Delhi District Court
State vs Dharm Raj Etc on 17 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, SOUTH-
EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Akansha Gautam, DJS
DLSE020202392018
Cr. Case No. : 3899/2018
FIR No. : 170/2018
Police Station : Okhla Industrial
Area
Section(s) : 279/338 IPC
In the matter of:
STATE
VERSUS
DHARAMRAJ
S/o Mr. Rohtash
R/o A-53, Lal Kuan Pul Prahladpur,
New Delhi.
...... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Sh. Chander Bhan
2. Name of Accused : Sh. Dharamraj
3. Offence complained of or proved : S. 279/338 IPC 4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty 5. Date of commission of offence : 15.05.2018 6. Date of filing of case : 04.07.2018 7. Date of pronouncement : 17.09.2025 8. Final Order : Acquitted
Argued by -: Sh. Naresh Chaudhary, Ld. APP for the State Sh. Laxman Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Akhansha Gautam 1 / 14 Digitally signed by Akhansha FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj Gautam Date:
2025.09.17 16:04:19 +0530 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION -:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 15 May 2018 around 9:15 PM at the Indira Kalyan Vihar traffic light on Maa Anandmayi Marg, Okhla Industrial Area-1, New Delhi, complainant Chanderbhan, resident of Kalkaji DDA Flats was riding his Hero Extreme motorcycle (hereinafter referred as 'victim's vehicle') home. A black Mahindra Jeep bearing registration number DL12CA1412 (hereinafter referred as 'offending vehicle') was being driven recklessly, struck him from behind, causing him to fall and sustain head and shoulder injuries; bystanders took him to ESI Hospital from where his wife took him to Batra Hospital. Two men were in the jeep out of which one namely Virender, was caught by the public, but the driver, Dharmraj, fled--after which ASI Bhikamber Sharma seized the vehicles, documented the scene, and registered a case under Sections 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving. The FIR was registered on the same day in PS Okhla Industrial Area.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED-
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and arrested the accused Dharamraj. On culmination of the investigation, the charge-sheet against the accused was filed on 05.10.2018. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial vide the same order.
3. On his appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, Digitally signed by Akhansha Gautam Akhansha Date:
Gautam 2025.09.17
2 / 14 16:04:23
+0530
FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj
"CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused, notice of accusation under Sections 279/338 IPC was framed against the accused.
The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE-
4. During the trial, the prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE PW 1 : Chander Bhan (complainant/injured) PW 2 : Rohtash Kumar PW 3 : Virender Kumar PW 4 : Arun Nagar PW 5 : T.U. Siddiqui PW 6 : Dr. Bhaskar Sazena PW 7 : Abhijeet Singh PW 8 : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Yadav PW 9 : HC Nahanji PW 10 : ASI Bhikanber Sharma DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A : Complaint Ex. PW1/B : Punchnama of victim's motorcycle Ex. PW1/C : Site Plan Ex. PW2/A : Reply of notice u/s 133MV Act Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha 3 / 14 Gautam Gautam Date:
FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj 2025.09.17 16:04:26 +0530 Ex. PW2/B : Punchnama of offending Thar Jeep Ex. PW5/A & : MVI report of victim's motorcycle and offending Thar Jeep Ex. PW5/B Ex. PW6/A : MLC of Chandrabhan Ex. PW7/A Ex. PW7/B & : Discharge summary and test reports of injured Chandrabhan Mark A (Colly) Ex. PW8/A : MLC of Virender Ex. PW9/A : Seizure memo fo offending jeep Ex. PW9/B : Seizure memo of victim's motorcycle Ex. PW9/C : Arrest memo Ex. PW9/D : Seizure memo of driving license Ex. PW9/E : Seizure memo of documents of offending jeep Ex.
: Rukka PW10/A Ex.
: Notice u/s 133 MV Act PW10/B Ex. P1 & : Photographs of the accident P4 (colly) DOCUMENTS ADMITTED UNDER SEC. 294 CrPC Ex.P/A/1 : Reports of MVI dated 05.07.2018 Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam 4 / 14 Date:
2025.09.17 FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj 16:04:29 +0530 Ex.P/A/2 : Reports of MVI dated 05.07.2018
5. The examination of prosecution witnesses is not being reproduced for the sake of brevity.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE-
6. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC on 10.02.2025. In reply, accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that injured persons came in front of his vehicle in order to loot him. he was going slowly but due to mechanical defects, the truck did not stop and accident took place. The accused then stated that he did not wish to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS-
7. It has been argued by the ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offences are fulfilled in the present case. The accused who was driving the vehicle, was apprehended at the spot. He has argued that the complainant and the witnesses have explained how the incident occurred in their examination. They have remained corroborated. Further, the MLC also supports their claim. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.17 16:04:32 +0530 5 / 14 FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj
8. Per contra, ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that it was not Dharmraj who was driving the offending vehicle. He also submitted that the complainant could not tell the speed of the offending vehicle. Further, there are material inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution and there is no evidence to show that the alleged accident occurred due to rashness or negligence of the accused or that the vehicles were damaged pursuant to such accident. As such, it is prayed that the accused deserves to be acquitted for the said offences.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE-
9. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apt to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In criminal law, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused exclusively lies on the prosecution which must prove the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
10. In the instant case, the accused has been charged with the offences of rash driving on public way (S. 279 IPC) and causing grievous hurt by a rash or negligent act (S. 338 IPC). While under Section 279 IPC, the factum of rash or negligent driving likely to endanger human life or cause hurt etc. is in itself the offence, Section 338 IPC envisages causing of grievous hurt as a result of rash or negligent act of the accused. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution must prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, and due to such driving of the accused, the victim suffered grievous injuries.
Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.17 16:04:35 +0530 6 / 14 FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj RASHNESS OR NEGLIGENCE-
11. The gravamen of the offence under Section 279/338 IPC is the act of the accused, done with "rashness" or "negligence". The IPC does not define either of these terms. However, the ambit of these terms has now been settled by judicial pronouncements of superior courts. In Empress of India vs. Idu Beg ILR (1881) 3 All 776 the term "rashness" was interpreted to mean commission of an act with indifference or recklessness towards the consequences of such act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rathnashalvan vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 474 has observed, inter alia, as under-:
"7. .... 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 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 Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.17 16:04:39 7 / 14 +0530 FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj 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."
Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Ansal vs. CBI (2014) 6 SCC 173. The standard of negligence was discussed in the said case, by observing, inter alia, as under-:
"58. In the case of "negligence" the courts have favoured a meaning which implies a 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 which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge arises, it may be the imperative duty of the accused to have adopted. Negligence has been understood to be an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. Unlike rashness, where the imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness, negligence implies acting without such consciousness, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him. The imputability in the case of negligence arises from the neglect of the civil duty of circumspection."
Digitally signed b Akhansh Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09 8 / 14 16:04:4 FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj +0530 Thus, rashness implies doing an act despite the consciousness that it might result in injuries. Negligence, on the other hand, means lack of reasonable care that a person placed is the fact situation ought to take, in order to avoid injuries.
It is to be ascertained if the act of the accused in driving the vehicle in the present case amounted to a rash or negligent act, in light of the above discussion.
12. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.2018 at about 09:15 p.m. at Maa Anandmayee Marg, near Indra Kalyan Vihar red light, the accused was driving his gypsy in a rash and negligent manner and thereby hit the complainant who was driving his motorcycle from back side causing grievous injuries to complainant and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 279/338 IPC. In the present case, apart from the testimony of the injured persons (PW1-and PW-3), there is no other evidence with respect to the manner in which the accused was driving the vehicle, on the fateful day. The witnesses have stated that the gypsy was being driven in high speed and it hit the complainant from back side. This is the only evidence against the accused, with respect to his manner of driving. However, in the considered opinion of this court, this evidence alone is not sufficient to impute criminal rashness or negligence to the accused. For the following reasons, reliance cannot be solely placed on their testimony:
i. Driver of the offending vehicle: The entire contention of the accused is that he was not driving the offending vehicle. In the original complaint on record as Ex.PW-1/A, the complainant Chanderbhan has stated that he did not see the driver of gypsy as he was injured, accordingly he cannot identify the accused. He has also said that there were two boys in jeep, one of them was caught and one of them ran away. He does not Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.17 9 / 16:04:45 14 +0530 FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj say identify if the driver of the vehicle ran away or co-passenger, The complainant has deposed in his examination-in-chief as PW-1, that he cannot identify the accused even if shown to him. He also said the accused was apprehended by public persons however, Ld. APP for the State has cross-examined the witness and pointed towards the accused and then the witness has identified him as the person who was apprehended by public persons. However, PW-3 has appeared in Court and deposed that accused Dharamraj ran away from the spot and public persons mistakenly caught him and beat him. PW-1 has identified not identified PW-3 as the person who was caught by public persons but the accused being prosecuted. Further, PW-8/ Dr. Pushpender Singh Yadav has entered the witness box and deposed that on 15.05.2018, he was on emergency duty when one person namely Virender was brought to the emergency ward at 10:20 p.m., with history of assault, he also deposed that the said injuries were inflicted upon him by public persons and he sustained simple injuries which was recorded vide MLC No.500096952 on record as Ex.PW-8/A. Had the accused been caught by public persons and beaten, then he would been also medically examined however his MLC is not on record. This creates a material discrepancy in the prosecution story. PW-4/ eye witness to the incident, in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has deposed that driver of the offending vehicle tried to flee away from the spot but he was caught by public persons. This witness turned completely hostile and resiled from his previous statement, not attributing any rashness or negligence upon the accused. It is also important to note that the accused has not been caught by the IO from the spot. It was registered owner of the jeep, Rohtash Kumar who produced accused Dharamraj Akhansha Gautam Digitally signed by Akhansha Gautam Date: 2025.09.17 10 / 14 16:04:48 +0530 FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj on 17.05.2018 and then the IO went on to arrest him. If the identity of the person driving the vehicle is itself in dispute, then how can the element of rashness or negligence be attributed to him.
ii. Eye witnesses turned completely hostile: PW-4/ Arun Nagar was one of the persons who was also driving his scooty at the time of incident at the spot. In his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., he had deposed about accused driving the gypsy in a rash and negligent manner as well as hitting the complainant from behind. However, in his evidence before the Court on 19.11.2019, the witness turned completely hostile and deposed as if he reached the place of incident after the occurrence of incident. He refuted the negligence/ rashness of accused or him even hitting the victim's vehicle. He also denied that he gave any statement to police personnels. In offences under section 279/338 IPC, it is very difficult for prosecution to bring independent eye witnesses on record, but when such a witness turns hostile, it blows a nail in prosecution story. Even PW-3 who is not an independent witness, but an eye witness also turned hostile and resiled from his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. on record as Ex.PW-3/A wherein he had earlier admitted the culpability of the accused. However, in Court, the witness completely blamed the occurrence of the incident upon the complainant and said it is the complainant who applied breaks suddenly because of which he got disbalanced and fell on the road. iii. Non-examination of wife of complainant: The complainant in the original complaint on record as Ex.PW-1/A, has mentioned that his wife took him to Batra hospital in an ambulance. He has described the injuries sustained by him. However, she has not been called by Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.17 16:04:51 11 / +0530 14 FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj prosecution to depose as she could have been reliable witness to narrate the aftermath of the accident.
iv. Speed of offending vehicle: PW-1/ Chanderbhan has mentioned about that the accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner; however, the mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle on record as Ex.PW-5/B is silent on the speed of the vehicle. There is no report qua skid marks, which could have thrown light on the speed of the offending vehicle. Nowhere, none of the witnesses have even estimated at what speed the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused. General aspersions have been cast on the same. Thus, it is not clear whether the accused was actually driving his jeep at high speed or as per speed limit or not. The main factum to be proved by prosecution is rashness and negligence. PW-1/Chanderbhan has deposed that the jeep was coming at a high speed and then hit the bike from back. However, the speed has not been mentioned. In this regard, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284 that the speed cannot be a determinative factor for coming to a conclusion that the person was driving rashly or negligently. Further, it was observed in State of Karnataka vs. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493, as under: - "Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
12 / 142025.09.17 16:04:54 FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj +0530 establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur"." Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan supra held that mere allegation of high speed does not tantamount to rashness or negligence. Merely because the accident occurred does not impute negligence to the accused (refer Section 81 IPC). No approximation of the high speed was given by the injured persons. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused lacked care and caution in driving his vehicle. Thus, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt in the present case.
13. Moreover, the area is generally covered by multiple CCTV cameras yet the IO has not obtained any footage of the incident. Thus, none of the aforesaid circumstances throw a light on the manner in which the vehicle was driven. The photographs of the site and the surroundings were not taken, which would have aided in reaching a conclusion.
14. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offence of Section 279/338 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The basis of the offences charged in the present case is rash or negligent driving of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was driving rashly or negligently on the date of incident. Apart from a bald assertion that the accused was driving in high speed, Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
13 2025.09.17 / 14 FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj 16:04:58 +0530 no other evidence on record points towards the offence.
15. Resultantly, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. As such, the accused DHARAM RAJ is hereby found not guilty. He is ACQUITTED of the offence under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
ORDER -: ACQUITTED Pronounced in open court on 17.09.2025 in presence of accused. Note: This judgment contains 14 pages and each page has been signed by me.
Digitally signed by AkhanshaAkhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.17 16:05:01 +0530 (AKANSHAGAUTAM) Judicial Magistrate First Class - 02 South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi.14 / 14
FIR No.170/2018 State versus Dharam Raj