Delhi District Court
State vs Satish Kumar on 22 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUBY NEERAJ KUMAR, CJM, NORTH, ROHINI
COURT, DELHI
State v. Satish Kumar
FIR No. 300/2017
u/s 279/304-A IPC
PS: Alipur
JUDG MENT
Serial No. of the case 5231/2017
Date of commission of offence 30.07.2017
Date of institution of case 23.09.2017
Name of the complainant Sh. Deepak (since deceased)
Name of Accused, parentage & Satish Kumar
Address S/o Surender Singh
R/o Village-Mahmoodpur,
District-Sonipat, Haryana.
Offence complained Section 279/304-A IPC &
section 134/187 Motor Vehicles
Act,1988.
Plea of Accused persons Pleaded not guilty
Date of Arguments 08.04.2025
Final Order Acquitted
Date of Judgment 22.04.2025
BRIEF FACTS
1. Facts of the case in nutshell as alleged by the prosecution are that on 30.07.2017 at about 02:30 a.m., at Main G.T.K Road, Bus stand, Khampur, CC No. 5231/2017 State Vs. Satish Kumar FIR No. 300/2017 PS Alipur RUBYPage1 of 10Digitally by RUBY signed NEERAJ NEERAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.04.22 KUMAR 16:51:29 +0530 Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Alipur, accused Satish Kumar was driving a car make Toyota corolla bearing Registration no. DL 1CV 0682, on a public way 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. It is alleged that while driving the said car in the said manner, he had hit a motorcycle make Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration no. HR 10S 3413 causing hurt to one Deepak S/oRaj Singh. Accordingly, present case FIR for offence under section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') was registered against the accused, on the basis of the statement of Deepak S/oRaj Singh. During the course of treatment, injured Deepak had succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court against accused Satish Kumar for offence under section 279/304-A IPC and offence under section 134 r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Cognizance of the offence was taken and copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C').
3. Arguments were heard and vide order dated 09.08.2018, notice was served upon the accused by the Ld. Predecessor, for the offence under section 279/304-A IPC & offence under section 134 r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accusations were read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE RECORDED DURING TRIAL
4. The prosecution has examined three witnesses to establish and prove its case against the accused. Digitally signed RUBY by RUBY NEERAJ CC No. 5231/2017 State Vs. Satish Kumar FIR No. 300/2017 PS Alipur NEERAJ KUMAR Page2 of 10 Date:
KUMAR 2025.04.22
16:51:38 +0530
5. PW-1 Anil Kumar is the eye-witness of the alleged offence. He entered the witness box and deposed that he does not remember the date, month or year of the alleged incident but it was around 02:30 a.m. He has further deposed that being present at his agricultural land, he had witnessed one accident at G.T. Karnal Road. He has further deposed that he can neither identify the accused nor the offending vehicle as he was far away from the spot. Consequently, he was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State with the permission of the Court. In his cross-examination, he denied that he had given any statement to the police official regarding the alleged incident. He denied his alleged statements recorded by the police officials, which are Mark-A & Mark A-1. He denied having seen the accused. He also denied that the site plan was prepared at his instance, which is Ex. PW-1/A. He failed to identify the accused as well as the offending vehicle. He further denied, having settled the dispute with the accused or that he has been won over by the accused.
6. PW-2 Nepal Tanwar is the superdar. He has deposed that he got the offending vehicle released on superdari vide superdarinama, which is Ex. PW-2/A. He identified the photographs of the offending vehicle. He further deposed that in his reply to the notice under section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he had stated that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of alleged accident.
7. PW-3 SI Sandeep is the Investigating Officer of the instant case. He entered the witness box and deposed that on 30.07.2017, on receiving DD No. 5B, he alongwith Constable Heera Lal reached at the spot. At the spot, he found that one motorcycle make Hero Honda Splendor bearing Registration No. HR Digitally signed CC No. 5231/2017 State Vs. Satish Kumar FIR No. 300/2017 PS Alipur RUBY Page3 of 10 by RUBY NEERAJ NEERAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2025.04.22 16:51:44 +0530 10S 3413 was lying in accidental condition. No eye-witness was found by him at the spot. PCR van In-Charge informed him that the injured has been taken to SRHC Hospital. Thereafter, he left Constable Heera Lal at the spot and proceeded to SRHC Hospital. At the hospital, he recorded the Statement of the injured, which is Ex. PW-3/A. The injured could not disclose the Registration no. of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, he returned to the spot, prepared tehrir and handed over the same to Constable Heera Lal for registration of FIR. The said tehrir is Ex. PW-3/B. Constable Heera Lal got the FIR registered through Duty Officer and brought the original tehrir & copy of FIR at the spot. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan, which is Ex. PW-3/C. He has further deposed that he clicked the photographs of the spot with his mobile phone and the same are Ex. P-1(colly.). He further seized the motorcycle of the injured vide seizure memo, which is Ex. PW-3/C. Subsequent thereto, he received the intimation regarding the demise of injured Deepak vide DD no. 24-B. He has deposed that on 04.08.2017, PW-1 Anil Kumar came to the police station and disclosed the Registration No. of the offending vehicle claiming to be the eye- witness of the alleged accident. It is further deposed that notice under section 133 of the MV Act was served upon the owner of the offending vehicle, which is Ex. PW-2/A. He seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo, which is Ex. PW-3/ D, on the same being produced at the police station by the owner.
He arrested the accused vide arrest memo, which is Ex. PW-3/E and conducted further investigation.
8. It is pertinent to mention herein that vide separate statement recorded on 07.03.2025, in accordance with the provisions of Section 294 of Cr.P.C, accused admitted the registration of present case FIR no.300/2017 dated 30.07.2017, PS Alipur, which is Ex. A-1, Certificate under section 65-B of the Digitally signed CC No. 5231/2017 State Vs. Satish Kumar FIR No. 300/2017 PS Alipur RUBY Page4 of 10 by RUBY NEERAJ NEERAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2025.04.22
16:51:51 +0530
Indian Evidence Act, which is Ex. A-2, DD No. 5-B & 24-B both dated 30.07.2017, which are Ex. A-3 & Ex. A-4 respectively, Post Mortem Report bearing No. 672/2017 dated 30.07.2017, which is Ex. A-5, MLC bearing No. 4501 dated 30.07.2017, which is Ex. A-6 and Mechanical inspection report of the offending as well as victim vehicle dated 12.08.2017 & 06.08.2017 respectively, which are Ex. A-7 & Ex. A-8 respectively. However, accused did not admit the contents of the same. In view of the admission made, ASI Devender Kumar/ Mechanical Expert, Dr. Awadhesh, Dr. Utkarsh, ASI Fateh Singh, Constable Sunil Kumar and Constable Ashok were dropped from the list of witnesses.
9. Subsequent thereto, Ld. APP for the State submitted that the solitary material witness/ eye-witness has turned hostile and in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, no useful purpose will be served by examining the remaining witnesses, who are formal in nature and therefore, PE may be closed. In agreement with the submission made by Ld. APP for the State, PE was closed on 08.04.2025. Further, as no incriminating evidence had come on record against the accused, recording of his statement under section 313 r/w 281 Cr. P.C was dispensed with. Accused stated that he does not want to lead any evidence in his defence. Accordingly, matter was straight away fixed for final arguments.
10. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the accused as well as Ld. APP for the State and carefully perused the record.
ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED Digitally signed
by RUBY
RUBY NEERAJ
KUMAR
CC No. 5231/2017 State Vs. Satish Kumar FIR No. 300/2017 PS Alipur NEERAJ
Page5 of 10 Date:
KUMAR 2025.04.22
16:51:58
+0530
11. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the solitary eye-witness i.e. PW-1 has turned hostile and there is no other eye- witness who, can prove the allegations levelled against the accused. He has argued that in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused has committed the alleged offence and thus, the accused may be acquitted of the offence alleged.
12. Ld. APP for the State has not controverted the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
13. In the instant case accused has been charged for offence under section 279/304-A IPC & offence under section 134 r/w 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for committing offence punishable under section 279/304-A IPC, prosecution is required to prove the following facts:
(a) Firstly, that 30.07.2017 at about 02:30 a.m., at Main G.T.K Road, Bus stand, Khampur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Alipur, accused Satish Kumar was driving a car make Toyota Corolla bearing Registration no. DL 1CV 0682;
(b) Secondly, that the accused was driving the abovementioned vehicle on the aforesaid date, time and place in the manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person;
(c) Thirdly, that while driving the abovementioned truck in the abovesaid manner accused hit motorcycle bearing registration no. HR 10S 3413 causing death of one Deepak S/o Raj Singh.Digitally signed
RUBY by RUBY
NEERAJ
CC No. 5231/2017 State Vs. Satish Kumar FIR No. 300/2017 PS Alipur Page6 of 10 KUMAR
NEERAJ Date:
KUMAR 2025.04.22
16:52:05 +0530
14. Further, before proceeding further on merits of the case, it would be apposite to first refer to the provision of law for which the charge has been framed against the accused. Section 279 IPC provides punishment for rash or negligent driving as under:-
"279. 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 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."
15. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, as per the prosecution, PW-1 Anil Kumar is the only eye-witness of the commission of the alleged offence. Admittedly, all other prosecution witnesses had reached at the spot after the commission of the alleged offence. Even the deceased did not disclose anything regarding the identity of the accused or the offending vehicle in his statement recorded before his demise. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution to prove the commission of alleged offence by the accused, hinges upon the testimony of PW-1. However, PW-1 has not supported the case of the prosecution at all. He has deposed that he can neither identify the accused nor the offending vehicle. The prosecution has failed to elicit any incriminating evidence against the accused through cross-examination of the said eye-witness. Thus, there is absolutely, no implicating evidence against the accused.
16. In every criminal trial, identity of the malefactor is a paramount factor and it must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution must prove that the person facing the trial is the one who has committed the alleged offence and failure to do so, would be sufficient to Digitally signed by RUBY CC No. 5231/2017 State Vs. Satish Kumar FIR No. 300/2017 PS Alipur RUBY Page7 of 10 NEERAJ KUMAR NEERAJ Date:
KUMAR 2025.04.22
16:52:12
+0530
exonerate the accused. In the case at hand, prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the date of the alleged incident, in a rash or negligent manner and while, driving so, he hit against the motorcycle of the deceased and committed the alleged offence in question.
17. Further, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 134 r/w 187 Motor Vehicles Act, again, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle which, for the abovenoted reasons, it has failed to prove.
18. The three cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence which a judge must adhere to while administering justice in criminal cases are that, firstly, the accused must be presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. Secondly, the onus to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts lies affirmatively on the prosecution & the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused and thirdly, this onus of the prosecution never shifts. There is catena of rulings as to this principle of law that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the court cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. Prosecution must stand on its own legs and must prove the story told by it at the very first stage. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. The manner of occurrence alleged by the prosecution must be established beyond doubt before the accused can be convicted.
19. In S. L. Goswami v. State of Madhya Pradesh; 1972 SCR (3) 948, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed as under:
Digitally signed by RUBY RUBY NEERAJ
KUMAR
CC No. 5231/2017 State Vs. Satish Kumar FIR No. 300/2017 PS Alipur NEERAJ
Page8 of 10
Date:
KUMAR 2025.04.22
16:52:19
+0530
" ..... the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always ;upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is Palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests. upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilises the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
20. Further, in Kali Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable.
21. In another case titled as Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand; (2013) 4 SCC 422, the Hon'ble Apex Court similarly observed as under:
"28...When the prosecution is not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt it cannot take advantage of the fact that the accused have not been able to probabilise their defence. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own feet. It cannot draw support from the weakness of the case of the accused, if it has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."Digitally signed
RUBY by RUBY
NEERAJ
NEERAJ KUMAR
CC No. 5231/2017 State Vs. Satish Kumar FIR No. 300/2017 PS Alipur Page9 of 10 Date:
KUMAR 2025.04.22
16:52:26 +0530
22. Keeping in view the above discussed facts, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and bring home the guilt of the accused for offence under section 279/304-A IPC & offence under Section 134 r/w 187 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
23. In view thereof, accused Satish Kumar S/o Surender Singh is hereby acquitted of the offence under section 279/304-A IPC & of offence under Section 134 r/w 187 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
24. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
RUBY Digitally signed
by RUBY
NEERAJ NEERAJ KUMAR
Announced in open court Date: 2025.04.22
on this 22nd day of April, 2025
KUMAR 16:52:32 +0530
(Ruby Neeraj Kumar)
CJM (North)/Rohini/Delhi
CC No. 5231/2017 State Vs. Satish Kumar FIR No. 300/2017 PS Alipur Page10 of 10