Delhi District Court
State vs Krishan Kumar on 3 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 642/05
PS : Paschim Vihar
Offence complained of : 279/337 IPC
Date of commission of offence : 30.07.2005
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R0383262010
C C No. : 2604/2/08
State vs Krishan Kumar
Krishan Kumar
S/o Om Prakash
R/o Village Sirastabaad,
PS Antu, District Pratapgarh
UP
............. Accused
Sumit Kumar
S/o Behari Lal
R/o House No. 159, Avtar Enclave
Paschim Vihar, Delhi
........... Complainant
Date of Institution : 03.07.2006
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Date of reserving judgment/ order : 03.02.2016
Date of pronouncement : 03.02.2016
Final Order : Acquitted
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1.Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/337 IPC.
FIR No. 642/05 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Krishan Kumar 1/7
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 30.07.2005 at about 03.00 pm at main Rohtak Road, near Nivedita Enclave, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, the accused Krishan Kumar was found driving a truck bearing number HR-38C-0886 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in such a manner, the accused struck against a tree after breaking the iron grill of the footpath, due to which aforesaid truck turned turtled and caused simple injuries to the helper namely Hari Narayan. Thus, the accused Krishan Kumar is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 279/337 IPC. FIR
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 642/2005 under section 279/337 IPC was lodged at Police Station Paschim Vihar.
CHARGE
4. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On basis of the charge-sheet, a notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 279/338 IPC was served upon the accused Krishan Kumar to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. JUDICIAL RESOLUTION
6. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution, that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:-
FIR No. 642/05 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Krishan Kumar 2/7 (1)That the accident actually took place. (2)That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving. (3)That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
7. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 8 witnesses, out of which, only two witnesses i.e. Sumit Kumar and ASI Randhir Singh have been examined.
8. PW-1 Sumit Kumar deposed that he did not remember the exact date but it was about 7-8 years ago. At that time he was a student. On that day, he was returning back to his home on foot. When he reached Nivedita Enclave, he saw a crowd on the road. He saw that an accident had taken place. He remained there for a while and thereafter went to his home. He deposed that he does not know who had committed the accident and what vehicle was involved in the same. He could not remember any more about this case. The witness was declared as hostile by the prosecution and he was cross examined by the Ld. APP. During cross examination, witness stated that he did not remember if the accident had taken place on 30.07.2005. He denied the suggestion that on 30.07.2005 when he was going for a walk, he saw the accident at Nivedita Enclave at about 3.00 a.m. He denied the suggestion that he saw the truck no. HR-38C-0886 was coming from Punjabi Bagh side in a rash and negligent manner and had hit the iron grill of the footpath and thereafter hit a tree and turned turtle, due to which the helper sustained injuries. He denied the suggestion that he had apprehended the driver of the said truck and his name was revealed as Krishan Kumar. He denied the suggestion that he could identify the driver of the offending truck as well as the FIR No. 642/05 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Krishan Kumar 3/7 offending truck. He admitted that the statement Ex. PW1/A bear his signature at point A, but he did not remember when and where he had signed the same. Witness was confronted with his statement Ex. PW2/A but he denied having made any such statement to the police. He denied the suggestion that the accused was arrested in his presence. He did not remember when and where he had signed the arrest memo. He denied the suggestion that the site plan was prepared at his instance.
9. PW-2 ASI Randhir Singh deposed that on 30.07.2005 he was posted as duty officer at PS Paschim Vihar. On that day, his duty hours were from 12.00 mid night to 8.00 a.m. He had registered the present FIR on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Raj Kumar sent by ASI Raj Kumar. He proved the FIR as Ex.PW2/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW2/B.
10.Injured Hari Narayan remained unserved even through DCP. Accordingly, name of this witness was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 19.01.2016. All the other remaining witnesses are formal witnesses and none of them is a witness to the accident, sufficient only to prove that Hari Narayan had received injuries and that an FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged on the same day at PS Paschim Vihar vide FIR bearing No.642/05.
11.As the eye witness Sumit Kumar has turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution story as well as failed to identify the accused, and the injured Hari Narayan has remained unserved even through DCP concerned, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the present case FIR No. 642/05 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Krishan Kumar 4/7 was a result of an act of accused and that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing number HR-38C-0886, which was being driven by the accused Krishan Kumar in a rash and negligent manner. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/s 279/337 IPC.
12.It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs". reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "In case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". Accordingly, PE was closed. Recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is also dispensed with.
13.In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, FIR No. 642/05 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Krishan Kumar 5/7 for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts."
14.It has been held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put to an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
15.In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/337 IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused.
Final Order
16.Since the complainant /eye witness has turned hostile and the other eye witness who is also the injured has remained unserved and in the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under Section 258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Krishan Kumar qua offences under Section 279/337 IPC and hereby releases the accused Krishan Kumar under sections 279/337 IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
FIR No. 642/05 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Krishan Kumar 6/7
17.As per section 437-A Cr.P.C accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.02.2016 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/03.02.2016 FIR No. 642/05 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Krishan Kumar 7/7