Delhi District Court
Title State vs . Ram Milan Etc. on 21 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. HIMANSHI TYAGI,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-03, EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 267/2018
Police Station Ghazipur
Unique Case ID No. 3842/2018
Title State Vs. Ram Milan etc.
Name of complainant Sh. Shahid S/o Sh. Nasurddin
Name of accused 1. Ram Milan
S/o Sh. Sunder Lal
R/o Village Aliganj Bazar (Manihari)
District Sultanpur, UP.
Date of institution of challan 18.10.2018
Date of Final arguments 21.04.2023
Date of pronouncement 21.04.2023
Offence complained of U/s 279/304-A IPC and U/s. 3/181 &
5/180 MV Act
Offence charged with Under Section 279/304-A IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquitted
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
The facts of the case in brief are that on 04.07.2018 at about 03.45 a.m. at Road No. 56, in front of Gazipur Dairy Farm near Gali No. 5, Ghazipur, Delhi, accused Ram Milan was driving vehicle FIR No. 267/2018 State Vs. Ram Milan etc. Page 1 of 8 Digitally signed HIMANSHI by HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date: 2023.04.22 05:32:31 -0700 bearing No. HR-55N-0921 in rash or negligent manner and while so driving, he hit Mahindra Pickup bearing registration No. DL-1LM-3348 being driven by Riyaz Ahmad, resulting into his death. The prosecution also alleged that accused Ram Milan did not posses a valid Driving License and therefore accused Ram Milan had committed offence u/s 3/181 Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred as MV Act) and the owner of the vehicle bearing No. HR-55N- 0921, Ram Anand has committed offences u/s 5/180 MV Act. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused for commission of offences punishable U/s 279/304-A IPC and Section 3/181 & 5/180 MV Act.
02. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused Ram Milan and Ram Anand. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 09.12.2022, as per provision of Section 258 Cr.PC proceedings were stopped against accused Ram Anand and he was discharged as an accused in the present case. Accused Ram Milan was also discharged for offences u/s 3/181 MV Act and he was only charged for offences punishable under section 279/304-A IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
03. The statement of the accused u/s. 294 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 09.12.2022 where the admitted the registration of the HIMANSHI Digitally signed by HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date: 2023.04.22 05:32:42 -
0700 FIR No. 267/2018 State Vs. Ram Milan etc. Page 2 of 8present FIR no 267/2018 Ex A-1, DD no 12-A B Ex A-2, DD entry No. 9 Ex. A-3, MLC of deceased Ex. A-4 and Post mortem report Ex. A-5. Therefore, witnesses DODO/ASI Birpal Singh, DO/CMVAI Cell, Dr. Shivani and Dr. Anil were dropped from the list of witnesses.
04. The prosecution had cited total 16 witnesses. The main witness of the prosecution and the only public witness/eye witness is Shahid Khan in the present case. This witness had already expired on 31.01.20207 as per the DVR filed before the Court. The remaining witnesses cited were either formal witnesses and/or police witnesses and who are formal in nature.
05. Prosecution evidence was thus, closed vide separate order passed today, and the request of the Ld. APP to summon further witnesses was denied as recording of any further prosecution evidence in the present case would result in to wastage of judicial time, money, resources and will also cause unnecessary operation to the accused person who has anyhow faced the ordeal of the trial in the present case for more than four years. In this regard, reference may be made to a Division Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Govind & Ors. vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104 (2003) DLT 510 wherein it held that:
Digitally signed by "In cases where the ultimate chance of conviction is HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2023.04.22 05:32:50 -0700 FIR No. 267/2018 State Vs. Ram Milan etc. Page 3 of 8
very bleak for there is no prospect of the case and again conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion of a future date."
06. Further, right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused person. The present case pertains to an FIR of the year 2014, and it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused person in the absence of the injured and the complainant. Therefore, further trial would tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P.Ramchandra Rao vs. Satte of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its power available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right of speedy trial to the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Mahrashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Abr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI
07. Since nothing incriminating could come on record against TYAGI Date:
2023.04.22 05:33:00 -0700 FIR No. 267/2018 State Vs. Ram Milan etc. Page 4 of 8
the accused, examination under section 281/313 CrPC was also dispensed with. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
ARGUMENTS:
08. Final arguments heard from Sh. Satish Shukla, Ld. APP for the State and from Sh. Ashok Budhiraja Ld. Counsel for accused. The counsel of the accused has submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated and he is innocent.
09. The accused has been indicted for the offence under section 279/304-A IPC. For offence under section 279/304-A IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. That accident actually took place;
ii. that a vehicle was driven or ridden by the accused at the time of accident;
iii. that the accused was driving it on a public way; iv. the said vehicle was driven in a rash or negligent manner; v. as a result of such driving, death has been caused of any person.
10. While the first, second and third ingredients need to be established beyond reasonable doubt with the aid of eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence, the fifth ingredient needs to be proved with the help of medical documents and expert witnesses. As far as the Digitally signed by FIR No. 267/2018 State Vs. Ram Milan etc. Page 5 of 8 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2023.04.22 05:33:09 -0700
fourth ingredient is concerned the same is required to be proved with judicial measurements and with the judicial interpretation as already established.
11. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
12. In every criminal trial, the identity of the malefactor must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the offender, for even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the offender beyond reasonable doubt. Onus is, thus, on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person facing the trial is, in fact, the same person who committed the offence.
13. The prosecution has cited only one independent/public witnesses in the present matter, who is the complainant and the only eye witness. Given the nature of the case where the injured of the alleged accident has died, the case of the prosecution primarily Digitally signed by HIMANSHI FIR No. 267/2018 State Vs. Ram Milan etc. Page 6 of 8 HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2023.04.22 05:33:16 -0700 depended upon the evidence of the sole eye witness. However he has expired and there is no more other eye witness cited who could have proved the accident in question and the consequent death of the deceased in this accident. The identity of accused person in a criminal trial is of paramount importance and no person can be indicted for criminal liability, unless his identity is established beyond any shadow of doubt.
14. In this case, there is no other witness of the incident apart from PW Shahid. PW Shahid is the star and the only eye witness of the incident and the other witnesses are formal witnesses whose testimonies are not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences charged against him, direct evidence was required to prove the ingredients of the of fences u/s 279/304 A IPC. The identity of the accused as the person who committed the offence, remains unproved. Therefore, there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offences.
15. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of accused person, the prosecution was required to prove the offence under section 279/304 A IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The star witnesses of the prosecution i.e., the complainant has died and could not be examined. There is no evidence even otherwise to link Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2023.04.22 FIR No. 267/2018 State Vs. Ram Milan etc. Page 7 of 8 05:33:23 -0700 the accused person with the crimes charged against him. His identity as culprit is not proved during the trial. Therefore, I am of view that prosecution could not discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offences in question and identity of accused person and thus, the accused person is entitled to benefit of doubt.
16. Accordingly, the accused Ram Milan is hereby found not guilty. He is hereby ACQUITTED of the offences under section 279/304-A IPC. Accused to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437-A Cr.PC.
Pronounced in open Court on 21.04.2023.
The Judgement contains 08 pages and eachDigitally pagesigned has been signed by the undersigned. by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2023.04.22 05:33:31 -0700 (Himanshi Tyagi) Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi FIR No. 267/2018 State Vs. Ram Milan etc. Page 8 of 8