Delhi District Court
Fir No. 20/13 Ps Moti Nagar State vs . Sanjay Sachdeva U/S 279/338 Ipc 1 on 16 August, 2022
THE COURT OF MS.SHAGUN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -04, WEST
ROOM NO. 268, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE
VERSUS
SANJAY SACHDEVA CASE NO. 65730/2016
FIR No. 20/2013
P.S-Moti Nagar
U/S- 279/338IPC
1. Date of commission of offence: 22.12.2012
2. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Ajay Raj Sharma
S/o Sh. Umesh Chand
Sharma, R/o: WZ-199,
Basai Darapur, Delhi.
3. Name of the accused, and
his parentage and residence : Sanjay Sachdeva S/o
Late Sh. Inderjeet
Sachdeva, R/o: H. No.
9/139, New Moti Nagar,
Delhi.
4. Date when judgment : 28.07.2022.
was reserved
5. Date when Judgment : 16.08.2022.
was pronounced
6. Offence Complained of : 279/338 IPC.
or proved
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Judgment : Acquitted.
FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 1
1. BRIEF FACTUAL POSITION:-
1.1 This is the prosecution of accused Sanjay Sachdeva pursuant to charge sheet
filed by PS Moti Nagar for commission of offences U/s 279/338 IPC subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No.20/2013.
1.2 As per the prosecution, on 22.12.2012 at about 12:30 PM at Main Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, Fire Station, near Petrol Pump, Delhi, accused Sanjay Sachdeva was driving a car bearing registration No. DL-4CS-4666 on the public way in a very rash and negligent manner. While driving so, he hit against one person/ complainant Mr. Saket Sharma riding motorcycle bearing no. DL-1SR-0774 and caused grievous injuries to him. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused for commission of offences punishable u/s 279/338 IPC.
1.3 Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, notice for offence punishable under section 279/338 IPC was served upon the accused on 04.04.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
2.1 The prosecution in support of present case has examined 08 witnesses in total. Thereafter, statement of accused person was recorded u/s 313,CrPC and the accused person opted to lead no defence evidence.
2.2 PW-1 Mr. Saket Sharma deposed that he does not remember the exact date, month and year of the accident. However, the witness deposed that at that time he was all alone on his motorcycle bearing no: DL-1SR-0774 towards Rama Road. The accused was correctly identified by the witness, hit on his motorcycle while making a cut. The injured further stated that he fell down and became semi unconscious. The FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 2 accused ran away from the spot alongwith the car. The persons who were standing at petrol pump identified the number of offending vehicle. PW1 stated that he called his known person on mobile phone. Thereafter, Ajay Raj reached at the spot. Public persons called at 100 and thereafter the PCR van reached the spot. Lastly, the police official alongwith his known person took him to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital. At this stage the Ld. APP sought permission to cross examine the witness which was allowed. The witness thereafter stated on cross examination by the Ld. APP that it is correct that the accident took place on 22.12.2012 and the offending car was Santro but could not depose as to the registration no. of the offending vehicle. During his cross Examination by the defence, the witness deposed that at the time he was working in Gopal Ji company alongwith many others like Ajay Raj, Raghvendra Sharma and Ashok Rawat etc. the witness further deposed he left the office at about 11:30 am all alone and the accident took place at approximately 300 meters from the Red Light. Sh Ajay Raj reached the spot after 20-25 minutes after making the call.
The witness further deposed that the accused was driving the vehicle in a fast speed. Police officials are stated to have reached the spot after 30-35 minutes. The injured further deposed that due to the hit the front and right side of his motorcycle broken. PW1 further stated that his motorcycle was seized the same day. The witness stated that he remained at the spot for 45-50 minutes. PW 1 further deposed that he could not tell the name of the persons who informed him about the number of the offending vehicle. The witness further stated that his statement was recorded by the police officials the same day, however, he could not state as to the exact time and date, as well as that of Ajay Raj. The witness could not depose as to where his statement was recorded. The witness further deposed that the colour of offending vehicle was metallic grey. The witness stated that he has seen the accused person for the first time in court. the witness denied the suggestion that he is not the complainant in the present matter and that Ajay Raj is an introduced witness and also that the present case is a case of mistaken identity.
2.3 PW-2 W/HC Bimla duly proved the present FIR and stated that the present FIR was registered on receiving the Tehrir from IO ASI Surat on 24.01.2013. the witness was not cross examined by the defence.
FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 3 2.4 PW-3 HC Pradeep Kumar, MHC(M) of PS Moti Nagar produced the register no.19/2013 and proved the entry of the present case dated 25.01.2013. the witness was not cross examined by the defence.
2.5 PW-4 SI Suraj Singh deposed that on 22.12.2022 he received a DD No.20A regarding accident and on receiving the same he reached at the spot but nothing was found there. Thereafter, he received information that the injured has already been taken to Acharya Bhikhshu Hospital, however, when he reached the aforementioned hospital the injured was not found there. Then, he reached the work place of the injured but he was not found there also. Thereafter, on 24.01.2013, the complainant Ajay Raj came at PS and apprised him that the injured Saket Sharma is admitted in Agra. PW-4 further deposed that the statement of Ajay Raj was recorded Ex.PW4/A, on the basis of which a Rukka was prepared and FIR was registered. PW 4 further stated that Site plan was then prepared by him Ex.PW4/C. the witness deposed that the complainant apprised him in his statement regarding the Registration No. of the offending vehicle as DL-4CS-4666. Thereupon, notice was served upon the registered owner u/s133 MV Act Ex PW4/D and in the reply the accused informed him that on that day he was driving the above-stated vehicle(Point B of Ex PW4/D). The offending vehicle was then seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/E alongwith other documents. The motorcycle was then seized via seizure memo Ex. PW4/H. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. The witness further deposed that during investigation the mechanical inspection was conducted of both the vehicles, thereafter they were deposited with the MHC(M). the witness stated that the statement of injured/PW1 was recorded on 17.03.2012. During the cross examination the witness admitted that the fact that he visited the spot and got information that the injured is admitted in Acharya Bhikshu Hospital from where he had left after treatment is not recorded in the charge-sheet or in the FIR. PW 4 further admitted that he could not have known the name of the injured prior to 24.01.2013. PW4 further admitted that on that day he could not gather from the spot the registration no. of the motorcycle involved in the accident. It is stated by PW4 that DD NO. 20A was received at 12:30-12:40 in the midnight of 13.12.2012 and FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 4 when he reached the spot the patrol pump was closed. The distance between the PS and spot is stated to be 200 gaj. The witness admitted that police officials are posted on the gate of the station at all times. The witness admitted that when he reached the hospital injured had already left was then contradicted with his earlier statement where it is not so recorded. The witness admitted that whenever a person is admitted his MLC is prepared. The witness deposed that he checked the MLC of the injured 430/12 however he did not collect the same as the opinion was pending on the same. The witness then stated that he could not remember whether he had stated earlier that he could not get any information regarding MLC and was contradicted where it is so recorded. The witness deposed that he did not visit Agra to record any statement of the injured after receiving the information from the complainant. The witness further stated that from the MLC he got the information that the injured was brought to the Hospital by Ajay Raj. The witness was put a question by the Ld. Defence counsel that the injured was brought to hospital by PCR and not Ajay Raj to which the witness answered that he could not depose as to who brought the injured to the Hospital. the witness further admitted that he never got the accused or the offending vehicle identified by the Injured. Voluntarily PW4 deposed that the complainant identified the car and the accused in the PS where the complainant had visited per chance and the accused was present. The witness further stated that when he first visited the spot he did not find any blood or scratch marks at the spot. PW4 admitted that he did not take any photographs of the spot. The witness could not depose as to the source of information and admitted that as per RC the vehicle seized Santro Car is of white colour and that he had not mentioned anywhere in his investigation the colour of the offending vehicle i.e Santro car has been changed by the accused at anytime.
2.6 PW5 Dr. SS Kakran deposed that on 22.12.12 injured Saket Sharma was brought to the hospital by PCR van officials at about 10:07 pm. MLC No.430/12 Ex.PW5/Awas prepared and the injured was referred to Orthopaedics Department. During his cross examination the witness stated that no x ray was taken in his presence.
FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 5 2.7 PW6 Dr. Sumit Krishna deposed on similar lines as PW5 and additionally stated that he opined that the injuries were grievous in nature. During his cross examination he deposed that report of Radiologist is annexed with MLC and he had opined after perusing the same.
2.8 PW7 Sh Ajay Raj deposed that the accident took place on 22.12.2012 at about 12:30 pm in front of the petrol pump by Santro DL-4CS-4666 but the driver could not be seen at the time. PW7 stated that on that day he was going on a motorcycle to the SBI Bank for the purpose of depositing cash amount of the company where he was working with his friend injured Saket who was also going to the same bank and was plying for about 50mts ahead of him. At the same point of time the aforesaid motorcycle came from the side of Moti Nagar Metro Station and hit against the motorcycle of his friend Saket from behind and he(injured) fell down. It is further stated by PW7 that he promptly reached the spot and firstly noted down the registration no. of the offending vehicle and called at 100 whereupon, the police came at the spot immediately as the PS was nearby. Police official Surat Singh reached at the spot and removed the injured to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital and he also accompanied the said official. The witness further deposed that the rider of offending vehicle fled the spot and offered no assistance. The persons at petrol pump offered assistance. PW7 deposed that at the hospital the injured was medically examined as he had suffered fracture in his leg and he took him to Agra for better medical treatment and uncle of the injured also accompanied him, the family members of the injured resided in Agra. The witness further deposed that on the next day he returned to Delhi and asked the injured as what to do and on his query the injured answered that he had suffered a fracture and that is why it is required to lodge a complaint against the rider of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, on 24.01.2013 he lodged a complaint and his statement is Ex. PW7/A. further chief was deferred due to want of case property and after resuming the examination the accused produced the offending vehicle Santro DL-4CS-4666 who correctly identified the same. During his cross examination PW7 stated that he was 50 meters away from the injured on which he was confronted with his statement PW7/A. Further the Ld. Defence Counsel posed a question to the witness that had he told FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 6 the IO that the offending motorcycle was coming from the side of Moti Nagar Metro Station to which the witness answered that the offending vehicle was a car not a motorcycle and he had told the IO that the car was coming from the side of aforesaid station and was confronted with Ex.PW7/A where it is not so recorded. The witness was further contradicted regarding his statement that he told the IO that he noted the registration no. of offending vehicle where it is not so recorded. The witness further deposed that he did not disclose to the IO that Surat Singh had removed the injured to the hospital as Surat Singh had recorded his statement and this fact was in his knowledge. Further contradictions were disallowed as the previous statement was already on record and contradictions,if any, were already on record. The witness further stated that at that time he was working in Gobind Ji dairy and currently working in Gopal Ji Dairy. The witness further stated that the injured was also working in Gobind Ji dairy at the time. The witness further stated voluntarily the cash was not deposited by him and another employee was called to the spot and the cash was deposited by him in the Bank. The witness denied the suggestion that he was telephonically called at the spot by injured. The witness stated that one other Arun working at the petrol pump was present at the spot. The witness admitted that PS is adjacent to the petrol pump and police persons were also present near the spot. The witness stated that they left for Agra the same day during evening hours. PW7 further deposed that IO Surat Singh was present in the hospital however, no statement of the present witness was given to the IO that day. The witness stated that he had no documents to show that he went to Agra that day. The witness could not depose as to which part of the offending car got damaged in accident. The witness denied the suggestions that he was deposing falsely for securing a claim under MACT and that he is an interested witness.
2.9 PW8 Devender Kumar conducted the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles and found fresh damages on front bumper with scratches on the right side of the car Ex. PW8/A and of the motorcycle of the injured with fresh damages on right side body scratched Ex.PW8/B. During cross examination of the said witness he stated that he is qualified Grade I mechanic and has done specialized courses of training. The witness deposed that he could not remember the colour of the car. The FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 7 witness further deposed that fresh damages means damages occurring within 1 week of the incident. The damages after 1week of their occurrence are old damages. The witness further deposed that no damages were found on the front of the motorcycle.
3. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C :
3.1 Statement of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him, to which he pleaded innocence, and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter, and no offence was committed by him. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
4. ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Ld. APP for state has argued that on a combined reading of prosecution witnesses testimony, offences U/s 279 and 338 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
4.2 On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has argued that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused. It is argued that the identity of the vehicle is not established and accused has been falsely implicated in the present case . It is further argued that the witnesses are not reliable and no accident was caused by the accused.
5. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION.
5.1 Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused have been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully.
FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 8 5.2 I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Accused is indicted for the offences U/s 279/338 IPC.
(a) Section 279 IPC provides punishment for offence of driving a vehicle in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person".
(b) Section 338 IPC provides punishment for causing grievous injuries to any person by doing any rash or negligent act.
5.3 To bring home the guilt of the accused U/s 279 and 338 of IPC in road accident cases resulting in grievous injury of a person, following ingredients are required to be proved:-
a). That the accused was the person driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time.
b). That the accused drove the same in a rash and negligent manner.
c). That by said rash and negligent driving, he endangered the safety of others and caused injuries to the victim.
5.4 While the first ingredient needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt with the aid of eye -witnesses and circumstantial evidence, the third ingredient is self-explanatory; the second ingredient which requires interpretation and explanation. The second requirement for proving the guilt of the accused is that the death or grievous hurt had been caused as the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
6. IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED AS OFFENDER:-
6.1 As regards to the first ingredient, PW1, PW7 are the crucial witnesses in FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 9 this aspect. PW1, the injured has stated that he could not remember the date/time/year of the incident which appears a little absurd as the person who got injured grievously would not remember any particulars of the incident. It was only after the Ld. APP asked the witness leading questions that the witness stated the date of occurrence. PW1 further stated that it is correct that the car was Santro with metallic grey colour which is also in contradiction to the vehicle of the accused as the same as per RC is of white colour and PW4 stated during his examination that he has not brought any evidence regarding change of colour of offending vehicle by the accused.
6.2 Also, in regards to the identity of the accused, PW1 correctly identified the accused in court but stated during his examination that for the first time he has seen the accused in the court itself. No TIP was ever conducted in the present case and the accused was apprehended on the basis of registration no. provided by the complainant. As per PW4, the complainant/ PW7 per chance appeared in the PS when the accused was called at PS regarding the present case and identified the accused which appears more than a coincidence in light of totality of facts as it is stated by PW7 that the offending driver could not be seen at the spot and had fled away, a question arises as to how PW7 identified the accused when he had not seen the accused in the first place. PW1 has also stated that the incident took place approximately 300 meters from the red light however no such red light is shown in the site plan.
While this is not a material contradiction as lapse in properly preparing a site plan can not be considered as an attribute to the accused's defence, there are other material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
6.3 PW1 further stated that when he fell due to the hit, he called his known person on mobile phone whereupon PW7 reached the spot within 20-25 minutes after making the call, however, PW7 has narrated a totally different FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 10 fact and has stated that he was riding on his own motorcycle right behind the motorcycle of the injured and saw the injured/PW1 fell down and reached to his aid promptly. Both the statements appear to be quite contradictory. It is further stated by PW1 that public persons called at 100 and PCR van reached at the spot after 45-50 minutes and took him to Hospital. However, admittedly by PW1, PW7 and the IO the spot of incident and the PS is very close and as stated by the IO it is only 200 gaj. Therefore, it is only reasonable to pose a question to oneself as to why the PCR took 45-50 minutes to reach the spot or for that case, as it is admitted PW4 that police persons are stationed at the gate of PS at all times, the police officials at the PS did not come to the spot despite being in near proximity. PW1 has deposed that the incident took place in front of a petrol pump and the workers of the petrol pump noted the registration no. of the offending vehicle however, no such petrol pump employees have been made witnesses in the present case. Per contra, PW7 stated that he noted the registration number of offending vehicle.
6.4 PW1 further stated that his motorcycle was seized the same day by the police however seizure memo dated 24.01.2013 tells something different which is almost after the lapse of one month from the date of incident. It is clear that the facts are not being disclosed as per their occurrence and one of two is false either the version of PW1 or the seizure memo. It is further stated by PW1 that his statement was recorded by the police officials the same day however the PW4/IO has stated that the injured could not be found on the date of occurrence.
6.5 The PW1 further deposed that due to the hit the front and right side of his motorcycle were broken per contra as per the testimony of PW8 only scratches were found on the right side of the motorcycle and no damage on the front of the motorcycle is stated. PW8 could not depose to the colour of FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 11 vehicle . Further, PW8 has stated in his examination that both the motorcycle of the injured and the offending car were found with fresh damages i.e upto one week old which appears to be evidently contradictory since the inspection was conducted on 30.01.2013 which is almost after one month of incident. Therefore, in light of the testimony of PW8 the same can not be attributed beyond reasonable doubt to the date of incident.
6.6 PW7 Ajay Raj who is also a friend/colleague of PW1 has stated himself to be the star witness in the present case. PW7 has stated that he was riding just behind the Injured and they both were going towards the SBI bank however, PW1 has stated that he called PW7 telephonically which PW7 has categorically denied in his testimony. Further, PW7 has stated that he reached the spot promptly and called at 100 per contra PW1 has stated that PW7 reached the spot after 20-25 minutes and some public persons called at 100. As per PW7 the police officials reached the spot immediately per contra PW1. PW7 has stated that IO ASI Surat Singh took the injured to the hospital however, PW4 has stated that on the date of incident he found no one pursuant to DD 20A at the spot or at the hospital which further creates a doubt on the sequence of events as stated by the witnesses. PW7 further stated that the offending motorcycle came from the side of Moti Nagar Metro Station, however the offending vehicle as per the present case is a Santro Car. It appears rather surprising as to why the eye witness who supposedly identified the offending vehicle and the accused would mistakenly state the vehicle as a motorcycle. Another question arises, if the testimony of PW7 is to be believed in its entirety that the IO Surat Singh was present at the spot and hospital, it fails a reasonable mind as to why the statement of the eye witness i.e PW7 was not recorded or the FIR registered at the same day. Further it is stated by PW7 that he noted the registration no. of the offending vehicle then why did he not disclose the same to the IO on the same day. It is further in evidence of FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 12 PW7 that he took the injured to Agra for better treatment and returned the very next day, He then stated that he talked with the injured as to what should be done. On which the injured is stated to have answered that since he has suffered a fracture, a complaint has to be lodged but despite the same the present Complainant/PW7 got the FIR registered only on 24.01.2013, after a lapse of about 33 days, the delay which remained unexplained. Therefore, the possibility of concoction and deliberation can not be eliminated. There are glaring contradictions between the testimony of the injured and the eye witness. While minor contradictions shall not weigh upon the judicial mind but considerable time gap and contradictory statements by the star witness and the injured would certainly make for a strong dent on the case of the prosecution as the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as per the burden of Section 101 of Indian evidence act,1872 which never shifts.
6.7 PW4/IO stated during his cross examination the IO has stated that he got to know the name of injured as Saket Sharma after reaching the spot on the date of occurrence and further stated that he received a DD no.20A on the 22.12.2012 however he could not find the injured at the spot or at the hospital and it was only on 24.01.2013 when the complainant came to lodge a complaint that he recorded his statement and registered the present FIR and got to know the name of the injured. This fact admittedly by PW4 has not been disclosed in the chargesheet.
7. RASHNESS AND NEGLIGENCE ENDANGERING THE SAFETY OF OTHERS:-
7.1 It has been held in Bhala Chand Waman Rao Pathe Vs. State of Maharashtra SC 1964, there is a difference between a rash act and a FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 13 negligent act. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable, neglect or failure to exercise with reasonable and proper care and to guard against injury, either to the public generally, or to an individual in a particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of person to have adopted. Negligence is 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 man would not do. On the other hand culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has exercised the caution incumbent upon him and if he had exercised caution, he would have had the consciousness and illegal consequences may follow, but in a vain hope that they will not, and often, with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence, on the other hand, is acting without the consciousness that illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and if he had exercised caution, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of the civic duty of circumspection.
7.2 PW-1 and PW-7 being the sole eye witnesses have not stated the exact manner in which the driver was negligent in driving the offending car e.g. zig zag manner, high speed or any other form of careless driving. PW7 have simply stated that the driver was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner but have not stated the reason as to how and why he considered the driving to be rash and negligent. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kishore Chand Joshi Vs. State (2018 SCC online Del 12337) that a witness can no doubt, depose as to the manner of driving or speed of the vehicle, however he cannot render an 'opinion' as to rashness and negligence. This is because rashness and negligence is an opinion FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 14 which may vary from person to person, depending upon the perception of an individual. Speed alone is not the criterion for deciding the rashness or negligence or part of the driver.
7.3 Further, no skid marks or tyre marks have been obtained of the spot to indicate that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed. It is further deposed by PW4 that when he first visited the spot(on date of occurrence) he did not find any motorcycle in accidental condition or any scratch marks/ blood stains on the spot. No photographs were admittedly taken of the spot. [Ram chander vs. State {2017} 4 SCC 2676 and Abdul Suhham Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133 2006 DL 562 also referred to ].
7.4 The statement of the injured was recorded only on 17.03.2013 which is not a part of the record. Further during his cross examination PW4 stated that he received the aforesaid DD 20A during the midnight of 13.12.2022 which is much prior to the date of occurrence. The said DD entry has also not been proved on record. This makes the proceedings conducted by the IO,if any, highly unreliable. PW 4 further deposed that on the date of occurrence when he reached the Hospital he got to know that MLC 430/12 has been created of the injured however, he did not seize the same as the final opinion was stated to be pending which again puts the case back to the contents of the FIR where it has been noted by the IO that no MLC could be found on the date of occurrence. The contradictory stances made by the material witness like the IO goes to the root of the matter.
7.5 The victim is the best person to know what all happened and how the event transpired. Despite the same, PW4 admittedly never got the accused or the offending vehicle identified by PW1. No statement of the injured has been brought on record. The entire case of the prosecution stands on the FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 15 statements of the complainant/PW7 who was contradicted by the injured/PW1 himself.
7.6 In view of the testimonies of the witnesses and evidence brought on record,since the identity of the accused as the offender, and rashness and negligence on the part of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution, the essential ingredients of under Section 279 and 338 of IPC have not been satisfied, and therefore, the offence u/s 279 IPC as well as section 338 IPC has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused namely Sanjay Sachdeva s/o late Inderjeet Sachdeva r/o H.No. 9/139.New Moti Nagar, Delhi is acquitted of all the charges in the present case.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SHAGUN)
COURT ON 16.08.2022 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04
WEST/TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
Containing 17 pages, all signed by the presiding officer.
(SHAGUN) MM-04, West District, THC/Delhi.
FIR No. 20/13 PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 279/338 IPC 16