Delhi District Court
State vs . Satpal on 31 October, 2013
FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 IN THE COURT OF VIDYA PRAKASH: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI FIR No.: 98/02 PS: DBG Road U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs. Satpal Unique ID No.: 02401R1359412008 J U D G M E N T:
______________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case : 471/2
(b) Name of complainant : SI Yashpal Singh, I/C PP Dev Nagar, PS DBG Road, New Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of offence : 28.03.2002
(d) Name of the accused : Satpal
S/o Sh. Sansar Chand,
R/o Village Jakh, P.S. Sambha
District Jammu (J&K).
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 279/304A IPC
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 21.10.2013
(h) Final Order : Convicted U/s 279/304A IPC
(i) Date of such order : 31.10.2013
State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 1 of 22
FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The facts of the case in brief are that upon receipt of wireless information regarding some road accident, SI Yaspal Singh reached the spot i.e. New Rohtak Road, near Jeewan Mala Hospital, Delhi where HC Suresh met him who handed over DD no.20A to him. SI Yaspal Singh found one truck bearing no. JK02M9880 and one scooter bearing registration no. DL6SB5672 in accidental condition. IO also found one dead body under the front left side wheel of the said truck. No eye witness of the said accident was found at the spot. However, driver of the said truck, whose name later on disclosed as Satpal (hereinafter referred to as accused) met SI Yashpal at the spot who was arrested by IO SI Yaspal Singh. Thereafter, FIR in the matter was registered and after completion of necessary investigation, IO prepared the challan and filed the same before the Court through concerned SHO.
2. After completion of investigation, accused stood chargesheeted for offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC.
3. After filing of the charge sheet in the case, accused was supplied the documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C and after hearing arguments, vide order dated 29.10.2004, Notice in terms of Section 251 CrPC for offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC was served upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 2 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013
4. In order to prove charges against accused, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and thereafter PE in the matter was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he stated that he was falsely implicated in the present matter.
5. I have heard arguments advanced at Bar by the Ld. APP for the State and Sh. Raj Kumar, Advocate for accused. I have also perused the entire material on record and the authorities cited at the bar.
6. Before adverting to adjudication upon the arguments advanced at Bar, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter, which is as under.
7. PW1 Constable Yogesh Yadav and PW7 SI Yaspal Singh deposed on the similar lines being associated during initial investigation. They deposed that on receipt of wireless message regarding accident, they reached at the spot where HC Suresh met them who handed over DD no.24A to SI Yashpal. They found the offending truck bearing registration no. JK02M9880 and one scooter bearing registration no. DL6SB5672 in accidental condition. One dead body was found under the front left wheel of the said truck. Photographer was called who took photographs of the spot. Dead body was sent to Jeevanmala Hospital. Accused was present at the spot. SI Yaspal prepared rukka Ex.PW7/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Yogesh. SI State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 3 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 Yaspal Singh prepared site plan Ex.PW7/B. IO SI Yashpal Singh seized the truck, scooter, driving license of accused and documents of truck vide Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively. Postmortem on the dead body was conducted and dead body was handed over to the relative of deceased. IO also got conducted mechanical inspection of the aforesaid vehicles vide Ex.PW7/C & D. IO arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide Ex.PW7/E & F. Both these witnesses identified the accused before the Court. SI Yaspal Singh examined Sh. Raj Pal Sharma, eye witness, who stated that due to rash and negligent act of the accused, deceased had expired. Identity of the offending truck was not disputed on behalf of the accused.
In his cross examination, PW1 Constable Yogesh Yadav stated that he reached at the spot at about 11:20 PM. He joined the investigation on the directions of the IO only. Accused was found present at the spot but he was not arrested in his presence. He had signed two papers on the directions of the IO. No accident had occurred in his presence. He denied the suggestion that no accident had even occurred or that he had not joined investigation. He had not informed the relatives of the deceased but they were already present at the mortuary.
In his cross examination, PW7 SI Yashpal Singh stated that he reached at the spot at about 11:00 PM on 28.03.2005. Only HC Suresh Kumar was present with him at the time of preparation of site plan. Sh. Raj Pal, public witness, had left the spot by that time. Only one HC from PCR State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 4 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 informed him that accused was driving the offending truck at the time of accident. He stated that there is no mention in the site plan Ex.PW7/B that the body of deceased was dragged by the offending vehicle. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to negligence of deceased or that accused was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident or that accused was sitting on the helper seat at the time of accident or that driver of the offending vehicle ran away from the spot and accused was falsely implicated in the present case.
8. PW2 Sh. Raj Pal Sharma, the only eye witness, deposed that on 28.03.2002 at about 11:00 PM, he was present outside his house. He saw one truck bearing no.JK029880 coming from the side of Liberty Cinema at a very fast speed and in the process, struck against a two wheeler scooter. The said truck was being driven by accused. He identified the accused before the Court. His statement was recorded. PCR came at the spot and injured was removed to the hospital.
Cross examination of this witness was recorded as NIL as accused opted not to put any question to this witness despite being accorded opportunity in this regard.
It would not be out of place to mention here that an application U/s 311 Cr.PC moved by accused for recalling the aforesaid witness (PW2), was allowed by the Court vide order dt. 27.11.12 subject to the availability of the said witness and it was directed by the Court that in case the presence of said State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 5 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 witness could not be secured then his testimony, as already available on record, shall be duly read in evidence. Unfortunately, summons issued to said witness for 02.02.13, had been received back unserved with the report that he had already expired on 16.09.12. In other words, the presence of PW2 could not be secured subsequently on account of his death.
9. PW3 Constable Somvir was the photographer who clicked the photographs Ex. PW3/A1 to Ex.PW3/A9, of the spot at the instance of IO SI Yaspal Singh. He also proved the negatives thereof as Ex.PW3/B. He handed over all the photographs to the IO.
Cross examination of this witness was recorded as NIL as accused opted not to put any question to this witness despite being accorded opportunity in this regard.
10. PW4 HC Tahir Ali Beg deposed that on 29.03.2002, he was posted in PCR as Incharge. Upon receipt of information, he reached at the spot and found one dead body. They took the dead body to the hospital.
Cross examination of this witness was recorded as NIL as accused opted not to put any question to this witness despite being accorded opportunity in this regard.
11. PW5 Sh. Jagdish Kumar was the witness of identification of dead body who identified the dead body of his brother vide memo Ex.PW5/A. State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 6 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 Cross examination of this witness was recorded as NIL as accused opted not to put any question to this witness despite being accorded opportunity in this regard.
12. PW6 Constable Chanderpal deposed that in the intervening night of 2829.03.2002, upon receipt of information regarding roadside accident, he reached at the spot and met SI Yashpal Singh. The truck driver namely Satpal was present at the spot. Thereafter, he stated similar facts as disclosed by PW1 and PW7 during their examination in chief. This witness also identified accused before the Court.
In his cross examination, he admitted that he had not gone to Jeevan Mala Hospital. IO recorded the statement of all the prosecution witnesses in his presence. He further admitted that he could not tell who was at fault in the accident as he was not present at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot and did not join the raiding party. He had not made any DD entry for departure from PS to the spot.
13. PW8 Dr. Sreenivas was the witness who conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Kishan Lal at Maulana Azad Medical College vide report Ex.PW6/A. She opined the cause of death due to combined effect of cranio cerebral damage and hemorrhagic shock consequent upon force impact to the head and chest respectively, possibly by road traffic accident.
Cross examination of this witness was recorded as NIL as State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 7 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 accused opted not to put any question to this witness despite being accorded opportunity in this regard.
14. PW9 Shri Ishwar Singh, Record Clerk from MAMC, Delhi proved the postmortem report no.179/2002 as Ex.PW8/A by identifying the signatures of Dr. D.V. Saharan.
Cross examination of this witness was recorded as NIL as accused opted not to put any question to this witness despite being accorded opportunity in this regard.
15. PW10 Major Gurmukh Singh produced the MLC register containing the MLC No.031349 dated 28.03.2012 of deceased whose postmortem was conducted by Dr. Vikas under supervision of Dr. Vinay Sabbharwal and Dr. Sudhir. He exhibited the same as Ex.PW10/A. Cross examination of this witness was recorded as NIL as accused opted not to put any question to this witness despite being accorded opportunity in this regard.
16. PW11 Retired HC Nakul Singh was the Duty Officer on the relevant date and time who proved the recording of FIR in the matter. He exhibited the copy of FIR as Ex.PW11/A. In his cross examination, he stated that it took about 1520 minutes in recording the FIR. Constable Yogesh left PS DBG Road at about State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 8 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 12:50/12:55 AM after registration of FIR. Concerned SHO was also present in the police station at that time.
17. PW12 Retired ASI/Technician deposed that on 29.03.2002, on the request of IO SI Yashpal Singh, he had mechanically inspected truck bearing No. JK02M9880 and scooter no. DL6SB 5672 at Police Station DBG Road and gave detailed reports Ex.PW12/A and PW12/B respectively. During examination of the truck, he found that there were fresh damages on the truck and the front bumper was slightly scratched from right side whereas front wheel axle beam was found scratched from right side. The mechanical system of truck were found okay. The inspection of two wheeler scooter revealed that on the two wheeler scooter, there were fresh damages also, rear body, body frame and dicky were damaged. Rear stepeny bracket was found damaged and right side body was found scratched and dented. Rear wheel system was found damaged. Head light ring were damaged. Left side foot board body dented and engine fan and system were damaged. Engine system was found damaged. Brake system and handled system were found okay. The said scooter was found not fit for road test whereas the truck was found fit for road test.
In the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not properly inspected the vehicles and prepared the reports casually.
18. This is all as far as prosecution evidence is concerned in the matter. State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 9 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 Arguments advanced and case law relied upon :
19. In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences charged against him, prosecution was required to prove the following points:
(i)That it was the accused who was driving the offending truck no. JK0299880 at the time of accident;
(ii)That the accused was driving the said truck in rash and/or negligent manner;
(iii)That the accused had caused accident in question while driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner; and
(iv)That due to accident, death was caused.
20. While referring to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses more particularly that of PW1, PW2, PW7 namely SI Yash Pal Singh and PW12 namely Retd. ASI (Tech) Devender Kumar, Ld APP argued that prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of accused in respect of offences U/s 279/304A IPC beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that accused failed to impeach the testimony of eye witness i.e PW2 by not cross examining the said witness and therefore, prosecution should be taken to have proved its case against him.
21. Ld defence counsel argued that it was entirely upon prosecution to prove its case and the prosecution cannot draw any advantage out of the weakness in the defence of accused. The accused has taken the defence State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 10 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 during cross examination of IO(PW7) that accident had taken place due to negligence of deceased and also that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He has also taken the stand that he was sitting on the helper side of the truck at the time of accident. In his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC recorded by Court, he reiterated the said defence that he was sitting on the helper seat with driver Raj Kumar in the said truck. He further claimed that two wheeler scooter driver i.e the deceased had come in rash and negligent manner and hit his scooter against the truck. The truck driver fled away from the spot leaving him behind due to which he was apprehended by the police from the spot and falsely implicated in the present case.
22. In this regard, the testimony of PW2 namely Sh Raj Pal Sharma is very relevant. He has specifically and categorically deposed in clear terms that it was the accused who was driving the offending truck at the time of accident. The accused failed to cross examine the witness on the said aspect. Thus, same amounts to admission thereof on the part of accused. Even otherwise, the accused is undisputedly shown to have been apprehended from the spot itself. Not only this, the driving license of accused and the documents of truck had been seized on the spot itself vide seizure memo Ex PW6/A and Ex PW6/B respectively. The accused nowhere put any suggestion during cross examination of PW2 or even during cross examination of IO(PW7) that Raj Kumar was driving the offending truck at the time of accident in question. It is only for the first time that he has stated about the State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 11 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 same in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC. Anyhow, the accused has failed to explain as to why he would be working as a helper when he was holding a driving license to run the vehicle. He also failed to explain as to why he did not raise any objection before IO or even before any superior police officer for his false implication in this case. There is nothing on record which may show that accused moved any application either before SHO concerned or before any superior police officer or even before the Court of law stating therein that it was Raj Kumar who was driving the offending truck at the time of accident. The said conduct of the accused clearly shows that it was he who was driving the offending truck at the time of accident in question.
24. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to the judgments on the point in issue in an unreported decision in the matter " Kewal Ram Vs. State of Punjab" passed in Criminal Revision No. 437/02 decided on 25.02.10, similar plea was raised that identity of petitioner/accused was doubtful whether at the relevant time he was driving the offending vehicle. Petitioner/accused had fled away from the spot with the vehicle and his TIP was also not got conducted during the course of investigation. However, the eye witness of the case had disclosed the number of vehicle and the name of the driver. Petitioner/accused did not explain in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC as to why he surrendered his driving license when he was not driving the offending vehicle and also did not produce the owner of the vehicle to show that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. In this State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 12 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 backdrop, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana that there was circumstantial evidence on record to connect the petitioner/accused with the crime and it was for the petitioner/accused to produce some defence in order to create doubt. The facts of the present case are also squarely covered by this judgment.
25. In another judgment reported at 2002(3) RCR(Criminal) 401, it has been held by our own High Court that where registration number of the offending bus is correctly mentioned in all the documents and name of the driver is mentioned in FIR itself then it was for the accused to produce defence to examine the owner or otherwise to show that he was not driving the bus on the given date and that he was falsely implicated.
26. In yet another judgment reported at 2008 Cr.LJ 155, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that once the prosecution material indicate highly rash and negligent act of driving by the driver of one vehicle, then burden shifts upon that driver to show that he was not at fault. It was further held in para11 of the said judgment that if the accused failed to avail the opportunity by explaining version in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC then Court will have no option but to accept the version of the prosecution to the extent it is proved.
27. PW2 Sh. Raj Pal Sharma deposed in categorical terms that the State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 13 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 offending truck no. JK029 9880 was being driven by accused at very fast speed and also that the accused had struck against two wheeler scooter on the given date, time and place. He has not been cross examined at all by the accused despite grant of opportunity.
28. Ld defence counsel argued that prosecution has failed to establish the offences charged against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. In this regard, he submitted that no evidence has been led by prosecution in order to show that the offending truck was being driven either in rash and/or in negligent manner without which conviction should not be recorded against the accused. Ld defence counsel argued that PW2 simply deposed that the truck was being driven at a very fast speed from which no inference can be drawn about rashness or negligent manner in which the said vehicle was being driven. In order to buttress the said submission, he also placed reliance upon the judgment reported at 2000 Cr.LJ 3394, 133(2006) DLT 562 and 2008(4) JCC 2453.
29. To counter the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of accused, Ld APP submitted that rashness and negligence is writ large from the manner in which accident has been caused by the accused by hitting the offending truck from behind the two wheeler scooter. In this regard, Ld APP heavily relied upon mechanical inspection report Ex PW12/A in respect of offending truck no. JK02M9880 which shows fresh damages on its front side. Not only this, State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 14 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 same further shows that there were scratches appearing on front bumper on right side as well as on front wheel axle beam on right side. Ld APP also referred to mechanical inspection report Ex PW12/B in respect of two wheeler scooter no. DL6SB 5672 which was being driven by deceased. Same shows damages on its rear body and rear stepney besides damage appearing on dicky and scratches appearing on its right side. Ld APP also took the Court to the photographs Ex PW3/A1 to PW3/A9 and their negatives Ex PW3/B collectively which shows the position of two wheeler scooter and dead body of deceased visavis the aforesaid truck and also the condition of the dead body lying below left front tyre of the truck.
30. No doubt, there is no direct evidence available on record on the aspect of rashness and/or negligent manner in which the offending truck was being driven at the time of causing the accident in question. Nevertheless, there is overwhelming evidence in the form of photographs Ex PW3/A1 to PW3/A9 and mechanical inspection reports Ex. PW12/A and PW12/B and the attendant circumstances which conclusively prove that the offending truck had hit the two wheeler scooter from its behind while causing the accident in question.
31. There is no scope of any doubt after perusal of those photographs and the mechanical inspection reports that the offending truck had hit the two wheeler scooter from its back side. It is also relevant to note that the State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 15 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 testimony of PW3, who has proved those photographs alongwith negatives as well as the testimony of PW12 who has proved the mechanical inspection reports, have gone unchallenged and unrebutted. In other words, the accused has not disputed the authenticity and correctness of said documentary evidence proved during trial.
32. That being so, Court agrees with the contention raised by Ld APP that rashness and /or negligence on the part of accused in driving the offending truck can be judged from the circumstances in which the accident is shown to have taken place and the documentary evidence in the form of aforesaid photographs alongwith their negatives and mechanical inspection reports proved during trial. While taking this view, I am also fortified by the judgment of our own High Court in the matter titled as " Paras Nath Vs State of Delhi" reported at 2003(3) JCC 1500(Delhi) wherein facts were almost similar as the appellant therein had also hit two wheeler scooter from its behind. After considering the entire facts and circumstances, it has been held by our own High Court that negligence was clearly attributable to the appellant. It was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that rashness or negligence can be determined from the manner in which accident took place as it was not the case of appellant that the scooterist had applied brake all of a sudden and therefore, he was taken unaware which led his truck hitting the scooter from behind.
State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 16 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013
33. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by this judgment delivered by our own High Court. It is nowhere the defence raised by accused throughout the trial or even in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC that the scooterist had applied the brakes all of a sudden due to which he was taken unaware or that he was not in a position to apply the brakes which led to the accident in question. In the present case also, the accused is shown to have hit the two wheeler scooter from its behind while driving the truck at a very high speed as testified by PW2 Sh. Raj Pal Sharma. Thus, rashness or negligence is clearly attributable to the accused. In view of the fore going reasons, all the aforesaid three authorities relied by Ld defence counsel, are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case and do not come to the rescue of accused.
34. It was strongly argued by Ld defence counsel that the testimony of PW2 Sh Raj Pal Sharma is not free from doubt. In order to create suspicion in the testimony of said witness, he submitted that PW2 did not make PCR call and also did not come forward as an eye witness to meet PCR officials at the spot immediately after the accident . Rather, his statement is claimed to have been recorded by the police only on the next day. The prosecution has also failed to explain as to how, the investigating agency came to know that PW2 had witnessed the accident in question. In order to support the said contention, Ld defence counsel also referred to DD no. 24A dt. 28.03.02 recorded in PS DBG Road regarding receipt of intimation through wireless State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 17 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 operator regarding some road accident. Ld defence counsel also read out the contents of the charge sheet and the testimonies of PW2 Sh. Raj Pal Singh as well as that PW7 SI Yash Pal Singh(IO), in order to highlight the fact that necessary link evidence is missing which may show that PW2 had actually witnessed the accident in question and he was promptly examined by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. Ld defence counsel also referred to rukka Ex. PW7/A which shows that no eye witness was found present by IO either at the spot or even in the hospital on the day of accident. He also argued that IO did not get TIP of the accused got conducted from PW2 during the course of investigation which also put serious dent on the case of prosecution. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the judgment reported at 2010(1) JCC 104.
35. Per contra, Ld APP argued that it was not mandatory on the part of IO to get the TIP of accused conducted during the course of investigation. In this regard, she also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter titled as " Ravi Kapoor Vs. State of Rajasthan" in Criminal Appeal No. 1838/09 decided on 16.08.12.
36. It is worthy to note that accused preferred not to cross examine the eye witness produced by prosecution during trial. He also did not put any question during cross examination of IO (PW7) in order to extract as to how and when, he came across the eye witness namely Sh. Raj Pal Sharma(PW2). Likewise, State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 18 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 the accused ought to have put relevant questions during cross examination of said two witnesses in order to find out as to why IO did not get the TIP of accused conducted through PW2 during the course of investigation. IO categorically deposed that PW2(Sh Raj Pal Sharma) was examined by him and he told that it was the accused who had caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. That part of his testimony also remained unchallenged and uncrossed. In other words, the accused did not dispute the relevant part of the testimony of IO that eye witness namely Sh. Raj Pal Sharma(PW2) did meet him during the course of investigation. It is also nowhere the stand taken by accused that PW2 is a stock witness of police or that he was introduced subsequently in order to support false case against him. It is not the defence of accused that he was previously known to Sh. Raj Pal Sharma (PW2) or that the said witness was having any kind of enmity or ill motive so as to falsely implicate him in the present case. In this backdrop, the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Ravi Kapoor mentioned supra. In the said authority, the accused had run away from the spot after causing the accident but still TIP was not got conducted during the course of investigation. However, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para33 that it was not necessary to hold the test identification parade of appellant/accused as he was duly seen, though for a short but a reasonable period, when after parking the bus, he got down from the bus and ran away. State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 19 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013
37. In another matter titled as " S.N Dubey, Etc Vs. N.B Bhoir & Ors." reported at 2000 I AD(SC) 169, similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court that identification of accused by the witness in the Court when no attempt was made earlier by holding TIP, can be believed by the Court in case same is corroborated by the evidence of eye witness and other material available before the Court. Similar view has also been taken in another judgment reported at 2000(1) Crimes 59(SC) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it cannot be said that in the absence of TIP, the evidence of an eye witness identifying the accused would become inadmissible or totally useless. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the question whether the evidence deserves any credence or not, would always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
38. Now turning back to the facts of the present case. As already discussed earlier, the accused preferred not to cross examine eye witness namely Sh. Raj Pal Sharma(PW2) at all. The accused ought to have put relevant questions during the cross examination of said witness and to bring on record facts in order to create suspicion in the testimony of said witness. The unchallenged and unrebutted testimony of eye witness, cannot be discarded by the Court.
39. Moreover, it would be any body's guess as to why police officials would falsely implicate him. If the accused wants this Court to believe that he has been implicated falsely, the least which was expected from the accused was to State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 20 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013 at least come out as to what could have been the motive for the police for his false implication and as to what was that reason for which police official could have done so. But no such reason is even mentioned or suggested to the witnesses. The accused cannot expect this Court to believe his version by simple bare allegation that he is falsely implicated. At least some reason should have been put forth by the accused to suggest as to what could have been motive of the police in implicating him. In the absence of this, I do not find any reason to throw out the testimonies of witnesses.
40. There is no dispute with respect to other ingredients that accident had been caused with the offending truck and the said accident had resulted into death of deceased namely Sh. Kishan Lal. In fact, the accused has also not disputed that part of the prosecution story which provides that the accident had been caused by the truck in question and also that accident in question was the direct and proximate cause of death of Sh. Kishan Lal. Even otherwise, it stands proved from the testimonies of PW8 to PW10 and the PM report Ex PW8/A that Sh Kishan Lal had expired on account of cerebral damage and hemorrhagic shock consequent upon force impact to the head and chest possibly by road accident. The time since death as mentioned in the said report, also corresponds with the time of accident in question as mentioned in the charge sheet.
State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 21 of 22 FIR NO. 98/02; PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD:31.10.2013
41. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has been successful in establishing that accused namely Satpal was driving the offending truck bearing no. JK02M9880 in rash and /or negligent manner at the given date, time and place of accident due to which accident took place resulting into death of Sh. Kishan Lal. Consequently, he stands convicted in respect of offences U/s 279/304A IPC.
Announced in the open court (Vidya Prakash)
on 31.10.2013 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
State V/s Satpal (" Convicted ") Page 22 of 22