearing no. DL-1GC-7459.
Ex. AD8 Mechanical Inspection Report in respect of vehicle
bearing no. DL-5SAD-1317.
Ex. AD9 MLC No. 15072/18 of the deceased.
Ex. AD10, Ex. Dead body identification statements.
AD11 and Ex.
AD12
Ex. AD13 Postmortem Report of the deceased.
Ex. AD14 MLC No. 15073/18 of the victim, 'E'.
Ex. AD15 X-ray Report CR No. 15073/18.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 9 of 52
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:18:28 +0530
Ex. AD16 Death Certificate.
Ex. AD17 Casualty Form No. 7924/18.
2.7. Concurrently, in view of aforenoted admission, Ld. Trial Court vide an order of even date/order dated 03.11.2022, dropped/dispensed with the examination of corresponding prosecution witnesses, i.e., Vinay Koojer, Sushant Lakra, Gurdeep Singh (Mechanical Expert), Dr. Ajay Dalal, Dr. Ritu, Dr. Ankur, Dr. Kamal Dabas, Dr. Arun Kumar and DO/HC Anil Kumar, in the instant case. Subsequently, on conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant, under Sections 313/281 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 23.07.2024. Thereafter, on conclusion of arguments on behalf of the appellant as well as by State, as aforementioned, the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order, holding the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304A IPC, sentenced him in the manner, as noted hereinabove.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and order were passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere conjunctures, surmises and in contravention of the settled principles of law, deserving their setting aside at the outset. In this regard, Ld. Counsel fervently argued that the impugned judgment and order were passed by the Ld. Trial Court in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the findings arrived at by the Ld. Counsel are not supported by the evidence on record. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that in the instant case, there are numerous gaping holes in the case put forth by the prosecution and that the prosecution's story does not inspire any confidence, nor appeals to the senses of a prudent man.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 10 of 52 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.04.21 16:18:35 +0530
Correspondingly, Ld. Counsel for the appellant vehemently asserted that while reaching the finding of appellant's guilt, Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle in question in correct perspective. In this regard, Ld. Counsel argued that even the material place on record does not support the prosecution's story, in as much as despite the avowal of the deceased's child that the tanker was hit from backside of the motorcycle, no injury was noted at the said motorcycle's rear end, belying the case put forth against the accused. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, in the instant case, maxim 'res ipsa liquitor' is totally applicable, demonstrating that the deceased passed away due to his own fault/omission, without there being any omission/culpability on the part of the appellant/accused. In fact, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant, while failing to appreciate that correct and proper facts of the case, and passing the impugned judgment and order, in haste. It was further reiterated by the Ld. Counsel that from a reading/analysis of the mechanical inspection reports of motorcycle and tanker it is crystal clear that tanker driver was not at fault and the motorcycle driver, hit the tanker from behind and sustained fatal injury.
3.1. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the impugned judgment and order are bad in law, making them liable to be outrightly set aside. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, a perusal of the testimonies of the various witnesses/PWs, who were examined before the Ld. Trial Court would clearly demonstrate that there are glaring, and material contradictions and the Ld. Trial Court has committed grave error by not considering the same, leading to gross miscarriage of justice to the appellant.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 11 of 52
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:18:40
+0530
Congruently, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the IO failed to produce a single eyewitness, in support of the case put forth against the appellant herein. It was further submitted that from a perusal of the crime scene and photographs, brought on record, it is quite apparent that there was no fault/omission on the part of the appellant. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, even PW-10/Nasir Ali asserted during the course of his cross examination that the accidental motorcycle was behind the offending truck, however, he/PW-10 could not tell the speed of the said truck. Correspondingly, PW-10 avowed that the truck was being driven in slow speed and that he had not seen the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of alleged commission of incident. In fact, PW-10 went ahead to proclaim that the said truck was being driven in its lane. However, as per the Ld. Counsel, the said factors were not properly appreciated by the Ld. Trial Court, while erroneously reaching a finding of appellant's guilt. Even otherwise, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the Ld. Trial Court further failed to consider that oil tankers, in majority of cases, move in the center of the road, because if it overturns, same may cause severe causality in fire. Ergo, it was submitted that there was no occasion of the driver of the tanker to drive his vehicle in a rash and/or negligent manner in the instant case, especially when he was driving a tanker, filled with around 23,000 (twenty three thousand) litres of petrol and as per the government set driving speed/protocol.
3.2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further contended that the Ld. Trial Court further failed to appreciate facts of the case were meaningly/ominously twisted after the accident to claim C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 12 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:18:44 +0530 compensation from the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. In fact, as per the Ld. Counsel, the family of the deceased and the concerned police officials acted hand in glove to falsely rope in the appellant in the present case, solely to exploit the provisions under law, to claim recompense from the appellant. In this regard, it was further submitted that the IO deliberately opted not to conduct due and fair investigation, in as much as no endeavor was made by the IO to determine/seize the driving license of the deceased, which fact, if properly investigated, would have shown that the deceased was neither in possession of a proper driving license, nor competent to drive the motorcycle in question. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the conduct of the appellant is self-explanatory so as to belie the allegations levelled against him in so far as the appellant made endeavor to flee from the spot till the police officials reached at the spot, accentuating the innocence in the appellant's conduct. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, while passing the impugned judgment, Ld. Trial Court did not consider the deposition of PW-1/Avinash Singh, who affirmed that he had not seen the incident in question. However, despite the same, as per the Ld. Counsel, an erroneous finding of appellant's guilt was reached by the Ld. Trial Court.
3.3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court further failed to consider that the IO clearly asserted that when he reached at the spot, no eyewitness was present there, besides, the tanker was seen in elevated position. Ld. Counsel further submitted that whilst being in a state of elevation with substantial petrol, it would not have been possible for the appellant to drive the said tanker in high speed and/or in rash and negligent manner. It was further submitted that none of the C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 13 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:18:49 +0530 prosecution witnesses, even otherwise, asserted under their respective depositions that the truck/tanker was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, essential to attribute culpability against the appellant. Even otherwise, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that PW-6 and PW-7 were both minors at the relevant point in time and related to the deceased. Congruently, Ld. Counsel submitted that not only did the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the truth of circumstances and passed its judgment/decision in haste, rather, did not properly appreciate/examine the facts of the present case, wrongly holding the appellant guilty of the aforementioned offences. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel even due and proper consideration/mitigating factors were not considered by the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order/order of sentence in the instant case. As per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the appellant was solely responsible for his family's sustenance and take care. Even otherwise, it was submitted that the appellant is around 63 (sixty three) years of age and has suffered persistent rigors of litigation. Ergo, it was submitted that in case, relaxation from sentence is not accorded to the appellant, grave injustice/depravity would befall on the appellant's family members Consequently, the Ld. Counsel inter alia prayed that the present appeal be allowed, and the impugned judgment and order be set aside. In support of the said contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in; State of Karnataka v. Satish, 1998 SCC (Crl) 1508; Mohd. Aynuddin v. State of A.P., (2000) 7 SCC 72;
Balwan Singh v. State, 2012 (1) CC Cases (HC) 562; Abdul Subhan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 133 (2006) DLT 562; Mohan Shyam v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2013 (1) CC Cases (HC) 66;
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 14 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.04.21 16:18:54 +0530
Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2014 (3) CC Cases (HC) 424; and Rakesh R. Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 Crl. LJ 1911.
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the impugned judgment and order were passed by the Ld. Trial Court after due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in consonance with the settled judicial precedents. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have not only been consistent, rather, unblemished as well as coherently point towards the only inference of appellant's guilt. As per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the facts and circumstances put forth as well as the evidence placed on record, unerringly point out towards the guilt of the appellant and that no fault can be attributed to the finding of the Ld. Trial Court, which is based on proper appreciation of facts as well as law. Accordingly, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed at the outset, as grossly malicious and devoid of merits. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, sufficient leverage has been accorded to the appellant by the Ld. Trial Court, while passing the order of sentence, adopting a lenient view. Accordingly, it was prayed that no relaxation may be granted to the appellant considering the gravity of allegations and the victims in the instant case.
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as that of Ld. Addl. PP for the State have been heard and the record(s), including the Trial Court Record, written submissions/written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant and the aforenoted case laws, thoroughly perused.
6. Before proceeding with the evaluation of the rival contentions raised, this Court deems it apposite to enunciate the C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 15 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.21 16:18:59 +0530 scope of jurisdiction of this Court in an appeal. In this regard, this Court it is pertinent to outrightly make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padam Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 1 SCC 621, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while delving into the 'scope and ambit' of appellate court's jurisdiction inter alia noted as under;
"2. ... It is the duty of an appellate court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. It must be remembered that the appellate court, like the trial court, has to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as the presumption of innocence with which the accused starts, continues right through until he is held guilty by the final court of appeal and that presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court..."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narendra Bhat v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 17 SCC 785 , iterated in respect of the foregoing as under;
"3. This Court has in a series of judgments held that a court exercising appellate power must not only consider questions of law but also questions of fact and in doing so it must subject the evidence to a critical scrutiny..."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Quite evidently, from a conjoint reading of the aforenoted judicial dictates it can be perspicuously deduced that the jurisdiction of this Court in an appeal extends to reappreciation of the entire material placed on record of the trial court and to C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 16 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:19:04 +0530 arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not. In fact, as aforenoted, court(s), while exercising appellate power is not required to consider the question of law, rather, also question of facts to affirmatively reach a conclusion of guilt or innocence of an accused. In fact, it is trite law2 that non-re-appreciation of the evidence on record in an appeal may affect the case of either the prosecution or even the accused. Needless to reemphasize that the appellate court is to be further wary of fact that presumption of innocence of an accused, even extents until an accused is held guilty by the final court of appeal and that such a presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court.
9. Therefore, being cognizant of the aforesaid principles, however, before proceeding with the determination of the rival contentions of the appellant and the State, it would be pertinent to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/IPC, as under;
"279. 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 months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
*** *** ***
337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others-Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
*** *** *** 2 State of Gujarat v. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave, (2021) 2 SCC 735.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 17 of 52
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:19:09
+0530
304-A. Causing death by negligence-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."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Notably, it is observed from perusal of the aforesaid provisions that the essential ingredients3 to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC are, "there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person." Concurrently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ras Bihari Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC Online Del 12290, while explicating the ingredients of the provisions/ offence(s) under Sections 279/304A IPC inter alia observed as under;
"9. To constitute an offence under Section 279 IPC, it must be shown that the person was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Criminal negligence or criminal rashness is an important element of the offence under Section 279 IPC.
*** *** ***
11. In a road accident case, to convict a person for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution is required to bring on record the basic requirement of the said Section i.e. "Rash or Negligent Act" with following conditions:
1) There must be death of the person in question;
2) that the accused must have caused such death; and
3) that such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide.
*** *** ***
13. Section 304A which deals with unintentional death caused by doing any rash or negligent act of the offender. The applicability of this Section is limited to rash or negligent acts which cause death but fall short of culpable homicide amounting to murder or 3 Vinod Kumar v. State, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4347.C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 18 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.21 16:19:13 +0530 culpable homicide not amounting to murder. To bring an offence within the ambit of Section 304A, the prosecution is required to bring on record that the act was done by an accused and the death was caused due to rash and negligent act."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Correspondingly, to constitute an offence under Section 337 IPC, the prosecution is required to satisfy that the injury had been caused to any person by the accused's commission of any rash or negligent act and that such injuries are simple in nature. Quite evidently, in order to sustain a conviction under the provisions under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC, the prosecution is inter alia required to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle/the accused was driving the same in a rash or negligent manner and further by doing such an act, rashly or negligent, the offender endangered human life or caused death of any person, respectively. Palpably, rashness or negligence is one of the key ingredients/elements to constitute the offences under the said provisions. In this regard, it is apposite at this stage, to further make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 3 SCC 474, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while explicating the contours of the terms, 'rashness' and 'negligence', observed as under;
"7. ...Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304-A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 19 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.21 16:19:17 +0530 would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
8. As noted above, "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."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Analogously, the Hon'ble Apex Court, earlier in Mohd. Aynuddin v. State of A.P., (2000) 7 SCC 72 , while cogitating on the meaning/connotation of culpable rashness and culpable negligence, noted as under;
"9. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Ergo, it is quite intelligible4 that negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a 4 Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCC 284.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 20 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.04.21 16:19:50 +0530
reasonable man guided by those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. In contrast, a rash act is a negligent act done precipitately. In fact, it is a settled law5, "Negligence is the genus, of which rashness is the species." Further, rashness consists6 in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. It is trite, the criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Needless to reiterate, under the provisions under Sections 279/304A IPC7, "negligence indicates total negligence on the part of the driver. It means that he was driving the vehicle in such a negligent way which would stamp his driving by only word "negligence". Rashness indicates that he drives the vehicle in such a way while driving he knows that by such driving, he is likely to invite an accident but hopes that such accident may not occur."
14. Consequently, being wary of the principles hereinunder noted, this Court would now proceed with the determination of the issue/fact, 'whether a finding of appellant's guilt, beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Section 279/337/304A IPC, can be reached in the facts and circumstances of the case?'. In particular, before proceeding with determination as to, 'whether the Ld. Trial Court committed any error in convicting the appellant for the said offences?'. Markedly, in this regard, is made to the deposition of PW-10/Nasir Ali, who inter alia proclaimed in his deposition dated 18.03.2024 that the 5 Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala, (2007) 14 SCC 269.
6S.N. Hussain v. State of A.P., (1972) 3 SCC 18.
7Jayprakash Laxman Tambe v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 1176.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 21 of 52
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:21:20
+0530
incident occurred six years prior to the date of his deposition, when he was proceeding from Gopalpur side towards ISBT Kashmere Gate via Outer Ring Road. As per PW-10, one petrol truck and a motorcycle were in front of his/PW-10's motorcycle, when the said truck tried to overtake the said motorcycle, the handle of the motorcycle got stuck in the rear end of the truck and the head of the rider of the motorcycle was crushed by the rear right-side tyre of the truck. Congruently, as per PW-10, two children were also present along with the motorcycle driver and one of the said children got injured, however, the other child got no injuries. Thereafter, as per PW-10, he stopped his motorcycle and made 100 number call from the phone of driver of motorcycle. However, it was avowed by PW-10 that the truck driver stopped the truck and left the spot and he/PW-10 took out the keys of the truck from the truck itself. After some time, PW-10 asserted that the police officials reached at the spot and he/PW-10 handed over the key as well as said mobile phone to them and also narrated the incident to the said police officials. Congruently, PW-10 avowed that both the injured persons were shifted to Hospital by the public persons in a TSR and he/PW-10, thereafter, left the spot. Needless to mention, PW-10 identified the appellant as the perpetrator of offence, besides he also identified the offending vehicle, bearing no. DL-1GC-7459 as well as the motorcycle of injured bearing no. DL-5SAD-1317 from their photographs, Ex. Pl (Colly.). Apposite to note here, Ld. Addl. PP for the State posed leading question from PW-10, wherein he/PW-10 avowed, as under;
"...It is correct that the incident took place on 28.12.2018 at about 11:35AM when I was going from my home towards ISBT and I was working in OLA at that time. It is also correct that the offending truck was of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 22 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.04.21 16:21:45 +0530
However, I do not remember the registration number of the same. (At this stage, witness is confronted with his statement Us 161 Cr.P.C. which is Mark 'P10' from point A to Al where the registration number of the truck is recorded as DL IGC-7459) It is also correct that the accidental motorcycle was being driven by the deceased on the right side of the truck and two children were pillion riders of the said motorcycle.
However, I do not remember the registration number of the said motorcycle. (At this stage, witness is confronted with his statement Us 161 Cr.P.C. which is already Mark "P10' from point B to B1 where the registration number of the truck is recorded as DL-5S- AD-1317).
It is also correct that one child got injuries on his head and arm. It is also correct that the blood was oozing out from the head of deceased and injured child. It is also correct that there was traffic jam on the road due to the accident. It is also correct that I saw the accident happen. It is also correct that the police officials took the photographs of the spot and shifted the aforesaid truck and motorcycle on the corner of the road to remove the traffic jam and thereafter, I went to my duty. It is also correct that the police officials called me and asked me to come to the spot and told the that the driver of the aforesaid motorcycle had died but the children were out of danger. It is also correct that the site plan was prepared in my presence by the IO which is Ex. PW10/A bearing my signature at point A. It is also correct that the IO seized aforesaid truck and motorcycle of deceased vide seizure memos which are Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW10/C both bearing my signature at print A. It is also correct that the IO seized the DL of the accused vide memo which is Ex. PW10/D bearing my signature at point A. It is also correct that the IO seized the documents of the offending truck vide memo which is Ex. PW10/E bearing my signature at point A. It is also correct that the IO arrested the accused and personally searched the accused vide memos which are Ex. PW10/F and Ex. PW10/G bearing my signature at point A. It is also correct that the IO recorded disclosure statement of the accused vide memo which is Ex. PW10/G bearing my signature at point A. It is also correct that IO recorded my statement Us 161 Cr.P.C.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 23 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.21 16:21:50 +0530
It is wrong to suggest that accused and his khalasi were standing at the corner of the road. (At this stage, witness is confronted with his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. which is already Mark 'P10' from point C to C1 where the it is so recorded).
It is wrong to suggest that I handed over the accused and his khalasi to the police officials. (At this stage, witness is confronted with his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. which is already Mark 'P10' from point D to DI where it is so recorded).
Vol. The accused himself came before the police officials.
It is wrong to suggest that I am not disclosing the complete facts due to lapse of time..."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Remarkably, upon being cross examined by/on behalf of the appellant, PW-10, asserted, as under;
"XXXXXX Sh. ***, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
I was going for my work as I was working in OLA at that time at about 10-11AM. I was at a distance of about 10-20 meters from the offending truck. The accidental motorcycle was behind the offending truck. I cannot tell the speed of the offending truck. However, the truck was at slow speed. The speed of the accidental motorcycle and my motorcycle was about 40 km/hr. I had not seen the driver of the offending truck at the time of accident, but he came at the spot after sometime as he left the spot after the accident. I do not know whether any other person was present with the truck driver or not. There was no traffic jam at the time of the accident. The road on which the accident took place was a 4 lane road. The driver of the aforesaid motorcycle was wearing a helmet. The offending truck was white and red in colour. The truck was driving in its lane and trying to climb the flyover by going from left side to right side.
It is wrong to suggest that the driver of the accidental motorcycle himself hit the offending truck and thereafter his motorcycle lost balance and he fell down on the road. It is wrong to suggest that the aforesaid truck did not climb the aforesaid flyover. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have not seen the accident happen..."
(Emphasis supplied) C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 24 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:21:54 +0530
16. Germane for the purposes of the present discourse to make a reference to the testimony of PW-6/Master 'A', son of the deceased and around 12 years of age at the time of his deposition, who inter alia proclaimed that the incident had taken place in the year 2018, when he/PW-6 along with his brother and father were on motorcycle. As per PW-6, a truck came from behind and hit their motorcycle. Consequently, as per PW-6, they all fell from the said motorcycle and his brother and father sustained injuries, as well as were shifted to the Hospital. PW-6 further asserted that he was taken to the police station, where his mother came and he/PW-6 along with his mother went to the Hospital, however, in their passage to the Hospital, he came to know that his father had passed away. Congruently, as per PW-6, his statement was recorded by the police officials on 10.03.2019. Needless to mention, PW-6 identified the accidental motorcycle and offending vehicle/truck from their photographs in judicial file as well as the appellant as the accused/perpetrator of offence, during the course of his deposition. Pertinently, upon being cross- examined by/on behalf of the appellant, PW-6 proclaimed, as under;
"XXXXXX by Sh. ***, Ld. Counsel for accused. The incident took place at around 11 am. The truck hit our motorcycle from left side. I did not get unconscious after the accident.
There were people around but no so much. I am not aware of the speed of the motorcycle and truck. The driver of truck went ahead but was stopped by the public. Thereafter, many people gathered there. I have witnessed the accident as I was pillion rider on the motorcycle. I was looking in my front. It is wrong to suggest that the driver was helping the injured person. It is wrong to suggest that the accident did not take place from the truck. It is C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 25 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.21 16:21:58 +0530 wrong to suggest that I did not see the accident as I was looking in my front. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
*** *** *** It is wrong to suggest that the accused is not the same person who has caused the accident."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Correspondingly, reference is made to the deposition of PW-7/Master 'E'/victim and around 8 years of age at the time of his deposition, who avowed that he was proceeding along with his father and brother on a motorcycle on the date when incident had transpired. PW-7 further proclaimed that one tempo hit their motorcycle from behind and the motorcycle fell on the ground. Consequently, as per PW-7, he and his father sustained injuries, however, PW-7's brother did not suffer any injury. Thereafter, as per PW-7, public persons removed him and his father to the Hospital. Pertinently, PW-7 identified the accidental motorcycle as well as the tyres of offending truck from their photographs, though, he proclaimed that he had not seen the driver of the tempo at that point in time. Significantly, PW-7 asserted under his cross- examination, as under;
"...XXXXXXX by Sh. ***, Ld. Counsel for accused.
The tempo hit our motorcycle from backside and the truck hit at the backlight of the motorcycle. At the time of accident, it was day time.
It is wrong to suggest that the accident did not take place from the truck. It is wrong to suggest that I did not see the accident as I was looking in my front. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely..."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Appreciably, for the purpose(s) of present discourse, it is also pertinent here to make a reference to the deposition of PW-5/Om Singh, who testified that on 28.12.2012, he was working as helper on the truck bearing registration DL-IGC-7459 C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 26 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:22:02 +0530 and the appellant was the driver of the said truck. Correspondingly, as per PW-5, on that day, they were proceeding towards Shastri Park, Delhi and the truck was filled with petrol. At about 11:30. a.m., as per PW-5, they were about to reach Wazirabad, when they heard a noise of hitting some vehicle with their truck. PW-5 further asserted that the appellant stopped the truck and they noted that a motorcycle was lying on the road along with the rider and a child. As per PW-5, both the rider and said child were injured and the rider was unconscious, while the child was conscious. Further, as per PW-5, the said motorcycle had hit at the right side back tyre of their truck. Congruently, it was deposed by PW-5 that public persons gathered there and they were standing at some distance from the vehicle. Thereafter, police officials reached at the spot and the injured were shifted to the Hospital, while they/PW-5 and accused were taken to PS. Timarpur, where his/PW-5's statement was recorded by the IO. Needless to mention that PW-5 correctly identified the offending vehicle as well as the accidental motorcycle from their photographs. However, the identity of the appellant was not disputed under the deposition of PW-5. Here, it is pertinent to note that PW-5 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, as he was found not disclosing the entire facts, where PW-5 avowed, as under;
"XXXXXX by Ld. APP for the State.
It is correct that police officials recorded our addresses at the spot and parked the motorcycle and truck at the corner of the road and cleared the traffic from the spot.
It is wrong to suggest that we did not park the motorcycle of the injured and that blood was oozing out of the head of the rider of the motorcycle. It is wrong to suggest that public persons took the both injured persons to the hospital in a TSR. It is wrong to suggest that I am not disclosing the complete facts and C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 27 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:22:06 +0530 not identifying the remaining photographs due to lapse of time."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Notably, PW-5 was not cross examined by/on behalf of the appellant, despite opportunity. Concomitantly, it is relevant here to further refer to the testimony of PW-8/Satish Kumar Sapra, who inter alia deposed that the appellant was an employee of their company, i.e., HPCL and that on the day of the incident, he/the appellant was driving the company owned vehicle. Needless to mention that PW-8 correctly identified the appellant as well as the offending vehicle from its photographs (Ex. P2(Colly.)). Relevantly, upon being cross examined by/on behalf of the State, PW-8 affirmed that on 28.12.2018, the appellant, bearing employee no. 3541160, caused the accident around 11:35 a.m., near Wazirabad flyover and he/PW-8 issued a letter (Ex. PW8/A) regarding the same to the SHO, PS Timarpur. Remarkably, upon being cross-examined by/on behalf of the appellant, PW-8 affirmed that he had not seen the accident.
20. Appositely, for the purpose of exhaustiveness, this Court deems it apposite to refer to the testimony of PW-12/Retd. SI Om Prakash, who deposed that on 28.12.2018, he was posted as ASI at Timarpur and on that day, he along with Ct. Sanjeev were on emergency duty from 08:00 a.m. to 08:00 p.m. Congruently, PW-12 asserted that at around 12:00 noon, he received DD No. 24A regarding an accident and thereafter, he/PW-12 along with Ct. Sanjeev, went to the spot, i.e., outer Ring Road towards ISBT near Wazirabad flyover, where one truck bearing no. DL-1GC-7459 of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and an accidental motorcycle bearing no. DL-5SAD-1317, was found in the middle of the road. Correspondingly, as per PW-12, C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 28 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:22:11 +0530 there was blood on the road and on inquiry, it was determined that the injured had been shifted to Hospital. As per PW-12, there was traffic jam and he/PW-12 parked the motorcycle as well as the aforesaid truck at the side of the road, after taking photographs at the spot. Further, PW-12 proclaimed that he met the appellant, Gopal Dutt and his khalasi, Om Singh and handed over the driver of the truck namely Gopal Dutt to Ct. Sanjeev as well as he/PW-12 went to the Sushruta Trauma Centre. PW-12 also asserted that he did not find any eyewitness at the trauma center, where one injured was found dead at the Hospital and one child was under treatment. Consequently, PW-12 collected the MLCs of deceased and injured child and thereafter, he returned to the spot. On the basis of the DD entry and MLC, as per PW-12, he/PW-12 prepared the tehrir (Ex. PW12/A) and handed over the same to Ct. Sanjeev for the registration of FIR, whereupon the instant FIR was got registered. Thereafter, as per PW-12, he telephonically called the PCR caller from the spot, and he disclosed his name as Naseer Ali as well as he/Nasir Ali reached at the spot. Consequently, PW-12 made inquiry from Naseer Ali and he/PW-12 prepared the site plan at the instance of Nasir Ali, as Ex. PW10/A. PW-12 also proclaimed of seizure of the Driving License of the appellant vide seizure memo, Ex. PW10/D as well as the documents of the offending truck vide seizure memo, Ex. PW10/E. Congruently, PW-12 avowed that he seized the offending truck and accidental motorcycle vide seizure memos, Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW10/C. After interrogation, as per PW-12, he arrested the appellant as well as conducted his personal search vide memos, Ex. PW10/F and Ex. PW10/G, as well as recorded the disclosure statement of the appellant, Ex. PW10/G1. Thereafter, as per PW-12, they along C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 29 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:22:14 +0530 with the case property and the appellant went to the police station, where the case property was deposited in the malkhana, besides the body of deceased was got preserved at Subzi Mandi Mortuary. Subsequently, as per PW-12, postmortem examination pf the deceased was got conducted against application (Ex. PW12/C) and the postmortem documents were prepared as, Ex. PW12/D (Colly.) (1-13). PW-12 also asserted that after such postmortem examination, deceased's body was handed over to his relatives vide handing over memo, Ex. PW12/E. PW-12 further proved the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle as well as the accidental motorcycle as well as asserted that on completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the Ld. Trial Court. Needless, to mention that PW-12 correctly identified the appellant before the Ld. Trial Court, as well as also identified the aforesaid vehicles from their photographs, Ex. P1 (Colly.)(1-10).
21. Relevantly, in his cross examination by/at the behest of the appellant, PW-12 deposed as under;
"XXXXXX by Sh. ***, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the accused.
It is correct that on the MLC of the injured, hit and run is mentioned but I did not make any investigation regarding this fact. It is correct that no fresh damage is mentioned on the mechanical inspection report of the tanker. It is also correct that Nasir Ali had not stated to me that handle of the motorcycle got stuck in the backside of the truck and he took out the key of the truck from the truck itself and after sometime police came to the spot and he handed over the key and mobile phone to them after narrating the incident. It is also correct that the tanker was filled with 23,000 litres of petrol. I was present near the PS when I received the DD No. 24-A. The distance between the PS and the spot was about 500 metres. I reached at the spot at around 12:15- 12:20 PM and PCR staff, traffic staff and eyewitness were present there. I remained at the spot for about 30 minutes before going to the hospital. I reached at the C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 30 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.21 16:22:19 +0530 hospital at around 1-1:15PM and remained there for about 30-35 minutes. I returned to the spot at around 1:45PM. Distance between spot and hospital was about 5 kms. I remained at the spot till 4:30PM. In the PCR call the number of the eyewitness was found. He told me that he was doing private job. He came to the spot within 35-40 minutes of my call. I recorded the statement of the eyewitness at the spot. I recorded the statement of Om Singh prior to the statement of eyewitness at the spot. I did not record to statement of any public person when I first reached at the spot as no public person agreed to join the investigation. The tanker was 10-15 feet before the starting point of the flyover. Eyewitness did not hand over to me any belongings of the deceased.
It is wrong to suggest that a petrol tanker cannot run at a speed of more than 35 km/hr. It is further wrong to suggest that the eyewitness met me for the first time when I called him at the spot after returning from the hospital. It is wrong to suggest that the eyewitness was planted. It is wrong to suggest that the driver of the motorcycle caused the accident due to his own negligence. It is wrong to suggest that I did not conduct a fair investigation. It is wrong to suggest that I filed a false charge-sheet to secure the compensation for the deceased. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Conspicuously, in light of the foregoing discussion, this Court would proceed with the determination of the rival contentions on behalf of the appellant and that on behalf of the State. As aforementioned, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the testimonies of PW-6/Master 'A' and PW-7/Master 'E' could not have been relied upon by the Ld. Trial Court, while reaching a finding of appellant's guilt, being interested witnesses as related to the deceased by blood. However, the said contention fails to impress this Court in view of the persistent avowals of the superior courts, wherein it has been tenaciously reiterated that merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 31 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:22:26 +0530 as an 'interested witness'. In fact, in this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan, (2009) 14 SCC 267, explicitly remarked as under;
"35. Very recently in Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [(2008) 12 SCC 173: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 339: AIR 2008 SC 2436] this Court had the occasion to deal with the question of creditworthiness of the evidence of the relatives of the victim. On a review of several decisions on the point, including Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1953 SC 364 : 1953 Cri LJ 1465 : 1954 SCR 145], Masalti v. State of U.P. [AIR 1965 SC 202: (1965) 1 Cri LJ 226: (1964) 8 SCR 133] and Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2003) 2 SCC 661: 2003 SCC (Cri) 664], it has been observed that though the Court has to scrutinise such evidence with greater care and caution but such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground of the interest of such witness in the prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterised as an "interested"
witness. The term "interested" postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. Reference in respect of the foregoing is further made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752, wherein the Hon'ble Court in analogous terms, remarked as under;
"7. ...High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of PW 1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife of the deceased", and (2) there were discrepancies in her evidence. With respect, in our opinion, both the grounds are invalid. For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True, it is, she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an "interested" witness. She is related to the deceased.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 32 of 52
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:22:31
+0530
"Related" is not equivalent to "interested". A witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be "interested". In the instant case PW 1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. Correspondingly, this Court finds itself difficult to concur with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the depositions of PW-6 and PW-7 are to be discarded merely for the reason of the age of the said witnesses, at the time of the offence as well as the time of their depositions, admitted both the witnesses, being minor. In fact, in this regard, even this Court unambiguously records that it has been recurrently declared by the superior courts8 that no testimony of a witness can be discarded merely based on their age and that a child witness9, if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable on such evidence, could be the basis of conviction. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh, (2025) 8 SCC 545, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while carrying out an exhaustive review of various judicial dictates, enunciated the law, in respect of the foregoing, as under;
"31. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") does not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent one. On the contrary, Section 118 of the Evidence Act envisages that all persons shall be competent to testify, unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to these questions, because of tender years, extreme old age, 8 State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar, (2002) 1 SCC 622 and Harischandra v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1870.9
Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 33 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.21 16:22:35 +0530
disease -- whether of mind, or any other cause of the same kind. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto.
32. In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra [Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 685] this Court held that as long as a child witness is found to be competent to depose i.e. capable of understanding the questions put to it and able to give rational answers, the testimony of such witness can be considered as evidence in terms of Section 118 of the Evidence Act, irrespective of their tender age or absence of any oath. The only additional factor to be considered is that the witness must be found to be reliable, exhibiting the demeanour of any other competent witness, with no likelihood of having been tutored. It further clarified that there is no requirement or condition that the evidence of a child witness must be corroborated before it can be considered, and rather the insistence of any corroboration is only a rule of prudence that would depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
*** *** ***
43. From the above exposition of law, it is clear that the evidence of a child witness for all purposes is deemed to be on the same footing as any other witness as long as the child is found to be competent to testify. The only precaution which the court should take while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that such witness must be a reliable one due to the susceptibility of children by their falling prey to tutoring. However, this in no manner means that the evidence of a child must be rejected outrightly at the slightest of discrepancy, rather what is required is that the same is evaluated with great circumspection. While appreciating the testimony of a child witness the courts are required to assess whether the evidence of such witness is its voluntary expression and not borne out of the influence of others and whether the testimony inspires confidence. At the same time, one must be mindful that there is no rule requiring corroboration to the testimony of a child witness before any reliance is placed on it. The insistence of corroboration is only a measure of caution and prudence that the courts may exercise if deemed necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."
(Emphasis supplied) C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 34 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.21 16:22:42 +0530
25. In so far as the contention of Ld. Counsel for the appellant pertaining to non-examination of any other public witness, except PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-10 in the instant case is concerned, this Court unambiguous observes that mere fact that the prosecution, opted not to produce the other public persons, asserted to be present or would have been present at the time of incident as prosecution witnesses, cannot be read against the prosecution in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., (2022) 12 SCC 200, wherein the Hon'ble Court explicated the law, by enunciating as under;
"34. A mere non-examination of the witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution. It depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance. If the court is satisfied with the explanation given by the prosecution along with the adequacy of the materials sufficient enough to proceed with the trial and convict the accused, there cannot be any prejudice. Similarly, if the court is of the view that the evidence is not screened and could well be produced by the other side in support of its case, no adverse inference can be drawn. Onus is on the part of the party who alleges that a witness has not been produced deliberately to prove it."
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Pertinently, Ld. Counsel for the appellant further strenuously contended that the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the contradictions, variations and/or improvements, in the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses while pronouncing the impugned judgment. However, in order to appreciate the said contention, this Court deems it apposite to iterate and explore the judicial precedents governing the law of contradictions in the testimony of the witness. In particular, in this regard, this Court deems it apt to outrightly make a reference to the decision of the C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 35 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:22:47 +0530 Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505, wherein the Hon'ble Court inter alia observed as under;
"10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper- technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross- examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer. Having examined the evidence of this witness, a friend and well-wisher of the family carefully giving due weight to the comments made by the learned counsel for the respondent and the reasons assigned to by the High Court for rejecting his evidence simultaneously keeping in view the appreciation of the evidence of this witness by the trial court, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was in error in rejecting the testimony of witness Nair whose evidence appears to us trustworthy and credible."
(Emphasis supplied) C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 36 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:22:53 +0530
27. Similarly, in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rammi v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649, noted as under;
"24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. Evidently, from the conspectus of the above, it is clearly deduced that minor discrepancies, which do not go into the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, cannot be permitted to be annexed with any undue weight. In fact, it is trite law10, the discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution and those which emanate due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance and must necessarily be discarded. The rationale behind the same is quite obvious, as elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, inter alia recording as under;
"30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the 10 Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp SCC 241 C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 37 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:22:58 +0530 court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.
"9. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility."...
Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited..."
(Emphasis supplied)
29. Ergo, to recapitulate, in order to disregard the testimony of a witness, it is imperative that the same is replete with material improvements, contradictions and variation. In contrast, law provides for due concession to marginal variations and normal discrepancies in the statement/testimony of a witness, which are bound to occur due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Consequently, in light of the above, when the testimonies of the various witnesses, i.e., PW-10/Nasir Ali, PW-6/Master 'A', PW-8/Satish Kumar Sapra and PW-5/Om Singh are conscientiously analyzed, it is reiterated that the identity of the appellant as the driver of the offending vehicle on the date and time of incident in question stand duly proved. As aforenoted, not C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 38 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:23:02 +0530 only did PW-10/Nasir Ali and PW-6/Master 'A', duly identified the appellant as the perpetrator of offence under their respective depositions, rather, as noted herein, PW-5/Om Singh, specifically proclaimed that on 28.12.2012, he was working as helper on the truck bearing registration DL-1GC-7459 and the appellant was the driver of the said truck. Correspondingly, as per PW-5, on that day, they were proceeding towards Shastri Park, Delhi and the truck was filled with petrol. At about 11:30. a.m., as per PW-5, they were about to reach Wazirabad, when they heard a noise of hitting some vehicle with their truck. PW-5 further asserted that the appellant stopped the truck and they noted that a motorcycle was lying on the road along with the rider and a child. As per PW-5, both the rider and said child were injured and the rider was unconscious, while the child was conscious. Further, as per PW-5, the said motorcycle had hit at the right side back tyre of their truck. Pertinently, nowhere under the cross examination of PW-5, any suggestion and/or question was posed to the said witness, by/on behalf of the appellant, to propose/suggest that the appellant was not driving the offending vehicle on the date of commission of the offence or that PW-5 was deposing falsely before the Ld. Trial Court.
30. Correspondingly, PW-8/Satish Kumar Sapra also avowed in his deposition that on the date of incident, the appellant as driving the vehicle of their company, i.e., HPCL as well as affirmed under his cross examination by/at the behest of State that on 28.12.2018, the appellant, bearing employee no. 3541160 caused the accident around 11:35 a.m., near Wazirabad flyover. Pertinently, even under the cross examination of PW-8, no suggestion/question was posed by/on behalf of the appellant to the C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 39 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:23:06 +0530 said witness to belie the said version put forth by PW-8. Needless to mention that same is notwithstanding the fact that PW-8 further proved his letter dated 28.12.2018 as Ex. PW8/A, affirming the aforesaid facts, in the following terms;
"... This is to state Sh. Gopal Dutt Faloria our Company Driver (EMP No. 3541160) was driving Company owned Tank truck No. DL1GC7459 from our Delhi Terminal, Village Tikri Kalan to Our retail Outlet M/s. Kundan Lal Service Station, Shastri Park with 23000 lt. petrol. The Tank Truck met with an accident at around 1135 am near Wazirabad Flyover on 28.12.18..."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. In fact, even during the course of recording of his statement under Section 281/313 Cr.P.C. on 23.07.2024, the appellant, duly admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle on the date of the offence, however, asserted that he was driving the said vehicle in his own lane, following proper rules and regulations. Apposite in this regard to reproduce the relevant extracts of the appellant's statement under Section 281/313 Cr.P.C., as under;
"... Q. 3 It is in evidence against you that you were driving the truck of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation bearing registration DL-1GC-7459 and PW-5 Om Singh was working as helper on the above said date and time. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is correct.
*** *** *** Q. 34 Do you have anything else to say?
Ans. I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in the present case. I was driving my vehicle in my lane by following proper rules and regulations. No accident took place with my vehicle and actual culprit ran away from the spot..."
(Emphasis supplied)
32. Further, from the testimonies of PW-10/Nasir Ali and PW-6/Master 'A', the mens rea, i.e., rashness and negligence in C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 40 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:23:11 +0530 the appellant's conduct, in the considered opinion of this Court, is quite manifest. In fact, in this regard, this Court concedes with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that PW-10 explicitly deposed in his testimony that on the date of the incident, when he was proceeding from Gopalpur side towards ISBT Kashmere Gate via Outer Ring Road, he noted that one petrol truck and a motorcycle were in front of his/PW-10's motorcycle. Correspondingly, as per PW-10, when the said truck tried to overtake the said motorcycle, the handle of the motorcycle got stuck in the rear end of the truck and the head of the rider of the motorcycle was crushed by the rear right-side tyre of the truck. Congruently, as per PW-10, two children were also present along with the motorcycle driver and one of the said children got injured, however, the other child got no injuries. Correspondingly, PW-10 affirmed that the accidental motorcycle was being driven on the right side of the car at the relevant pointy of time. Pertinently, PW-10 specifically denied under his cross examination by/at the behest of the appellant that on the date of the accident, the driver of the accidental motorcycle himself, hit the offending truck and thereafter, his motorcycle lost balance, and he fell down on the road. Similarly, PW-6/Master 'A' avowed in his deposition that on the fateful day, a truck came from behind and hit their motorcycle, whereupon they all fell down from the said motorcycle and PW-6's/his brother and father sustained injuries, as well as were shifted to the Hospital. Needless to reiterate that PW-5/Om Singh, proclaimed in his testimony that on the date of occurrence, at about 11:30. a.m., as per PW-5, they were about to reach Wazirabad, when they heard a noise of hitting some vehicle with their truck. PW-5 further asserted that the appellant stopped the truck and they noted that a motorcycle was C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 41 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:23:16 +0530 lying on the road along with the rider and a child. As per PW-5, both the rider and said child were injured and the rider was unconscious, while the child was conscious. Further, as per PW-5, the said motorcycle had hit at the right side back tyre of their truck. Concurrently, the deposition of the said witnesses, further finds corroboration from the mechanical inspection report of the accidental vehicle (Ex. A8), wherein it was noted that the accidental motorcycle had inter alia suffered, "Head Light Assy. Damaged... F indicator damage... Leg Guard damage...". Clearly, from a conjoint reading of the deposition of the said witnesses, it is quite manifest that at the relevant point of time, the accidental motorcycle was being driver on the right side of the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle while endeavoring to overtake the accidental motorcycle, approached from behind and in the said process, the handle of the accidental motorcycle got struck in the right side rear tyre of the truck. Needless to reiterate that PW-10 specifically denied that the accidental motorcycle struck the offending vehicle whereupon the accidental motorcycle lost the balance and fell down. On the contrary, even PW-6 asserted that the offending vehicle had emerged from behind and hit their vehicle with such an impact that all the riders of the accidental motorcycle fell down on the road whereupon the deceased and the victim sustained injuries.
33. Here, it is further apposite to note that, though, this Court is conscious of the repeated avowals of the superior courts that speed of a vehicle may not only be the determinative test for its rashness or negligence and that culpability of an individual/accused may be manifest, even when a vehicle is being driven in a slow speed. Reference in this regard is made to the C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 42 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:23:21 +0530 decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCC 284, wherein the Hon'ble Court, unambiguously noted, as under;
"12. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to "rash and negligent driving" within the meaning of the language of Section 279 IPC. That is why the legislature in its wisdom has used the words "manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life". The preliminary conditions, thus, are that (a) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven; (b) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and (c) such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated under Section 279 IPC is attracted."
(Emphasis supplied)
34. As aforenoted, PW-10 explicitly deposed that when the offending truck tried to overtake the said motorcycle, the handle of the motorcycle got stuck in the rear end of the truck and the head of the rider of the motorcycle was crushed by the rear right-side tyre of the truck. Correspondingly, as aforenoted, PW-10 denied under his cross examination that on the date of the accident, the driver of the driver of the accidental motorcycle himself, hit the offending truck and thereafter, his motorcycle lost balance, and he fell down on the road. Needless to further mention, even PW-6 reiterated that the truck had come from behind and hit their motorcycle, with the impact being such that he/PW-6, his father/deceased and the victim/PW-7 fell down from their C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 43 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:23:26 +0530 motorcycle, wherein PW-7 and the deceased sustained injuries. Needless to reiterate, the appellant inter alia duly admitted the MLCs of the deceased and victims as well as the post-mortem report of the deceased in terms of the provisions under Section 294 Cr.P.C. on 03.11.2022. Correspondingly, the MLC of the deceased (Ex. AD9) records of presence of, "...CLW 10 cm*2cm over (L) temporal area...degloved (L) pinna of ear...CLW 5cm*2cm over dorsum of (R) foot...CLW 2cm*1cm between (R) great toe & 2nd toe...", with the deceased being brought dead in the Hospital; MLC of the victim (Ex. AD14) record inter alia presence of, "... CLW 2*1*1cm over (R) side of forehead...multiple abrasions over (R) hand...", nature whereof was subsequently opined as 'simple', besides the post-mortem report of the deceased (Ex. AD-13) inter alia records his cause of death as, "...Shock as a result of antemortem injury to head of deceased produced by blunt force impact. All injuries were antemortem in nature, fresh prior to deah, produced by blunt force impact and possible in road traffic accident...".
35. Conclusively, in view of the above discussion, in particular, in light of the unambiguous testimonies of PW-10/Nasir Ali, PW-6/Master 'A', PW-8/Satish Kumar Sapra and PW-5/Om, the ingredients of offence under Sections 279/337/304A IPC stand proved against the appellant herein. Needless to reiterate, the appellant was identified and deposed as the perpetrator of the offence by PW-10/Nasir Ali, PW-6/Master 'A', PW-8/Satish Kumar Sapra and PW-5/Om Singh in their respective depositions, which fact was even not disputed by the appellant even under his statement, recorded in terms of the provisions under Section 281/313 Cr.P.C. Correspondingly, as aforenoted, the rashness and C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 44 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:23:30 +0530 negligence in the conduct of the appellant on the date and time of incident is manifest from the manner of accident, i.e., offending vehicle, being a truck carrying petrol on the date of occurrence, overtaking the accidental motorcycle from left side in a manner that the handle of the motorcycle got stuck in the rear end of the truck and the head of the rider of the motorcycle was crushed by the rear right-side tyre of the truck. Correspondingly, as aforenoted, PW-10 denied under his cross examination that on the date of the accident, the driver of the driver of the accidental motorcycle himself, hit the offending truck and thereafter, his motorcycle lost balance, and he fell down on the road. Needless to further mention, even PW-6 reiterated that the truck had come from behind and hit their motorcycle, with the impact being such that he/PW-6, his father/deceased and the victim/PW-7 fell down from their motorcycle, wherein PW-7 and the deceased sustained injuries. Needless to further reiterate that the factum of demise of the deceased consequent to the accident as well as of the victim's sustaining injury due to accident is neither denied nor rebutted, rather, stands proved from the deceased's postmortem report as well as the MLCs of the deceased and the victim, respectively. Ergo, under such circumstances, this Court is in concert with the Ld. Trial Court's observation that the prosecution has been able to prove its case 'beyond reasonable doubt' against the appellant herein for the offences under Sections 279/337/304A IPC.
36. In so far as the aspect of sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, this Court deems it apposite to note that though, the penal provisions under law/IPC, prescribe for penalties to be imposed for offences, however, no harmonized strategies exist for the manner and quantum of sentence which C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 45 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.21 16:24:05 +0530 may be awarded to an accused in each case. In fact, law provides for a considerable relaxation/discretion to the Courts at the time of awarding sentence, which in the light of persistent avowals of the superior courts11, has to be exercised, mindful of such parameters. Indisputably, the inclination of courts is usually tilted towards reformative and rehabilitative approach towards the accused, however, superior court have also incessantly cautioned that sentencing should be adequate, just, and reasonable, for exercising undue sympathy, by imposing inadequate sentence may often result into causing more harm to the justice system. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 516 , wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under;
"17. We reiterate that in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment."
(Emphasis supplied) 11 'X' v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 7 SCC 1; and Sunil Dutt Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2014) 4 SCC 375.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 46 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.21 16:24:10 +0530
37. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raju Jagdish Paswan v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 16 SCC 380, while iterating the objective behind sentencing enunciated as under;
"9. The maintenance of peace, order and security is one of the oldest functions of the civil society. The imposition of penal sanctions on those who have infringed the rules by which a society has bound itself are a matter of legitimate interest to the members of the society...Punishment is the just desert of an offender. The society punishes not because it has the moral right to give offenders what they deserve, but also because punishment will yield social useful consequences: the protection of society by incapacitating criminals, the rehabilitation of past offenders, or the deterrence of potential wrongdoers...The purposes of criminal sentencing have traditionally been said to be retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation. To these there may now perhaps be added: incapacitation (i.e. putting it out of the power of the offender to commit further offences) and the maintenance of public confidence..."
(Emphasis supplied)
38. Apposite for the purpose of the present discourse to further make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi, (2015) 5 SCC 182 , wherein the Hon'ble Court in akin context, noted as under;
"23. In the instant case the factum of rash and negligent driving has been established. This Court has been constantly noticing the increase in number of road accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers have been totally rash and negligent . It seems to us driving in a drunken state, in a rash and negligent manner or driving with youthful adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre stage. The protagonists, as we perceive, have lost all respect for law. A man with the means has, in possibility, graduated himself to harbour the idea that he can escape from the substantive sentence by payment of compensation. Neither the law nor the court that implements the law should ever get oblivious of the fact that in such accidents precious lives are lost or the victims who survive are crippled for life which, in a C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 47 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:24:15 +0530 way, worse then death. Such developing of notions is a dangerous phenomenon in an orderly society. Young age cannot be a plea to be accepted in all circumstances. Life to the poor or the impecunious is as worth living for as it is to the rich and the luxuriously temperamental.
24. Needless to say, the principle of sentencing recognizes the corrective measures but there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to say that the High Court has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is "the crowning glory", "the sovereign mistress" and "queen of virtue" as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of many others around them. It ultimately shatters the faith of the public in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of one year as imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate court should be reduced to six months."
(Emphasis supplied)
39. Clearly, in light of the above, it is noted that besides the resolute affirmations of the superior courts, inclined towards the grant of just and appropriate sentence, there has also been a cautionary word12 that mere long pendency of case is no ground to award lesser sentence. Here, it is further pertinent to note that the superior courts13 have also untiringly declared that payment of victim compensation to victim cannot be a consideration/ground for reducing the sentence imposed upon an accused. Clearly, the rationale behind the same is that victim compensation is not a punitive measure, rather, only meant for restitution, having no bearing on the sentence, which has been passed as a punitive 12 State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh, (2003) 8 SCC 13.
13Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0428/2024.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 48 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.04.21 16:24:20 +0530
measure. Correspondingly, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 734, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while accentuating the importance of adequate sentencing and compensation, keeping in view the interest of society and victim(ology), observed as under;
"30. From the aforesaid authorities, it is luminous that this Court has expressed its concern on imposition of adequate sentence in respect of commission of offences regard being had to the nature of the offence and demand of the conscience of the society. That apart, the concern has been to impose adequate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is worthy to note that in certain circumstances, the mitigating factors have been taken into consideration but the said aspect is dependent on the facts of each case. As the trend of authorities would show, the proficiency in professional driving is emphasized upon and deviation therefrom that results in rash and negligent driving and causes accident has been condemned. In a motor accident, when a number of people sustain injuries and a death occurs, it creates a stir in the society; sense of fear prevails all around. The negligence of one shatters the tranquility of the collective. When such an accident occurs, it has the effect potentiality of making victims in many a layer and creating a concavity in the social fabric. The agony and anguish of the affected persons, both direct and vicarious, can have nightmarish effect. It has its impact on the society and the impact is felt more when accidents take place quite often because of rash driving by drunken, negligent or, for that matter, adventurous drivers who have, in a way, no concern for others. Be it noted, grant of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is in a different sphere altogether. Grant of compensation under Section 357(3) with a direction that the same should be paid to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused has been sentenced has a different contour and the same is not to be regarded as a substitute in all circumstances for adequate sentence.
31. Recently, this Court in Rattiram and Ors. v. State of M.P. Through Inspector of Police AIR 2012 C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 49 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:24:26 +0530 SCW 1772, though in a different context, has stated that:
"64. criminal jurisprudence, with the passage of time, has laid emphasis on victimology which fundamentally is a perception of a trial from the view point of the criminal as well as the victim. Both are viewed in the social context. The view of the victim is given due regard and respect in certain countries. It is the duty of the court to see that the victim's right is protected.
32. We may note with profit that an appropriate punishment works as an eye-opener for the persons who are not careful while driving vehicles on the road and exhibit a careless attitude possibly harbouring the notion that they would be shown indulgence or lives of others are like "flies to the wanton boys". They totally forget that the lives of many are in their hands, and the sublimity of safety of a human being is given an indecent burial by their rash and negligent act."
(Emphasis supplied)
40. Ergo, in light of the foregoing principles, when the impugned order is conscientiously scrutinized, this Court unwaveringly observes that the Ld. Trial Court has acted quite leniently with the appellant by awarding bare minimum sentence, prescribed under law for the offences under Section 279/337/304A IPC, considering the mitigating and aggravating factors. Quite understandably, considering that the purpose of sentencing is not only to punish the errant behavior but to also have deterrent effect on the society, the appellant does not, in the considered opinion of this Court, deserves any indulgence at this stage, even in the aspect of sentence so awarded by the Ld. Trial Court for the said offence is concerned.
41. Conclusively, in view of the above discussion, the present appeal deserves to be rejected/dismissed and is hereby dismissed. As a corollary, the judgment dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Ld. JMFC-02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 50 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:24:32 +0530 bearing, 'State v. Gopal Dutt Faloriya, Cr. Case No. 3425/2020', arising out of FIR No. 294/2018, P.S. Timarpur, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304A IPC and the consequent order of sentence dated 19.11.2024, in so far as it awards the appellant; simple imprisonment for a period of 03 (three) months along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (six) months for the offence under Section 304A IPC; simple imprisonment for a period of 03 (three) months along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 (one) month for the offence under Section 279 IPC; and simple imprisonment for a period of 03 (three) months along with fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 (one) month for the offence under Section 337 IPC, are hereby upheld.
However, it is clarified that the sentences shall run concurrently, besides the appellant would be entitled to the benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C./Section 468 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/BNSS. Correspondingly, it is directed that the fine amount shall be released to the victim/LRs of the deceased, as compensation. Needless to further mention that though it holds highest regard for the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions, however, the same would not come to the aid of the appellant, in the manner as proposed, as the facts and circumstances of the present case are clearly distinguishable.
C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 51 of 52 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.21 16:24:36 +0530
42. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this judgment with direction to proceed as per law. Copy of this order/judgment be also given dasti to the appellant. Further, the appellant, Gopal Dutt Faloriya is directed to surrender before the Ld. Trial Court within a period of ten days from today for serving the sentence/remainder period thereof. Needless to mention that the compliance of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India, (2024) 16 SCC 1 has been carried out.
43. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:24:41
+0530
Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal)
on 21.04.2026. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi C.A. No. 499/2024 Gopal Dutt Faloriya v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 52 of 52