Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/428834/2016 on 12 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF Ms. ANU AGGARWAL,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
State v. SATISH
FIR No. 149/2010
Police Station : Najafgarh
Under Section : 279/337/338 IPC
Unique Computer ID Number : 428834/2016
Date of institution : 07.01.2010
Date of reserving : 09.12.2019
Date of pronouncement : 12.12.2019
JUDGMENT
a) Date of commission of offence : 02.04.2010
b) Name of the complainant : Sh. Rakesh @ Chintu, S/o Sh. Raj Singh, R/o B-94, Raghubir Enclave, Dichau Road, Najafgarh, Delhi.
c) Name, parentage and address : Satish Kumar, of the accused S/o Sh. Diwan Singh, R/o B-25, Patel Garden, Kakrola More, New Delhi.
d) Offence complained of : Section 279/337/338 IPC
e) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
f) Final order : Accused stands acquitted of the offences charged with.
g) Date of final order : 12.12.2019
State v. Satish
FIR No. 149/10 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 1 of 8
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS
FOR THE DECISION
1. The present case has been registered as against accused Satish U/s 279/337/338 IPC. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows :-
It is the case of prosecution that on 02.04.2010 at about 08.00 pm, at Shiv Enclave, Main Dichau Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi, accused was driving car bearing no. DL1N 2302. He was driving the abovesaid car without insurance and without permit. While driving the offending vehicle, in rash and negligent manner at a high speed, accused came from the wrong side and hit motorcycle bearing registration no. DL9SN-4841. The said motorcycle was being ridden by Sandeep Bajaj and Rakesh @ Chintu and Sandeep Kumar were pillion rider. Due to the aforesaid accident, Sandeep Kumar and Rakesh @ Chintu sustained simple injuries and Sandeep Bajaj sustained grievous injuries. The case was registered and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
2. After filing of the charge-sheet, accused was summoned and notice under Section 251 Cr. P. C. for the offences punishable under Section 279/337/338 IPC and Section 56/192 and 46/192 MV Act was served upon the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined following witnesses to prove the case:-
3.1 PW-1 Rakesh @ Chintu is one of the injured who has deposed regarding facts of the case. He was cross-examined State v. Satish FIR No. 149/10 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 2 of 8 by the Ld. APP for the State as he failed to identify the accused.
3.2 PW-2 Sandeep Bajaj is one of the injured persons who has deposed about facts of the case.
3.3. PW-3 Vivek Yadav was running the office of Yash Tours and Travels. He has deposed regarding offending vehicle. 3.4 PW-4 Sandeep is one of the victim of the present case. He has deposed regarding the facts of the case. 3.5 PW-5 ASI Nand Kishore is the investigating officer of the case. On receiving DD no. 59 B, Ex.PW5/1, he alongwith Ct. Ashok Kumar had reached the spot and found the offending vehicle and victim motorcycle in accidental condition. He had recorded the statement of injured Rakesh, Prem and prepared rukka. He got the present FIR registered.
He got the photographs of the site clicked and seized the vehicles. He prepared the site plan. He gave notice U/s 133 MV Act to the accused and arrested him. He got mechanical inspection of the vehicle done and after completion of the investigation, he had filed the charge-sheet. 3.6 PW-6 ASI Ashok Kumar is part of investigating team, who alongwith IO had reached the spot. The FIR got registered through him.
3.7 PW-7 Ms. Meenu Narang was working as Manager in company, namely, M/s Poorti Rent A Car and Logistic Private Limited. She has deposed that the company had taken the cars on hire basis from Jai Shree Ram Tours and Travels of which the accused is the owner. She has deposed that two State v. Satish FIR No. 149/10 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 3 of 8 cars, namely, Chevrolet AVEO remained with accused as the company could not pay to the accused.
4. The accused vide statement dated 02.08.2013 U/s 294 r/w 313 r/w 281 Cr. P. C. admitted the genuineness of FIR Ex.AA, DD entry no. 6 A dt. 03.08.2010 Ex.AB, MLC of injureds Ex.AC, Ex.AD, Ex.AE and Ex.AF. The accused vide statement dated 26.07.2019 U/s 294 Cr. P .C. admitted the TIP proceedings Ex.P1.
5. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE was closed.
6. Accused was examined U/s 313 Cr. P. C. where he has negated all the allegations. He has stated that he was not driving the offending vehicle on the date of the incident. No defence evidence has been lead by the accused.
7. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the case file.
8. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The two injured persons have identified the accused as the person who was driving the offending vehicle. The accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the accused and accused should be convicted.
9. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that prosecution has failed to prove that accused was driving the offending vehicle on the date of the injured. None of the injureds has identified the accused and there is no evidence on record to show that the alleged offending car was with Jai State v. Satish FIR No. 149/10 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 4 of 8 Shree Ram Tours and Travels, of which the accused is the owner. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the accused should be acquitted.
10. The accused has been charge-sheeted for an offence U/s 279/337/338 IPC alongwith Section 56/192 and 46/192 MV Act. In order to prove charges U/s 279/337/338 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following :-
(i) that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle on the date, time and place of the alleged accident;
(ii) that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or personal safety of others or likely to cause hurt to any other person.
(iii) that while driving the offending vehicle in the aforesaid manner, the accused caused simple/grievous injuries to the injureds.
11. The accused has denied that he was driving the offending vehicle on the date of the incident. PW-5 ASI Nand Kishore is the IO of the case. He has deposed that the RC of offending vehicle was in the name of 'Poorti Rent A Car and Logistic Private Limited, Lajpat Nagar'. He visited the said company and served notice U/s 133 MV Act Ex.PW5/8 to Meenu Narang, Manager of the company. In reply, it was disclosed that vehicle was given to Jai Shree Ram Tours and Travels, belonging to accused Satish. Thereafter, notice U/s 133 MV Act Ex.PW5/9 was given to accused Satish. The notice U/s 133 MV Act Ex.PW5/10 to the Director of the Poorti Rent A Car Private Limited at State v. Satish FIR No. 149/10 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 5 of 8 Mumbai Office and reply was received as Ex.PW5/11. The perusal of the Ex.PW5/11 reflects that it was informed by the company that offending vehicle was given to the accused in the month of December, 2008 in consideration of his outstanding amount due towards the company. The vehicle was given on verbal terms and conditions.
12. It is not disputed that the offending vehicle was registered in the name of M/s Poorti Rent A Car Pvt. Ltd. The Manager of the company, namely, Meenu Narang as been examined as PW-7. She has deposed that the car remained with Jai Shree Ram Tours and Travels as the company could not pay the amount. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that there is no documentary proof of receiving of the car by the accused. Apart from the oral testimony of Meenu Narang, there is no document on record to show that Poorti Rent A Car Pvt. Ltd. had given the offending vehicle to the accused. In fact, it is clear from Ex.PW5/11 that as per company, the car was given on verbal terms and conditions. Further Ex.PW5/11, the company checked its record and found that the offending vehicle was given to the accused. However, no such record has been produced before this court. PW-3 Vivek Yadav has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has denied that the offending vehicle was given to the accused by the company on account of their dues towards the accused. Therefore, there is no evidence on record that the registered owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Poorti Rent A Car Logistics Pvt. Ltd. had given the offending vehicle to the accused.
13. Injured Rakesh @ Chintu has been examined as PW-1. He has given the detailed version of the incident but he could not identify the State v. Satish FIR No. 149/10 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 6 of 8 accused. He has deposed that he is not sure whether the accused present in the court is the same person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident. He was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State and he negated the suggestion that on 29.10.2010, he alongwith IO came to Dwarka Court and identified the accused.
14. Injured Sandeep Bajaj has been examined as PW-2. He has also given the detailed version of the incident. He identified the accused in examination in chief but in the cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seen the accused at the spot. He identified the accused as accused was arrested by the police and police told him that offending vehicle belonged to the accused and accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident.
15. PW-4 Sh. Sandeep is also injured and has given detailed version of the incident. In examination in chief, he has stated that he could not see who was driving the vehicle after the accident. However, he changed his stand and stated that the accused was the one who was driving vehicle at the time of the accident. The accused came down from the car and on seeing their condition, he fled away. In the cross-examination he has stated that head light of the offending vehicle was on and he could not see the vehicle clearly while it was coming towards them. The perusal of statement U/s 161 Cr. P. C. of injured Sandeep reflect that he informed the police that accused looked towards them after opening his window and thereafter fled away. He could not record the number of offending vehicle and it was recorded by injured Rakesh. However, in his examination in chief, he has stated that accused came down from his car. Further he did not State v. Satish FIR No. 149/10 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 7 of 8 identify the accused at first and thereafter changed his statement. Therefore, his testimony is not reliable with respect to the identity of the accused.
16. The prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused and that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the date of the incident.
17. In view of the same accused stands acquitted of the offences punishable U/s 279/337/338 IPC and Section 56/192 and 46/192 MV Act.
Digitally signed by ANU Announced in open Court on 12.12.2019. ANU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2019.12.13 17:05:11 +0530 (ANU AGGARWAL) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI. State v. Satish FIR No. 149/10 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 8 of 8