Delhi District Court
State vs . Parmod Kumar on 11 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. KISHOR KUMAR, MM-03, SOUTH
WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 440/10
U/s : 279/338 IPC
P.S. : Najafgarh
State Vs. Parmod Kumar
JUDGMENT:
a) Sl. No. of the Case : 369/2 & New No. 428213/16
b) Name & address of the : Sh. Jagdish Kumar complainant. S/o Late Sh. Ujagar Singh R/o B-1/25A, Gali No.9, Dashrath Puri, Dabri Palam Road, New Delhi.
c) Name & address of : Pramod Kumar
accused S/o Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o H.No. 81, Pachcha Pana,
Village Nangli Sakrawati,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of : 03.10.2010
offence
e) Offence complained off : U/s 279/338 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Convicted h) Date of such order : 11.09.2018 Date of Institution : 10.10.2013 Final arguments heard on : 04.09.2018 Judgment Pronounced on : 11.09.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION: - FIR No: 440/10 state v. pramod kumar Page No.1/11
1. The prosecution has filed the present case against the accused for the offence punishable under section 279/338 IPC on the grounds that on 03.10.2010 at about 7:00 pm at Tata Motor Tura Mandi, Najafgarh, New Delhi, accused was driving Esteem car bearing registration No. HR 51N 0425 in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others on wrong side and hit against scooter bearing registration No. DNK 8603 and caused grievous hurt on the person of Jagdish Kumar and Trilochan Kaur. Police recorded statement of complainant Jagdish Kumar on the basis of which present FIR was registered and investigation was carried out.
2. After investigation, challan for offence U/s 279/338 IPC was filed. Compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was done.
3. Notice for committing the offence punishable under FIR No: 440/10 state v. pramod kumar Page No.2/11 Section 279/338 IPC was framed on 23.01.2014, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses.
5. PW1 Ms. Trilochan Kaur deposed that on 03.10.2010, at about 7:00 PM, she along with her husband were coming on scooter bearing No. DNK 8603 from Durga Vihar, Phase-II, towards Najafgarh. They were going on left side of the road and when they reached near Tura Mandi in front of Tata Motors, one Esteem car bearing No. HR 51N 0425 which came at very high speed from opposite side, hit their scooter at its right side. They both fell down on their left side and received grievous injuries.
6. PW2 Jagdish Kumar is the complainant. He deposed that on 03.10.2010, he along with his wife FIR No: 440/10 state v. pramod kumar Page No.3/11 Trilochan Kaur was coming from Dinpur via Najafgarh and going towards his home on his scooter Bajaj DNK 8603 and when at about 7 pm, they reached near Tata Motors, Tuda Mandi, Najafgarh, one Esteem car was coming from the opposite side. The car was being driven at a very fast speed and in a zig-zag manner. On seeing the car, PW2 took his scooter on the left side of the road and slowed down, however, the car struck his scooter because of which they fell down on the ground. The car driver also stopped at the spot and also came to them and asked about their well being. The car number was HR 51N 0425.
Police came in the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW2/1.
7. PW3 ASI Khubi Ram is the Duty Officer who recorded the present FIR Ex. PW3/A and made endorsement Ex. PW3/B. FIR No: 440/10 state v. pramod kumar Page No.4/11
8. PW4 Ct. Varun Kumar joined the investigation with IO PW5 SI Gajender. IO recorded statement Ex. PW2/1 of injured, prepared rukka Ex. PW5/A, prepared site plan Ex. PW5/B, seized the scooter vide Ex. PW4/A, arrested the accused vide Ex. PW4/B, conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW4/C, seized DL of the accused vide Ex. PW5/C, RC of offending vehicle was seized vide Ex. PW5/D, seized the offending vehicle vide Ex. PW4/D and served notice u/s 133 MV Act Ex. PW5/E upon owner of offending vehicle. Witnesses have also proved photographs of offending vehicle Ex. P-1.
9. Accused admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C MLCs of both the injured persons as well as mechanical inspection reports of both the vehicles.
10. Thereafter, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He stated that no accident was caused by him FIR No: 440/10 state v. pramod kumar Page No.5/11 or with his vehicle. There was a pole on the divider. The scooter driver had hit his scooter on the pole.
11. I have heard Ld. APP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have carefully gone through the record.
12. Case of the prosecution is that on 03.10.2010 at about 7 pm, the accused was driving esteem car in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side and hit against scooter and caused grievous injury to Mr. Jagdish Kumar and Ms. Trilochan Kaur.
13. Prosecution has examined the injured PW1 Ms. Trilochan Kaur. In her examination in chief, she has supported the case of prosecution, in all material particulars. Similarly, PW2 Jagdish Kumar, husband of accused No.1 has also supported the case of prosecution on all material particulars. PW1 and PW2 have duly FIR No: 440/10 state v. pramod kumar Page No.6/11 identified the accused to be the person who was driving the offending vehicle on the relevant date, time and place as also the offending vehicle and the scooter.
14. PW1 Ms. Trilochan Kaur has been cross examined by Ld. counsel for the accused and there she deposed that on the day of incident the road was not busy. The speed of scooter was about 20-25 kmph. She had seen the offending vehicle before the accident from a distance of about 10-15 feet. At the time of accident, their scooter was in motion. After the accident, many public persons gathered there. She called the PCR van from her mobile phone. PCR reached after 10-15 minutes. PCR took them to the hospital. Police recorded statement of PW1 in the hospital. PW1 along with her husband PW2 were admitted in the RTRM Hospital. Later on they went to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital by ambulance where surgery of her husband was conducted next day and he remained admitted for 2-3 FIR No: 440/10 state v. pramod kumar Page No.7/11 days. PW1 remained admitted for a day only for her treatment. The site plan was got prepared in the presence of PW1. PW1 has specifically deposed the number of offending vehicle in her cross examination to be HR 51N 0425. In her further cross examination, PW1 deposed that she did not remember whether one electric pole was situated at the spot or not. She had denied the suggestion that their scooter hit the electric pole or that the driver of the offending vehicle was not driving it at a high speed. She further denied the suggestion that on the day of accident, the road was very busy. The offending vehicle hit at right side of their scooter.
15. PW2 Jagdish Kumar has also been cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused. He deposed that he was driving his scooter at the speed of 10-15 kmph and speed of the offending vehicle was about 70-80 kmph. Vehicles were passing through the spot. No vehicle was either in front of FIR No: 440/10 state v. pramod kumar Page No.8/11 him or behind him at the time of accident. The road was vacant towards the direction to which he was driving. He slowed down his scooter after seeing the accused driving in a zig zag and rash manner on the road. PW2 was driving on the left side of the road. Public persons parked the scooter after the accident in his presence in the middle of the road. Wife of PW2 made call at No.100. PW2 was taken to RTRM Hospital where his statement was recorded by IO once. PW2 never visited the spot after the incident. PW2 has denied the suggestion that he was riding in the middle of the road and the accident in question occurred due to his negligence or that he rammed his scooter in the car of accused.
16. The accused has admitted the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle as Ex. X-3 and that of the scooter as Ex. X-4 under section 294 Cr.P.C. FIR No: 440/10 state v. pramod kumar Page No.9/11
17. As per testimonies of PW1 and PW2, they were driving the scooter at the left side of the road and accused who was coming from opposite side hit the scooter on its right side. The inspection report Ex. X-3 and X-4 are also in consonance with the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. In the report Ex. X-3 of the offending vehicle, there are damages to it on the right side whereas in the inspection report X-4 of the scooter there is damage on the right side. The reports are in sync with the testimonies of PW1 and PW2.
18. Ld. counsel for accused has argued that PW2 had hit the electric pole due to which they suffered injuries, however, it is seen that no such suggestion has been given to PW2 who was driving the scooter at the time of the accident, rather the suggestion given to PW2 has been denied by him that he was riding in the middle of the road and the accident in question occurred due to his FIR No: 440/10 state v. pramod kumar Page No.10/11 negligence or that he rammed his scooter in the car of the accused. Furthermore, MLCs of injured are also in consonance with the injuries suffered by them.
19. In view of the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, it is hereby held that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused that on 03.10.2010 at about 7:00 pm at Tata Motor Tura Mandi, Najafgarh, New Delhi, accused was driving Esteem car bearing registration No. HR 51N 0425 in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others on wrong side and hit against scooter bearing registration No. DNK 8603 and caused grievous hurt on the person of Jagdish Kumar and Trilochan Kaur. Resultantly, accused stands convicted for the charged Digitally signed offences. KISHOR by KISHOR KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2018.09.12 16:10:41 +0530 Dictated & Announced in Open Court (Kishor Kumar) th On the 11 day of September, 2018 MM-03/South-West/Delhi 11.09.2018 FIR No: 440/10 state v. pramod kumar Page No.11/11