Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Kumar on 28 July, 2022
IN THE COURT SH. KAUTUK
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04 : NORTH : ROHINI COURT
NEW DELHI
Cr. Case 5284990/2016
STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR
Digitally signed FIR No. 240 /2010
by KAUTUK
PS Prashant Vihar
KAUTUK Date:
2022.07.30 U/s : 279/338/304-A IPC
17:49:32
+0530 JUDGMENT
A Registration Number 5284990/2016
B Name of the State
complainant
C Name of the accused & Anil Kumar
his parentage and S/o Sh. Ram Kishan @ Ram Kishor
address R/o H. No. 635, Resettlement Colony,
Sector 26, Rohini, Delhi.
D Offence Complained of 279/338/304-A IPC
E Date of commission of 24/06/2010
offence.
F Date of Institution 15/12/2010
G Offence Charged 279/338/304-A IPC
H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
person
I Order Reserved on 09/06/2022
J Date of 28/07/2022
Pronouncement
K Final Order ACQUITTED
Vide this judgment the accused is being ACQUITTED of the
offence punishable under Section 279/338/304-A Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as "the act") in this case FIR No. 240/2010
Police Station Prashant Vihar for the reasons mentioned below.
Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 1 of 22
1.CASE OF PROSECUTION :
It is the case of the prosecution that on 24/06/2010 at about 11:30 am, at main Road, Near NDPL Office, Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi, the complainant Sidhant Mathur alongwith his cousin Ruchika Rana was coming from Sector 11 Rohini and was going towards to his house situated at Sector 24 Rohini on his motorcycle bearing No. DL 3SBF 1001 and suddenly a Tavera Car bearing no. DL 1VB 2692 came from back side and hit his motorcycle. The said car is alleged to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused person Anil Kumar, and in consequence of which they (complainant and his cousin) fell down on road and sustained injuries. Both the injured were taken to hospital. Medical examination of the victims were conducted and they were admitted in ICU and on 22/07/2010 injured Ruchika Rana has died in the hospital.
That based on these facts, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused is stated to have committed an offence u/s. 279/338/304-A IPC which lead to registration of FIR No. 240/2010 at PS Prashant Vihar.
2. Charge :
In compliance of the procedural mandate u/s. 173 CrPC, chargesheet against accused was filed in the present matter, upon Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 2 of 22 completion of investigation.
Accused person was summoned to face trial and was supplied with the copy of the chargesheet as per s. 207 CrPC.
On the basis of the chargesheet, a charge for the offences punishable u/s. 279/338/304-A IPC was framed against the accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution Evidence:-
3(a). PW 1 Sh. Sidhant Mathur has deposed that the alleged incident took place on 24.06.10, at about 11.00 am. It is stated by PW-1 that he alongwith his cousin Ruchika Rana was coming from Sector -11 and was going towards to his house situated at Sector-24, Rohini on his motorcycle (bearing no. DL-3SBF-1001). It is further alleged that when they reached in front of NDPL Office, Sector-11, Rohini, one Tavera Car bearing No. DL-1VB-2692 came from back side and hit his motorcycle and due to which they fell down and sustained injuries. It is further alleged that the driver of the abovesaid Tavera Car was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the public persons apprehended the driver of the Tavera Car, who disclosed his name as Anil Kumar. Further, police came to the spot and they both were taken to the BSA Hospital in the offending vehicle. He gave his complaint to the police in writing ie Ex. PW1/A. Further, on 27.06.2010, IO prepared Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 3 of 22 the site plan at his instance. It is further deposed by PW-1 that his cousin Ruchika Rana died in the Hospital on 22.07.2010. IO recorded his statement. PW-1 further identified the driver of the offending vehicle.
In his cross-examination PW-1 has stated that at the time of incident, he was 16 years old and was not having the Driving License at that time. It is further deposed that he has been driving the motorcycle for 4 - 5 months prior to the incident. 3(b). PW-2 Sh. Ajit Singh has deposed that on 22.07.2010 his sister's daughter namely Ruchika Rana expired due to accident and on 23.07.2010, he went to BJRM Hospital Mortuary, where he identified the dead body of Ruchika Rana, vide memo Ex. PW2/A. PW-2 further deposed that after the postmortem the dead body of Ruchika Rana handed over to him vide handing over memo Ex. PW2/B. Further, IO recorded his statement.
3(c). PW-3 SIKailash Kumar has deposed that on 24/06/2010, he was working as Duty Officer from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm at PS Prashant Vihar and on that day at about 11.50 am, he received the information through wireless operator regarding one accident near NDPL Office Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 4 of 22 Sector-11,Rohini, Delhi and the two injured were burried in the Tavera Car. PW-3 further deposed that he reduced the abovesaid information in the Rojnama vide DD No. 14 A ie Ex. PW3/A and on the same day at about 04.10 pm, he received a rukka through Ct. Satish, which was sent by ASI Dev Karan and on the basis of rukka, he registered the present case FIR ie Ex. PW3/B and made endorsement on rukka from point X to Y ie Ex.PW3/C. Further, he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Satish for giving the same to IO.
3(d). PW-4 Sh. Mukesh Kumar has deposed that he is the owner of the offending Tavera Car bearing No. DL-1VB-2692 and on 24.06.10 the abovesaid Tavera Car met with an accident and was being driven by his driver Anil Kumar. PW-4 further deposed that he received a notice from IO and thereafter he replied the IO that on the date of incident Anil Kumar was driving the above said Tavera Car vide memo Ex. PW4/A. Further, he obtained his above said Tavera Car on superdari vide Superdainama ie Ex. PW4/B. PW-4 further identified the driver of the offending vehicle.
3(e). PW-5 Kishan Kumar has deposed that on 23/07/2010, he identified the dead body of Ruchika, who was daughter of his brother Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 5 of 22 in law Dharam Raj vide identification memo Ex.PW4/A. PW-5 further deposed that he is the registered owner of motorcycle no. DL 3SBF 1001 and on 24.06.2010 his son Siddhanth Mathur was driving the said motorcycle, when it met with the accident and he had taken this motorcycle on supardari from the court vide supardarinama Ex.PW4/B. In his cross-examination, PW-5 deposed that that his son Siddhanth Mathur was driving the motorcycle on the date of accident, and his son was not having any driving license as he was 16-17 years of age at that time.
3(f). PW-6 Dr. Rajesh, CMO, Saroj Hospital has deposed that that was posted at Saroj Hospital as a Casualty Medical Officer Incharge and on 24/06/2010, at about 1:20 pm, one patient namely Siddhant S/o Krishan Kumar was brought by his mother namely Babita and as per MLC, the person came with alleged history of road traffic accident at Sector-11, Rohini, who was hit by Tavera. PW-6 further deposed that the patient complained of pain in both shoulders with history of multiple abrasions, swelling on both hands and legs, face and other parts of body and the patient was stable at that time. Because of the said condition of the patient, he was admitted in ICU under the supervision of Dr. PK. Bhardwaj, Dr. Akash Jain, Dr. B.C. Jain and Dr. Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 6 of 22 Sanjeev Singhal. PW-6 further deposed that after giving primary treatment to injured, he was shifted to ICU. Further, PW-6 prepared the MLC no. 2586/10 dated 24.06.2010 ie Ex. PW-6/A. As per said MLC, the nature of injury was grievous.
PW-6 further deposed that on the same day, one patient namely Ruchika was admitted in the hospital with alleged history of road traffic accident at Sector-11, Rohini with complaint of large lacessarted wound on right side of the face extended up to right parieto-temporal region with loss of tissue and patient also complained of with multiple abrasions on both hands, legs and other parts of the body but when patient came to hospital, she was conscious oriented and she was admitted in ICU under the supervision of Dr. P.K. Bhardwaj and Dr. Akash Jain. PW-6 prepared MLC no. 2585/10 dated 24.06.2010 ie Ex. PW-6/8.
3(g). PW-7 Ct Satish has deposed that on 24.06.2010, after receiving DD entry No. 14A, he alongwith ASI Dev Karan went in front of NDPL office, Sec-11, Rohini and the the call was regarding two injured persons crushed under Tavera vehicle. PW-7 further deposed that after reaching there, he found one motorcycle in accidental condition bearing reg. no. 1001 and stated that he does not remember the Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 7 of 22 complete number, however, it was registered number of Delhi. ASI Dev Karan inquired about the matter from public persons available at the spot. PW-7 further deposed that he and ASI Dev Karan received information that accused person took both the injured to BSA Hospital and IO left him at the spot for preservation of place of incident. Thereafter, IO left the spot and reached at BSA Hospital, meanwhile accused person reached at the spot and stated that he dropped both the injured persons to the hospital. Thereafter, IO also reached at the spot and prepared the seizure memos of both the accidental vehicle, ie Ex. PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B. PW-7 further deposed that IO seized the document i.e Driving License and other douments vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/C & Ex.PW7/D. IO made the arrest memo Ex.PW7/E and the personal search of the accused also conducted by IO vide personal search memo Ex.PW7/F. PW-7 further identified the accused present in the court. PW-7 further submits that IO also prepared the rukka at the spot and handed over to him for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO ASI Dev Karan and further IO made the investigation of the present case.
In his cross-examination, PW-7 deposed that he along with IO reached at the spot on his scooter within 7-8 minutes after receiving Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 8 of 22 the DD at the PS and the PS is at the distance of around 2 km from the spot. PW-7 further deposed that he does not remember as to how much time he stayed at the spot and he also does not know whether the IO has recorded the statement of any public witness present at the spot.
3(h). PW-8 Retired ASI/tech Devender Kumar has deposed that on 27.06.2010, he mechanically inspected Tavera Car bearing No. DL-1 VB- 2692 and one motorcycle make Bajaj Discover bearing No. DL-3S BF- 100 at the request of IO ASI Dev Karan Singh of the case at PS Pr. Vihar. PW-8 submits that the Tavera Car was found with fresh damages/scratches at front side bumper and number plate, however the car was fit for the road test and the motorcycle make Bajaj Discover was found with fresh damages at rear wheel mudguard, which was slightly bended and having scratches, right side body parts scratched and patrol tank dented, left side plastic cover was found scratched and gear lever was found bended, however, the said motorcycle was fit for the road test. Detail reports of PW-8 in this regard of Tavera Car and Bajaj Discover motorcycle are Ex.PW8/A and PW-8/B. Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 9 of 22 3(i). PW-9 HC Ratnesh has deposed that on 23.07.2019, upon the directions of IO, he took the dead body of Ruchika from Saroj Hospital and got it preserved in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital with a request letter Ex. PW-9/A which was given to him by IO ASI Ajit Singh and the dead body was also got identified through his family members and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to family members of deceased vide handing over memo Ex. PW-2/B. On 30/04/2022, PW-9 was again called for examination and he has deposed that on 23/07/2010, he had joined the investigation of present case along with IO Ajit Singh and he has identified the signatures of the IO Ajit Singh on Ex. PW-5/A, Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW2/8 as he had worked with him.
3(j). PW-10 SI Sandeep Ahlawat has deposed that on 18.11.10, further investigation of the case was marked to him and he verified the DAR documents. PW-10 further deposed that after conclusion of the investigation, he prepared the chargesheet against the accused. 3(k). PW-11 Sh. S.N Bhardwaj, Postmortem Assistant, BJRM Hospital appeared on behalf of behalf of Dr. Chetan Kumar. PW-11 has brought the hospital record in respect to PMR No. 866/2010 dated 23 July Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 10 of 22 2010. PW-11 deposed that Dr. Chetan Kumar had conducted Postmortem of deceased Ruchika vide PMR Ex PA.
3(l). PW-12 Retd. ASI Dev Karan has deposed that on 24.06.2010, on receiving DD No. 14A, he along with Ct. Satish Kumar reached at front of NDPL Office, Sec-11, Rohini, Delhi, where they came to know that one injured has already been shifted to BSA Hospital and another injured has been shifted to Private Hospital. PW-12 further states that he found one motorcycle in accidental condition at the spot, however, he does not remember the registration number of the same due to lapse of time, thereafter, he left the Constable at the spot and reached BSA Hospital and collected the MLC of the injured. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the complainant (ExPW1/A). Thereafter, he came back at the spot and prepared rukka Ex.PW12/A and same was handed over to Constable Satish for registration of FIR. Accordingly, Ct. Satish went to PS for registration of FIR and after sometime Ct. Satish came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and same was handed over to him. PW-12 further deposed that both the vehicles i.e one motorcycle and offending vehicle i.e Tavera Car were taken into police possession and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7A and Ex.PW7/B. Thereafter, PW-12 arrested the accused and Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 11 of 22 personally searched vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW7/E and Ex. PW7/F, DL of accused, RC, permit of offending vehicle was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C and Ex. PW7/D. PW-12 prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant ie Ex.PW12/B. Thereafter, accused alongwith case property was taken to PS and Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. PW-12 further states that the notice U/s 133 M.V Act was served to the owner of the offending vehicle vide memo Ex.PW12/C, upon which the owner replied that accused Anil Kumar was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. PW-12 further deposed that both the vehicles were mechanically inspected vide memo Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B respectively. Further, accused present in the court correctly identified by the PW-12. PW-12 further deposed that thereafter, he got transferred and case file was submitted to MHCR.
On specific question of Ld. APP for the State, PW-12 submits that the registration number of the offending vehicle i.e Tavera Car is DL-1VB-2692 and registration number of the motorcycle is DL 3SBF 1001.
Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 12 of 22
4. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
In order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded without oath under Section 313 CrPC. In reply, the accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, the accused has denied to lead defence evidence.
5. APPLICABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS:
• Section 279 IPC and Section 338 IPC:
The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under these section are:-
1. The accused was the driver of the vehicle in question.
2. The accused had driven the vehicle in a manner so rash or negligent, so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
In order to establish the guilt for offence punishable u/s 338 IPC, the prosecution would have to establish:
3. That due to such rash or negligent act, grievous hurt has been caused by the accused to the victim.
In order to establish the guilt for offence punishable u/s 304A IPC, the Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 13 of 22 prosecution would have to further establish:
4. That due to such rash or negligent act, death has been caused by the accused to the victim.
6. Appreciation of evidence and marshalling of the facts:
This being the factual, evidentiary and the legal position of the present case, let us analyse whether the prosecution has been able to successfully prove the guilt of the accused persons on the touchstone of "beyond reasonable doubt".
6(i). Act being Rash or Negligent:
In order to adjudicate upon the culpability of the accused, it has to be seen from the evidence brought on record whether the act of the accused would fall under the ambit of "rash or negligent". It would be expedient to lay bear the legal threshold in this regard. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rathnashlvan vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 474 has observed, inter alia, as under-:
"7. .... Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 14 of 22 criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case.
Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
8. As noted above, "rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 15 of 22
Further, the Hon'ble Apex court, in the case of Mrs. Shakila Khader v. Nausher Gama (see: AIR 1975 SC 1324), while discussing the factors to be taken into account while adjudicating upon the "rashness or negligence" has observed the following:
"6. The main criterion for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed but the width of the road, the density of the traffic and the attempt, as in this case, to overtake the other vehicles resulting in going to the wrong side of the road and being responsible for the accident. Even if the accident took place in the twinkling of an eye it is not difficult for an eye-witness to notice a car overtaking other vehicles and going to the wrong side of the road and hitting a vehicle travelling on that side of the road."
Now, in the present factual matrix prosecution has examined one eye witness to the incident. PW-1/Victim has deposed in his examination that the offending vehicle "came from back side and hit my motorcycle due to which we fell down and sustained injuries". It is further deposed that "driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner."
Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 16 of 22
In the considered opinion of this court, the mere statement simpliciter of both the witnesses is not sufficient to impute "rashness or negligence". The prosecution has miserably failed to cull out from the witnesses the manner in which the offending vehicle was driven. The onus was on the prosecution to manifest from the testimony of the eye-witnesses that the conduct of the accused was such that it can be safely concluded that it was carried out without care and circumspection.
6(ii). Applicability of the principles of res ipsa loquitor:
It would be pertinent to deal with the applicability of the principles of res ipsa loquitor. The law in this regard, has been extensively dealt by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of Mohammed Aynuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 7 SCC 72:
"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 Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 17 of 22 bus while boarding the bus no presumption of negligence can be drawn against the driver of the bus.
8. The principle of res ipsa loquitor is only a rule of evidence to determine the onus of proof in actions relating to negligence. The said principle has application only when the nature of the accident and the attending circumstances would reasonably lead to the belief that in the absence of negligence, the accident would not have occurred and that the thing which caused injury is shown to have been under the management and control of the alleged wrong doer.
9. A rash act is primarily an over hasty 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."
Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 18 of 22
The thrust of the afore discussed principle is that the perquisite for invocation of this rule of evidence, is that the prosecution must show that the nature of accident and the attending circumstance was such that the accident could not have occurred but for the negligence of the driver. In the present facts, the prosecution has failed to establish the perquisites, for invocation of the principle of res ipsa loquitor. In order to establish the negligence, the prosecution was expected to demonstrate on record the pertinent circumstances like the speed of the offending vehicle/victim's vehicle, traffic on the road, width of the road etc. These circumstances would have cumulatively indicated towards the act of the accused and would have assisted in effective adjudication upon the factum of rashness or negligence.
Now, having examined the testimonies of eye-witness, let us analyze whether the prosecution has been able to establish its case through other surrounding circumstances.
6.(iii) Other surrounding circumstances/lacunae in the case of prosecution:
Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 19 of 22
1. Site plan- The site plan has been exhibited Ex. PW-12/B, the same has been stated to have been prepared at the instance of the complainant. However, neither does the site plan bear the signature of the complainant nor is it deposed as to when the complainant had visited the site for preparation of the site plan.
Thus, raising a doubt as to the site plan bearing the true picture of the place of incident.
2. Independent witness- PW-1 has deposed that public person had apprehended the accused persons. Further, the deposition of the other witnesses also show that the accident took place on a public road, where there were other independent witness present. However, no other public witness, apart from the witness, have been examined. There is no gainsaying that it is settled proposition of law that absence of public witness would not in itself demolish the case of the prosecution. (See: Appabhai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696) However, the same has to be weighed by the court in light of the facts of the case. In the present facts, it has appeared in the cross- examination of PW-1 and PW-5 that the victim who was driving the vehicle was a minor at the time of the incident and was not Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 20 of 22 having a valid driving license. It cannot be ruled out that the deposition on behalf of the victim is marred by the illegal act on behalf of the victim himself and thus corroboration in the present facts was necessitated as a matter of evidentiary prudence.
Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish "rash or negligent" driving on the part of the accused. It would be pertinent to record that once it is shown that the prosecution has failed to establish the basic ingredient of "rash or negligent" driving/act, the offence u/s. 279/338/304 A IPC which envisages "rash or negligent" act shall also automatically fall.
7. CONCLUSION:
The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. In light of the above discussion, the unequivocal conclusion that comes forth is that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused on the touchstone of Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 21 of 22 "beyond reasonable doubt". In order to bring home the charge under s. 279/338 IPC, the onus was on the prosecution to establish the foundational ingredient of the vehicle having been driven in a rash and negligent manner, the prosecution has failed to manifest the manner in which the vehicle was driven and the case of the prosecution is further marred by other lacunae, which have been discussed above. Accordingly, the accused Anil Kumar is entitled for benefit of reasonable doubt and is hereby found not guilty. He is hereby ACQUITTED of the offences under Section 279/338 IPC.
Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the parties. Announced in open court on 28.07.2022 (KAUTUK) MM-04 (North) Rohini Courts Delhi/28.07.2022 Certified that this judgment contains 22 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally
signed by (KAUTUK)
KAUTUK
KAUTUK Date:
MM-04 (North) Rohini Courts
2022.07.30 Delhi/28.07.2022
17:49:42
+0530
Cr. Case 5284990/2016 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR FIR No. 240 /2010 Page 22 of 22