Delhi District Court
State vs Joginder Singh on 12 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05
DISTRICT- NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. SARTHAK PANWAR, DJS
State Vs. Joginder Singh
FIR No. 50/2010
PS SB Dairy
U/s. 279/337/338/304A IPC
JUDGMENT
1) Case ID : 5285352/2016
2) The date of commission of offence : : 02.03.2010
3) The name of the complainant : Anil Gupta
4) The name & parentage of accused : Joginder S/o Sh.
Chinta Ram
5) Ld. APP for the State : Dr. Deepak Saini
6) Offence involved : 279/337/338/304A
IPC
7) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8) Final order : Acquittal
9) Judgment reserved on : 28.08.2024
10) Judgment announced on : 12.09.2024
Digitally signed
by SARTHAK
SARTHAK PANWAR
PANWAR Date:
2024.09.12
18:33:00 +0530
State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly, the allegations of the prosecution are that on 02.03.2010 about 10:00 am at Sanoth Road Holambi Kalan, near the Akhara of Surender Brahmchari, Delhi accused was driving the vehicle i.e. water tanker bearing no. DL 1GB 6710 in a manner so rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and thereby accused committed an offence punishable U/s 279 IPC. Further, on the above stated time, date and place, while driving the said vehicle in aforesaid manner accused hit his tanker against a motorcycle bearing no. DL8SNC 0418 driven by the complainant Sh. Anil Gupta, due to which all the three motorcyclists fell down on the road and the front tyre of the tanker ran over the head of the pillion rider Mohd. Riyan resulting into his death and not amounting to culpable homicide and it also caused grievous injury to one Satish and simple injuries to the complainant Anil and thus accused thereby also committed an offence punishable U/s 337/338/304A IPC within the cognizance of this Court.
2. Investigation was conducted into the allegations. Upon completion thereof, charge sheet was filed. The accused was summoned. Compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. was done by providing copy of the charge sheet and annexed documents to the accused.
3. Upon finding a prima facie case against the accused, notice for the offence punishable U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC was framed against the Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:33:10 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, following witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
5. PW-1 Sh. Satish Gupta has deposed that " I live at the above said address with my family and I am painter by profession. On 02.05.2010 at about 10:00 am, I was going to Bawana on our motorcycle bearing no. 0418 along with my brother Anil and my friend Mohd. Riyan. Anil was driving, I was sitting behind him and Riyan was sitting behind me. When we reached Sannoth road Holambi Kalan, A motorcycle which was coming from the front side and on the wrong side of the road. In order to save the collision with the said motorcycle my brother applied sudden breaks. A water tanker bearing no. DL1GB 6710 which was coming behind us hit our motorcycle without blowing any horn. The tanker was being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. All three of us fell down on the road along with the motorcycle and the front tyre of the tanker ran over the head of Riyan. As a result of which Riyan died on the spot and I suffered grievous injuries and my brother received minor injuries. We were taken to hospital by PCR Van. I remain admitted in the hospital for about 1 and ½ month and thereafter also I continued to get treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident. At the time of accident I had clearly seen the face of accused as I was still conscious. The driver of above said tempo is accused Joginder who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness). My statement was recorded by the police at my house. I can Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:33:20 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 identify the above said tanker if shown to me. At this stage photographs of spot including the offending tanker and the motorcycle are shown to the witness who states that the tanker seems to be the one which had caused the accident but I am not very sure about that. The photographs are collectively Ex. P1. At this stage Ld. APP for the State seeks permission to put a leading question on the point of date of accident. Heard. Allowed.
Ques. I put to you that the accident took place on 02.03.2010 and not in May 2010?
Ans. I don't remember the same as a long time has passed since the accident". Thereafter, PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused
6. PW-2 Ct. Rajesh has deposed that " On 02.03.2010, I was posted at PS S.B. Dairy as Ct. On that day my duty hours were from 08.00 AM to 8.00PM. On that day at about 10.00AM I received telephone call of IO SI Surender Kumar in which SI Surender asked me to accompany me for the investigation of an accident case. thereafter, I alongwith SI Surender reached at the spot i.e Phalwan Surender Bhramchari ka Akhada Sannoth Road Holambi Kalan, where we found one tanker bearing no. DL 1GP 6710 and motorcycle bearing no. DL 8S NC 0418 in an accidental condition. The dead body of deceased also lying at the spot. The photographs of the spot, offending tanker no. DL 1GP 6710 and motorcycle no. DL 8S NC 0418 were got clicked by the IO in my presence. The said photographs are Ex. PW2/A1 to Ex. PW2/A10. Thereafter, IO sent the dead body to BJRM hospital by a private vehicle Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:33:29 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 through me. After deposing the dead body at mortuary of BJRM hospital, I returned back to the spot and handed over the receipt of depositing of the dead body to IO. Thereafter, IO seized the offending tanker and the motorcycle in question. Case property was brought to the PS and was deposited in malkhana. The name of the deceased was revealed to as Rihan S/o Sh. Munishir Alam. IO recorded my statement. I can identify the offending tanker and motorcycle if produced before me. The identity of the offending tanker is not disputed by the accused and his statement regarding the same was recorded on 22.06.2013. photographs of the motorcycle placed on judicial file and Ex. PW2/A6 and Ex. PW2/A7 are shown to the witness. Witness correctly identifies the same". Thereafter, PW-2 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
7. PW-3 Sh. Dheeraj Kumar has deposed that " I am running a photography studio at A-3034, Holambi Kalan, Metro Vihar Phase-II, Delhi with the name and style of Vinay Digital Studio. On 02.03.2010 at about 10.15/10.30 am, I was called by the police to click photograph of the spot i.e. Near Akhada, Sannoth Road. Accordingly I went to the spot, where I saw that accident had taken place by Delhi Jal Board truck with motorcycle and one boy was lying dead at the spot as his head was badly crushed. I clicked the photographs of the spot and of both the abovesaid vehicles involved in the accident. The 10 photographs which I clicked at the spot are already Ex.P-2/A1 to Ex.P-2/A10. After developing the photographs, I handed over the said 10 photographs to the IO. Those photographs were clicked by me with a digital camera and Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:33:38 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 thus there were no negatives of these photographs". Thereafter, PW-3 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
8. PW-4 Anil Gupta has deposed that " On 02.03.2010 I alongwith my brother Satish and friend Riyan were going from Village Bhorgarh towards Bawana on motorcycle bearing no.DL8SNC 0418 Bajaj. I was driving the motorcycle and my brother Satish and Riyan were sitting as pillion riders on the motorcycle. At about 10.00 am when we reached near Pahalwan Akhada on Sannoth Road and in the meantime one motorcyclist came from our front side while driving his motorcycle in wrong side and to save him, I turned my motorcycle in a side but Delhi Jal Board tanker which was coming from our back side in a very high speed, suddenly hit our motorcycle from behind and due to which we fell down from the motorcycle and the front tyres of the said tanker ran over the head of my friend Riyan. The registration number of the said tanker was DL1GB 6710. I also received minor injuries. My brother also sustained grievous injuries. My friend Riyan had succumbed at the spot due to his injuries which he sustained in the accident. I called the PCR at 100 number. PCR vehicle reached at the spot and I and my brother Satish were shifted to government hospital Pooth Khurd, Delhi. My brother Satish was referred to LNJP Hospital from Pooth Khurd Hospital due to his serious condition. Joginder Singh was the driver of the said tanker. The accident had taken place due to the rash driving of the driver of the abovesaid Delhi Jal Board Tanker as he was driving in a very high speed. My statement was recorded by the IO which is Ex.PW4/A bears my signature at point A. I had also shown the place of Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:33:47 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 occurrence to the IO. The abovesaid Bajaj motorcycle and the Jal Board tanker were seized by the IO vide seizure memos Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C respectively both memos bears my signature at point A. Accused was also arrested in my presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/D bears my signature at point A. Accused was also produced his driving license and the documents of his abovesaid tanker which were seized by the IO vide seizure memos Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F respectively both memos bears my signature at point A. However, I cannot identify the accused due to lapse of time. I can identify the offending vehicle i.e. abovesaid tanker and Bajaj motorcycle, if shown to me. At this stage, 10 photographs already Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A10 are shown to the witness, who correctly identifies the offending vehicle i.e. abovesaid tanker no.DL1GB 6710 and motorcycle no.DL8SNC 0418 seen in the photographs. Witness also submitted that the said photographs are of the spot. At this stage, it has been noticed that accused has already been submitted vide his separate statement dated 22.06.2013 that he shall not dispute the identity of tanker bearing no.DL1GB 6710 during the course of trial of this case. At this stage, Ld APP seeks permission to put leading question regarding the identification of the accused. Heard. Allowed. At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards the accused.
Q. Whether this person (accused Jogender) is the accused Jogender who was driving the offending vehicle i.e. abovesaid tanker at the time of accident?
Ans. Yes. He (accused) is the person namely Jogender who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident". Thereafter, PW-4 was duly Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:33:58 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
9. PW-5 ASI Rajpal has deposed that " On 02.03.2010, I was posted at PS - S.B Dairy as Constable. On that day, I was on Beat Duty at Metro Vihar area. On that day, I was called by the IO SI Surender, upon which, I went to the spot i.e. Sannoth Road, near Surender Ka Akhara where I found one motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 8 S NC - 0418 (make Discover) and one water tanker bearing registration no. DL 1 GB - 6710 in accidental condition and Delhi Jal Board was written on the said tanker. One dead body of boy, aged about 20-22 years was lying on the road. Thereafter, lO left me at the spot and he went to the M.V Hospital. After sometime, injured Anil alongwith IO came at the spot and IO recorded the statement of injured Anil and prepared a rukka and handed over to me. I went to the PS and got the present FIR registered. After registration of the case, I returned to the spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR and same were handed over to the IO. Accused Joginder is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) was also present at the spot. Thereafter, IO seized both the abovesaid vehicles vide memo already Ex. PW-4/B and Ex.PW-4/C both bearing my signatures at point 'B'. IO also seized the D/L of accused vide memo already Ex. PW-4/E, bearing my signatures at point 'B'. IO also seized the photocopies of the documents of the offending vehicle which is already Ex. PW-4/F bearing my signatures at point 'B'. IO arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex. PW-4/D and Ex. PW-5/A, both bearing my signatures at point 'B'. IO recorded the statement of witnesses. Thereafter, we took the accused and SARTHAK Digitally signed by SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:34:08 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 case property to PS and on producing surety, accused was released on bail. IO recorded my statement. I can identify the case property if shown to me. At this stage, MHC(M) has produced photographs of the spot already Ex. PW-2/A1 to Ex. PW-2/A10 are shown to the witness and witness correctly identifies the spot as well as the vehicles. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for accused does not dispute the identity of the offending vehicle". Thereafter PW-5 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
10. PW -6 Retd. ASI /Tech. Sh. Devender Kumar has deposed that " I am qualified grade 1 mechanic and I have done specialized courses / training from ITI and various vehicle manufacturing company and I have experience about 35 years in this field. On 03.03.2010, at the request of IO SI Surender Singh, I conducted the mechanical inspection of one Bajaj Discover motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SNC- 0418 and one Tata truck (water tanker) bearing number DL-1GB-6710 at PS S.B Dairy. My detailed reports in this regard are Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/B, both bears my signature at point 'A'". Thereafter, PW-6 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
11. PW-7 SI Surender has deposed that " On 02.03.2010, I was posted as an SI at PS S.B Dairy. On that day on receipt of DD no. 10A, I along with Ct. Rajesh reached at Sannoth Road, Holambi Kalan near the Akhada of Pehlwan Surender Brahmchari. At the spot I found one motorcycle bearing no. DL-8SNC-0418 and one Tata truck (water tanker) bearing number DL-1GB-6710 in accidental condition. One SARTHAK Digitally signed by SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR 18:34:19 +0530 Date: 2024.09.12 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 dead body of a person aged about 22 years and two injured persons were also present at the spot. The injured persons were sent to M.V Hospital in the PCR van which was found present at the spot. The dead body was sent to BJRM hospital mortuary through Ct. Rajesh. One Ct. Rajpal was called at the spot. He reached at the spot and I instructed him to guard the spot and I myself went to M.V Hospital. There I met injured Satish and Anil Gupta. I collected their MLCs. Injured Satish was at that time unfit for statement and the other injured was fit and after obtaining treatment he had left the hospital. I reached the spot again and also found injured Anil Gupta and I recorded his statement. The driver of water tanker namely Jogender was also found present when I came to the spot from hospital. The eyewitness Anil Gupta stated Jogender to be driver of offending vehicle. I prepared the rukka Ex.PW- 7/A bearing my signatures at point A and sent Ct. Rajpal to the PS for getting the FIR registered. In the meantime, I prepared site plan Ex.PW- 7/B at the instance of Anil Gupta. Ct. Rajpal also arrived at the spot by that time and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to me. Both the abovesaid vehicles were seized vide seizure memo is already Ex.PW-4/B and Ex.PW-4/C both bear my signatures at point C. After interrogation the accused Jogender was arrested and personally searched vide memos are already Ex.PW-4/D and Ex.PW-5/A both bear my signatures at point C. The driving license of accused and the documents of offending vehicle were seized vide seizure memos already Ex.PW-4/E and Ex.PW-4/F both bear my signatures at point C. One local photographer was called at the spot he clicked photographs which are placed in the judicial file and are Ex.PW-2/A1 to Ex.PW-2/A10. The SARTHAK Digitally signed by SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:34:27 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 accused was released on bail from the spot and thereafter we returned to the PS and the case property was deposited in Malkhana. I recorded the statement of PWs and the supplementary statement of injured Anil Gupta. On the next day ie., 03.03.2010, the seized vehicles were subjected to mechanical inspection by the expert at the PS itself. The dead body was subjected to postmortem examination and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to its LRs. The identification statements of witnesses are Ex.PW-7/C and Ex.PW-7/D both bear my signatures at point A. On 01.05.2010, I recorded the statement of other injured Satish. Thereafter, the MLC of injured Satish was deposited in the hospital for obtaining opinion regarding the nature of injury. Same was opined by the doctor as grievous. On 29.05.2010, I got transferred and the case file was handed over to the MHC(R). Accused Jogender is present in the court today, correctly identified. I can identify the offending vehicle if shown to me (identity of vehicle not disputed by accused as per his statement dated 22.06.2013)". Thereafter, PW-7 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
12. PW-8 SI Arun Kumar has deposed that " On 30.05.2010 I was posted at PS SB Dairy. On that day on the instruction of the SHO the present case was marked to me for further investigation and I received the file from MHC(R). I have gone through the file after that I collected the MLC of Satish and concerned doctor opined nature of injuries as grievous and I added section 338 IPC in the charge-sheet. After preparation of challan I filed the same before the court". Thereafter, PW- 8 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
Digitally signed bySARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:34:35 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22
13. PW-9 Dr. Vipin Sharma has deposed that " On 02.03.2010 I was posted as Medical Officer in the MV Hospital, GNCTD. On that day I had examined two patients namely Anil Gupta and Satish which were brought to the said hospital with the alleged history of road traffic accident. On the basis of the examination I had prepared the MLCs no.619/10 and 616/10 respectively Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B which both bearing my signatures at point A. I had opined the patient Anil Gupta sustaining simple hurt while patient Satish was referred for admission to orthopedic department". Thereafter, PW-9 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
14. PW-10 retired SI Ram Chander has deposed that " On 02.03.2010, I was posted at PCR Outer Zone. On that day, I was posted as Inchage, Van L-79 from 08.00 AM to 08.00 PM. On that day at about 10 AM, I received a PCR call regarding accident at Vill. Sannaut Road near Surender Akhada. Upon this, I alongwith my staff went to the spot and there we found one truck i.e. water tanker bearing no. DL-1GB-6710 and one motorcycle no. DL-8SNC-0418 in accidental condition. The dead body of one boy aged about 20-22 years was lying on the road and two other injured were also present there. In the meantime, local police also came at the spot and after that I took the injured persons Satish and Anil to MV Hospital where they got admitted. IO recorded my statement. At this stage, photographs of the spot, vehicles and deceased already Ex. PW-2/A1 to A10 are shown to the witness and witness correctly identify the spot through the photographs". Thereafter, PW-10 was duly cross Digitally signed SARTHAK by SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:34:42 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
15. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 03.10.2023 separately and on request of Ld. counsel for the accused the defence evidence was closed on 15.02.2024 by Ld. Predecessor of this court and matter was listed for final arguments.
16. The Ld. APP for the State has argued that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are consistent and corroborate with each other, therefore the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. The Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has argued that it is the vehicle of the deceased / injured persons which came in front of the tractor of the accused, and accused was not driving the tractor rashly and negligently in a high speed. He further argued that accused was driving the tractor within its speed limit. He further argued that in the instant case no public witness other than the injured persons are made witness by the investigating agency despite their availability on the spot. He further argued that there are significant inconsistencies in the deposition of prosecution witnesses, therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and he should be acquitted in the present case.
17. Legal provisions dealt with are as under:
Section 279 IPC states as under:- Rash driving or riding on a public way-- Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:34:52 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 337 IPC states as under:- Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others:- Whoever cause hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 338 IPC states as under:- Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of other- Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of other s, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to two years, or with fine which may extended to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 304A IPC states as under:- Causing death by negligence- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both"
COURT OBSERVATIONS:
18. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.03.2010, the Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:35:03 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 deceased/injured persons were riding their motorcycle and were going towards Bawana. Thereafter, one motorcycle was approaching from the wrong side of the road and in order to avoid any collision and to save the motorcyclist coming from wrong side, the rider of the motorcycle of deceased/ injured persons dodged his motorcycle by applying sudden breaks and by suddenly turning it on the other side, and because of which the motorcycle of the deceased/ injured persons got hit by the tractor coming from behind which was being driven by the accused at a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner, due to which Mohd. Riyan died and other two persons namely Satish and Anil received serious injuries.
19. In order to bring home, the guilt of rash and negligent driving by the accused three things are needed to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt which are as follows:-
(i) Factum of accident i.e that the accident actually took place,
(ii) Identity of Driver i.e. that the accused was the person behind the wheels who was actually driving the vehicle at the time of accident, and
(iii) That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.
20. What amounts a rash and negligent act has been discussed categorically by the Apex Court in case titled as Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2012 SC 2896 which is as follows:
"16....... 9. What constitutes negligence has been analysed in Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.), Vol.
34, Para 1 (p. 3), as follows: SARTHAK
Digitally signed by
SARTHAK PANWAR
PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12
18:35:12 +0530
State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22
"1. General principles of the law of negligence.-- Negligence is a specific tort and in any given circumstances is the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand. What amounts to negligence depends on the facts of each particular case. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to be done or in doing something which ought to be done either in a different manner or not at all. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons or property. The degree of care required in the particular case depends on the surrounding circumstances, and may vary according to the amount of the risk to be encountered and to the magnitude of the prospective injury. The duty of care is owed only to those persons who are in the area of foreseeable danger; the fact that the act of the defendant violated his duty of care to a third person does not enable the plaintiff who is also injured by the same act to claim unless he is also within the area of foreseeable danger. The same act or omission may accordingly in some circumstances involve liability as being negligent, although in other circumstances it will not do so. The material considerations are the absence of care which is on the part of the defendant owed to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case and damage suffered by the plaintiff, together with a demonstrable relation of cause and effect between the two."
13. According to the dictionary meaning "reckless" means "careless", regardless or heedless of the possible harmful consequences of one's acts. It presupposes that if thought was given to the matter by the doer before the act was done, it would have been apparent to him that there was a real risk of its having the relevant harmful consequences; but, granted this, recklessness covers a whole range of states of mind from failing to give any Digitally signed by SARTHAK State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date:
2024.09.12 18:35:21 +0530 thought at all to whether or not there is any risk of those harmful consequences, to recognising the existence of the risk and nevertheless deciding to ignore it."
17. In the case of Mohd. Aynuddin alias Miyam v. State of A.P. [(2000) 7 SCC 72], wherein the appellant was driving a bus and while a passenger was boarding the bus, the bus was driven which resulted in the fall of the passenger and the rear wheel of the bus ran over the passenger. This Court, drawing the distinction between a rash act and a negligent act held that it was culpable rashness and criminal negligence and held as under :
"7. It is a wrong proposition that for any motor accident negligence of the driver should be presumed. An accident of such a nature as would prima facie show that it cannot be accounted to anything other than the negligence of the driver of the vehicle may create a presumption and in such a case the driver has to explain how the accident happened without negligence on his part. Merely because a passenger fell down from the bus while boarding the bus, no presumption of negligence can be drawn against the driver of the bus.
9. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences.
Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."".Digitally signed by SARTHAK
SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date:
2024.09.12 18:35:29 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22
21. In the instant case, the factum of accident and identity of the driver is clearly established as per evidence adduced by the prosecution. So far as it relates to the rash and negligent driving by the accused, the prosecution has heavily relied upon testimony of PW-1 Shri Satish Gupta (injured) who had deposed that " On 02.05.2010 at about 10:00 am, I was going to Bawana on our motorcycle bearing no. 0418 along with my brother Anil and my friend Mohd. Riyan. Anil was driving, I was sitting behind him and Riyan was sitting behind me. When we reached Sannoth road Holambi Kalan, A motorcycle which was coming from the front side and on the wrong side of the road. In order to save the collision with the said motorcycle my brother applied sudden breaks. A water tanker bearing no. DL1GB 6710 which was coming behind us hit our motorcycle without blowing any horn. The tanker was being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. All three of us fell down on the road along with the motorcycle and the front tyre of the tanker ran over the head of Riyan. As a result of which Riyan died on the spot and I suffered grievous injuries and my brother received minor injuries", and PW-4 Shri Anil Gupta (injured) who had deposed that "
On 02.03.2010 I alongwith my brother Satish and friend Riyan were going from Village Bhorgarh towards Bawana on motorcycle bearing no.DL8SNC 0418 Bajaj. I was driving the motorcycle and my brother Satish and Riyan were sitting as pillion riders on the motorcycle. At about 10.00 am when we reached near Pahalwan Akhada on Sannoth Road and in the meantime one motorcyclist came from our front side while driving his motorcycle in wrong side and to save him, I turned my Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:35:35 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 motorcycle in a side but Delhi Jal Board tanker which was coming from our back side in a very high speed, suddenly hit our motorcycle from behind and due to which we fell down from the motorcycle and the front tyres of the said tanker ran over the head of my friend Riyan".
22. Upon a careful perusal of the record, this court is of the considered view that version taken by the prosecution cannot be sustained because as per their own version while three of them i.e. deceased/injured persons were going towards Bawana on their motorcycle an another motorcyclist who was riding it on the wrong side of the road came from front side and in order to save him, the driver i.e. PW-4 Shri Anil Gupta applied sudden breaks and took a sudden turn due to which the Jal Board tanker driven by the accused hit them from behind, and it is highly improbable to believe that while the deceased and the injured persons/witnesses were going in a forward direction they could have seen the tractor coming from behind in a very high speed in that moment when accident occurred. Further, merely because it is deposed by injured persons that the tractor was being driven in a high speed does not bespeak of either negligence or rashness by the accused itself, as none of the PW's examined by the prosecution could give any evidence as to what they meant by the high speed, and further, prosecution was also neither able to provide any evidence as to what was the permissible speed limit on the road where the alleged accident took place nor it was able to produce any other records or details regarding the speed in which the tractor was being driven by the accused by way of CCTV footage or Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:35:41 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 otherwise by which the speed of the tractor driven by the accused could be adjudged. It is further pertinent to mention that as per the evidences on record, it is apparently clear that it was the motorcycle of the deceased/injured persons which on seeing the another motorcyclist coming in front of them from wrong side had suddenly applied breaks and changed the course of its direction and due to the sudden change of direction it ultimately got hit by the tractor of the accused which was coming from behind, and it is not the case where the tractor of the accused changed its direction or lane and hit the motorcycle of the deceased/injured persons. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused was driving his tractor in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner.
23. Further, as per case of the prosecution, the accident took place near Pahalwan Akhada on Sannoth road, and as per the deposition of IO SI Surender in his cross examination as PW-7 when he reached the spot at 10:15 AM there were 10 to 15 persons present at the spot and he remained there for about 45 minutes yet he did not record the statement of any public person present there. Further, as per his own deposition no public persons other than the injured persons were made to join the investigation carried out at the spot and no notice was served to them to join the investigation, and no plausible/ satisfactory explanation has been given by the prosecution regarding failure of the investigation agency in recording statement of public witnesses, other than the injured persons, despite their availability on the spot. This further casts the doubt on the SARTHAK Digitally signed by SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:35:48 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 case of the prosecution itself as no effort were admittedly made by the IO in this regard. Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the decision of Honourable High Court of Delhi in a case cited as Anoop Joshi versus state 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314.
24. It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but, the golden rule of the criminal jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own legs. In view of the above discussions, in the instant case, nothing credible has been placed on the record by the prosecution in order to prove that accused actually drove his tractor in a rash and negligent manner. Further, the root cause of the unfortunate accident in the instant case was the motorcyclist who was coming from the wrong side of the road, and in order to save whom the deceased/injured persons had applied sudden breaks and turned the motorcycle suddenly which ultimately got hit by the tractor driven by the accused which was coming from behind.
25. After going through the material on record, including the deposition of prosecution witnesses, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and this court is of the view that benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. For the reasons as mentioned above, this court acquits the accused Joginder son of Shri Chinta Ram for the Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:35:56 +0530 State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22 offences punishable under section 279/ 337/ 338/ 304A IPC.
Digitally signed SARTHAK by SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.09.12 18:36:02 +0530 Pronounced in the open (SARTHAK PANWAR) Court on 12.09.2024 JMFC-05 (North), Rohini Courts New Delhi 12.09.2024 This judgement contains 22 signed pages. State Vs Joginder Singh FIR no. 50/2010 22 of 22