Delhi District Court
State vs . : Pappu on 3 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 03 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Pappu
FIR No : 131/2014
U/s : 279/304A IPC & 134(a) M.V. Act
P.S. : I.P. Estate
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 296118/2016
2. Date of commission of offence : 09.04.2014
3. Date of institution of the case : 28.08.2014
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Pappu S/o Sh. B.Chaudhary
6. Offense complained or proved : 279/304A IPC & 134(a) M.V. Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 05.08.2021
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 03.09.2021
FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu
1. The accused is facing trial for the offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC and section 134(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 09.04.2014 at around 10:30 am at flyover, Ring Road, I.P. Es- tate, Delhi, the accused was driving vehicle bearing no. DL 4CNB 7580 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of other and due to his rash and negligent driving, the accused hit motorcycle no. DL 3SBC 5142 and caused the death of motorcyclist Mohd. Zaki @ Mohd. Juggi by an act not amounting culpable homicide. It is also in the allegations that after causing the accident, accused did not help the motorcyclist and fled away from the spot.
2. Pursuant to the information sent through PCR call, the police reached the spot of occurrence and began the investigation of the case after registration of the FIR u/s 279/337 IPC. The mechanical inspection of the accidental motorcycle was conducted and attempts were made to find the whereabouts of the driver of the offending vehicle. In the meanwhile, the victim Mohd. Zaki @ Mohd. Juggi unfortunately succumbed to the injuries during the treatment at LNJP Hospital and accordingly, the charges for offence u/s 337 IPC were removed from the FIR and instead the offence u/s 304A IPC was added in the FIR. Thereafter, the post-mortem of the dead body of deceased was conducted. The IO traced the ownership of the offending vehicle and pursuant to notice u/s 133 M.V. Act sent to the registered owner of the vehicle, it was disclosed that the offending vehicle was driven by accused Pappu at the time of the accident. The accused was thereafter, associated in the investigation of the case and was admitted on police bail, the offences being bailable offences. The mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was also conducted. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet for offences u/s 279/304A IPC and u/s 134(a) M.V. Act, was forwarded in the Court for trial of the accused.
3. The cognizance of the offences was thereafter taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court and after procuring the presence of accused through FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu instrumentality of Court, the accused was supplied with copy of chargesheet and documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on the basis of material available on record, notice of accusation for offences u/s 279/304A IPC and section 134(a) M.V. Act was framed and served upon the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in all. The accused also admitted certain formal documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C. After prosecution evidence, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. The accused opted for leading the defence evidence and had examined one witness in his defence evidence.
5. Ld. APP for State has contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts with the help of coherent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the alleged offences.
6. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel has contended that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the police. It has also been argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have not established either the identity of the accused as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle nor same has proved the commission of any rash or negligent driving by the accused. It has been contended that there exists serious doubts in the prosecution story and accused is liable to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
7. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the prosecution and de- fence and have also gone through the case record carefully.
8. Prior to delving into the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of parties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution wit- nesses.
FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu PW-1 Harish Dua is the AR of the registered owner of the offending vehicle no. DL 4CNB 7580. He deposed that the aforesaid vehicle was seized by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A and pursuant to authorization letter Ex.PW1/B for seeking the release of vehicle on superdari, same was released in his favour and he executed superdarinama Ex.PW1/C. This witness also identi- fied the photographs of the vehicle Ex.P-1(colly).
PW-2 Naresh Chander Khanna has been cited as an eye witness. He de- posed that on the day of occurrence (date not remembered), at around 11:00 am when he was going down from the flyover towards Rajghat, he saw the public persons gathered on the side of road and one injured person who had met with an accident was also lying on the road. Then, he alongwith PW-12 Shekhar took said injured person to JPN Hospital and he was admitted in the emergency.
PW-3 Sudhir Dhingra is also cited as an eye witness. He deposed that in year 2014 (date not remembered) at between 10-11:00 am, when he reached the downside of flyover towards Rajghat, he heard a noise of applying the brakes of the vehicle and he asked the driver to stop the car. Then, he saw that one of the person was lying on the road alongwith a motorcycle. Thereafter, he made a PCR call at 100 number and informed the police about the accident. He also de- posed of having informed the police regarding the number of the vehicle which hit the motorcycle. He however, could not state the number of the vehicle in the Court. He further deposed that a lady had clicked the photographs of the offend- ing vehicle and informed that same was Scorpio/XUV car. He deposed of hav- ing not seen the alleged accident. Thereafter, this witness was declared hostile and was encountered with the questions in the nature of cross examination by the prosecution. In his cross examination, he admitted of having informed the police that the number of the offending vehicle was DL 4CNB 7580. He denied of having informed the police that he had seen that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. He deposed of having not seen the driver of the alleged offending vehicle.
FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu PW-4 Prashant Sharma is also cited as an eye witness. He deposed that on 09.04.2014, he alongwith PW-10 Prateek Sharma and PW-12 Shekhar was going in Santro Car from I.P Metro Station towards Rajghat, then at around 10:45 pm, when he had crossed half of the ITO Flyover, one XUV car bearing DL 4CNB 7580 came in a rash and negligent manner and over took his Santro Car. When he reached near the end of ITO Flyover, he saw that the aforesaid XUV car had hit the motorcycle from left side while crossing the speed breaker. The motorcycle and its driver fell down on the road. He deposed that when he alongwith PW-10 and PW-12 reached the spot, one lady was already standing on the divider of ITO Flyover and she was shouting regarding the accident due to which the public persons also gathered there and XUV car driver ran away from the spot. He further deposed that the injured was taken to G.B. Pant Hos- pital by PW Shekhar in one red car which was coming from the side of I.P. Metro Station. This witness identified the photographs of the XUV car already Ex.P-1(colly). He also identified the photographs of the accidental motorcycle bearing no. DL 3SBC 5142. He deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. In his cross examina- tion, this witness stated that the traffic was normal and the speed of XUV car was around 90 km/h. He deposed of having seen the number of the offending XUV car when the driver stopped it at about 25 feet from the spot. He denied that the number of XUV car was told to him by the lady who was standing at the spot. He admitted that he had not seen the driver of the offending XUV car.
PW-5 Ct. Gagandeep deposed that on 09.04.2014, on receiving DD No.26B, he alongwith SI Amrish Giri reached the place of accident and found one motorcycle number DL 3SBC 5142 lying in an accidental condition. SI Am- rish Giri made inquiry from the public persons and he was informed that injured was taken to hospital, after which SI Amrish Giri also left for hospital and he re- mained at the spot. He deposed that after coming back to spot, SI Amrish Giri prepared a tehrir which was handed over to him for registration of the FIR. He FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu went to police station and after registration of FIR, he came back to the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original tehrir, which was handed over to SI Amrish Giri. He deposed that SI Amrish Giri had seized the motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. He also identified the photographs of the motorcycle as Ex.P-1 to P-5. In his cross examination, he deposed that none of the eye wit- nesses were present at the spot.
PW-6 Arvinder Singh is the mechanical expert who deposed that after conducting mechanical inspection of vehicle no. DL 3SBC 5142 and DL 4CNB 7580, he prepared mechanical reports Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B, respectively.
PW-7 Nawab Jan is the registered owner of the accidental motorcycle. He deposed that deceased Mohd. Zaki was his son. He further deposed that on 10.04.2014, he identified dead body of his deceased son vide statement Ex- .PW7/A and after post-mortem, the dead body was handed over to him vide re- ceipt Ex.PW7/B. He also identified the photographs of the motorcycle already Ex.P-1 to P-5.
PW-8 SI Amrish Giri deposed that on receipt DD No.26 dated 09.04.2014 Ex.PW8/A regarding the road accident, he alongwith PW Ct. Gagandeep reached the spot and saw an accidental motorcycle lying there. He came to know that injured was taken to hospital. He left for hospital leaving behind Ct. Gagandeep for the supervision of the spot. He deposed of having collected the MLC of injured Mohd. Juggi who was declared unfit for statement by the doc- tor. He then prepared rukka vide endorsement Ex.PW8/B and handed over the same to Ct. Gagandeep for registration of FIR. No witnesses were present at the spot. The motorcycle, helmet and shoes of injured were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. During the treatment, injured Mohd. Juggi unfortunately ex- pired and thereafter, he went to hospital and got preserved the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem. The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted and identification statement Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW8/C, were recorded. The FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu dead body was handed over to LR of deceased vide receipt Ex.PW7/B. The mo- torcycle was mechanically inspected pursuant to request letter Ex.PW8/B and mechanical inspection report Ex.PW6/A was collected by him. He deposed that thereafter, the case was transferred to MACT Cell and he handed over the case file to MHCR. He identified the motorcycle in photographs is Ex.P-1 to P-5.
PW-9 Retd. SI Mubrak Ali deposed that the further investigation was marked to him and during the course of further investigation, he collected post- mortem report, MLCs and other documents of the deceased from the hospital. He also recorded statement of Shekhar Adana, inspected the spot at the instance eye witness and prepared site plan Ex.PW9/A. Thereafter, notice Ex.PW9/B was served on registered owner of the offending car bearing no. DL 4CNB 7580 and reply vide endorsement X to X-1 was received. The registered owner produced the offending car alongwith its documents, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW9/C. The registered owner also produced accused Pappu who was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/D. The DL of accused was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/E. The offending vehicle was also mechanically inspected and the mechanical inspection report was collected. After completion of investigation, the present chargesheet was filed in the Court. He identified the offending vehicle in photographs Ex.P-1 (colly). In his cross examination, he admitted that the accused was not kept in muffled face nor any efforts were made to conduct his judicial TIP. He also admitted that the mobile number and address of eye witness Shekhar Adana is not written in the MLC of the injured. He could not state as to how he came to know about the ad- dress of eye witness Shekhar Adana. He denied that the accused has been falsely implicated in connivance with the registered owner and the LRs of deceased to work out the compensation for the LRs of deceased in the Ld. MACT Court.
PW-10 Prateek Sharma is also cited is an eye witness who deposed that it was month of April, 2012 and he alongwith PWs Shekhar and Prashant Sharma was going for office work towards Burari in a Santro Car. He further deposed FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu that at about 10-10:15 am, when he reached I.P. Flyover, one motorcyclist took over their car at a high speed and when he reached end of the flyover, he saw that motorcyclist had met with a road accident. The helmet of motorcyclist was lying under XUV car. He could the remember the number of said XUV car. He deposed of having taken injured to the hospital. He further stated of having not seen the accident nor did he know that who had caused the accident. Thereafter, this witness was declared hostile and was encountered with the questions in the nature of cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State. In his cross examina- tion by Ld. APP, he admitted that the registration number of XUV car was DL 4CNB 7580 and the accident had taken place on 09.04.2014. He denied that at the spot of occurrence, there was one lady who was raising noise by pointing to- wards XUV car and also that she was saying that the driver of the said car ran away after causing the accident. He denied of having narrated these facts to po- lice in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He also denied of having narrated to police that he had seen the accident and same was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the XUV car no. DL 4CNB 7580. He also denied of hav- ing narrated to the police in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused had fled away from the spot after causing the accident. This witness was also con- fronted with the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 06.05.2021.
PW-11 Retd.SI Bijender Singh deposed that on 09.04.2014, he was pos- ted as ASI in PCR Central Zone and at about 10:50 am, he received call from control room regarding the accident, pursuant to which he alongwith other staff reached the spot of accident and was informed that the public persons had taken injured to the hospital. After arrival local police, he left the spot. In his cross ex- amination, he admitted that he is not an eye witness to the accident nor did he see the offending vehicle on the spot.
PW-12 Shekhar Adana is cited as another eye witness who deposed that on 09.04.2014, he alongwith PWs Prashant and Prateek was going to Bhalaswa and when he reached I.P. Flyover at about 10:45 am, he saw one XUV car going FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu at a high speed. The said car hit the motorcycle due to which motorcyclist fell down and the driver of the XUV car also stopped the car at the short distance. He identified the accused Pappu as driver of the said XUV car. He further de- posed that a lady was also present there and she was shouting that it was the ac- cused who had caused the accident. The accused then ran away from the spot alongwith his car. He deposed that the injured was taken to hospital by him in alto car with the help of one passer-by. He deposed that the registration of the XUV car was DL 4CNB 7580 and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. In his cross examination, he could not tell the exact speed of the offending vehicle. He stated of having seen the XUV car hit- ting the motorcycle. He denied of having not witnessed the accident. He also denied of having not seen the accused at the spot of accident.
9. Pursuant to the statement of accused dated 09.07.2019, the accused had admitted the factum of registration of DD No.43B dated 09.04.2014, FIR No.131/14, certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act, MLC, Post-mortem report and death summary of injured and same are Ex.A-1 to A5 and Ex.P-6 on record.
10. In his defence evidence, accused has examined DW-1 Professor Pummy Dua who deposed that on 09.04.2014, she was travelling in the car of her hus- band and at around 10:30 am at ITO Flyover, the driver of the car had stopped the vehicle and informed that some person has fallen from bike and he is going to help that person. After some time, the driver returned and asked that public persons were helping said person and then she proceeded from the spot. In her cross examination, she stated that she does not remember the registration num- ber of the car of her husband in which she was travelling. She also stated of having no knowledge whether the car of her husband was seized in the present case as the offending vehicle. She stated that the accused Pappu was called to the police station but she does not know that he was called as an accused in the present case. She admitted that her husband Harish Dua was working in M/s Jindal Steel Pvt. Ltd. at the time of accident and the company had provided him FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu the car in which she was travelling on that day. She also identified the signa- tures of her husband Harish Dua on the reply to notice u/s 133 M.V. Act which is Ex.DW-1. She denied that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.
11. This is entire evidence on the case record.
12. Having discussed the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the parties, now let us advert ourselves to the merits of the contentions advanced by the prosecution and defence.
13. It has been the case of prosecution that on 09.04.2014 at 10:30 am at fly- over Ring Road, I.P. Estate, the accused Pappu was driving XUV car bearing no. DL 4CNB 7580 in such a rash or negligent manner that while driving the vehicle in such manner, he dashed his vehicle into one motorcyclist Mohd. Zaki @ Mohd. Juggi, thereby causing his death not amounting to culpable homicide. It is also in the allegations that after causing the accident, the accused did not help the motorcyclist and had fled away from the spot. The offences alleged by prosecution against accused are punishable u/s 279/304A IPC and u/s 134(a) of M.V. Act.
14. It is a settled law that Section 279 IPC punishes the act of a person driving or riding a vehicle 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. Section 304A IPC punishes the act of causing death (not amounting to culpable homicide) of a person by doing a rash or negligent act. In the case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133(2006) DLT 562, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while discussing about the ingredients of section 279 and 304A IPC as observed:-
"In Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu injury to any person. As regards the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC, it was observed that the point to be established is that the act of the accused was responsible for the death and that such act of the accused must have been rash and negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under Section 279 or Section 304A, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved".
15. The above discussed judgement sufficiently enlightens us that for estab- lishing accusation u/s 279/304A IPC, prosecution is not only required to estab- lish that the accused was rash or negligent while driving the vehicle, but it is ad- ditionally incumbent on the prosecution to establish that the causa-causans of the death of deceased/or the proximate cause of death of deceased was the act of accused.
16. Further, what would constitute rash and negligent act has been described by the Hon'ble Superme Court in the matter of Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of Andra Pradesh decided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:-
"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 negli- gence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and pre- caution 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 rea- sonable and proper care and precaution."
10. Besides this, it has also been upheld in various decisions that evidence of high speed simpliciter, is not ipso facto proof of rashness or negligence.
In the case of Rajiv Netra Panigrahi Vs. State of Orrisa decided on 20.07.1990, Hon'ble Orrisa High Court observed the following:-
FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu "It is no doubt true, as contended on behalf of the petitioner and as sup- ported by authorities, that high speed in driving of a vehicle does not by itself amount to rash and negligent driving. If the accused driver was driving the ve- hicle on the highway and had negotiated the distance safely, it could not have been said that he was driving rashly or negligently because of the high speed."
In the case of Kishore Chand Joshi Vs. State decided on 12.11.2018 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed:-
"17. A witness can depose as to the manner of driving or speed at which the vehicle was being driven but not render an opinion on "rash and negli- gence". High speed by itself may not in each case be sufficient to hold that a driver is rash or negligent. Speed alone is not the criterion for deciding the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan (Supra), also observed that:
"The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court make it more than clear that a mere allegation of high speed would not tantamount to rashness or negli- gence. In the present case also, I find that apart from the allegation that the truck was being driven at a very high speed there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner acted in a manner which could be regarded as rash or negligent."
Further in Abdul Subhan (Supra), the decision of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish 1998 SCC (CRI) 1508 was also discussed in which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-
"3. Both the trial court and the appellate court held the respondent guilty for offences under Section 337, 338 and 304A IPC after recording a finding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed". No specific finding has been recorded either by the trial court or by the first appellate court to the ef- fect that the respondent was driving the truck either negligently or rashly. After holding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed", both the FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu courts pressed into aid the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor to hold the respondent guilty.
4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses ex- amined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what is meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any ma- terial on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitor".
17. Besides, the ingredients mentioned above, the identity of the accused as driver of the vehicle must also be established separately by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused.
18. With regard to identity of the accused as driver of the vehicle no. DL 4CNB 7580, it is noteworthy that PW-12 Shekhar Adana has identified the ac- cused as the driver of the aforesaid vehicle. Besides, from the testimony of the PW-1 Harish Dua who was the AR of the registered owner namely, Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. coupled with the testimony of DW-1 Professor Pummy Dua (wife of Harish Dua), the identity of the accused as the driver of the aforesaid vehicle stands established. Hence, the ingredients regarding the accused being the driver of the aforementioned XUV car stands established beyond all reason- able doubts.
FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu
19. The prosecution was also required to establish the next ingredient of the offence i.e. the rash or negligence of the accused in his driving the aforemen- tioned vehicle. To substantiate the allegations of the rash or negligent act on the part accused, prosecution has examined five eye witnesses including PCR caller PW-3 Sudhir Dhingra. From the testimony of PW Naresh Chander Khanna (PW-2), Sudhir Dhingra (PW-3), Prateek Sharma (PW-10) nothing could be de- rived to establish the existence of rash or negligent act on the part of accused. Even though PW-12 Shekhar Adana has made a bald statement regarding the rash and negligent driving by the accused in his testimony but he could not ex- plain the mode and manner of the alleged rash or negligent driving done by the accused. However, PW-4 Prashant Sharma has stated in his testimony that the traffic was normal at the time of accident and the XUV car was being driven at speed of around 90 km/h. In view of the above stated testimony of PW-4, except the allegation that the car was being driven at a high speed, there is no depos- ition regarding the manner in which the accused was driving the vehicle in question. There is an absolute dearth of evidence regarding rashness or negli- gence in his driving the car by the accused in the testimonies of the so called eye witnesses. The speed of the car has been disclosed by PW-4 as 90 km/h but it is also not clear whether the said speed was above the speed limit fixed for the vehicles in the area of occurrence. Further, there also does not exist any evid- ence regarding the manner in which the accident had occurred. The testimonies of the material witnesses is also silent regarding the point as to how and from which side the motorcycle of deceased was hit. It is also not clear whether the deceased was riding his motorcycle on the left lane of the road or in the middle lane of the road or from where did the car hit him. It is also pertinent to point out that the so called eye witness PW-12 Shekhar Adana was associated in the investigation on 02.05.2014 i.e. after almost one month from the date of occur- rence and the IO also could not explain as to how did he got cue about the ad- dress and mobile number of the said PW when same were admittedly not men- tioned in the MLC of the deceased. These facts cast serious doubts on the story FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu of the prosecution as whole. There also exists material contradictions in the ver- sions of eye witnesses i.e PW-10 Prateek Sharma and PW-12 Shekhar Adana. PW-10 has deposed in Court that the motorcycle was being driven at a fast speed by the motorcyclist which runs contrary to the version of PW-12 who stated that it was XUV car of the accused, which was being driven at a fast speed and had hit the motorcycle of the deceased. These conflicting testimonies of the PWs also casts serious doubts on the prosecution story as a whole and the benefit of same deserves to be given to the accused.
20. Thus, having considered the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is absolutely clear that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is needless to say that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and this gener- al burden never shifts, hence, in view of the foregoing discussion, it is hereby held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accident causing death of deceased Mohd. Zaki @ Mohd. Juggi was caused by the accused due to his rash or negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL 4CNB 7580. The evidence led by the prosecution is not only deficient on the es- sential ingredients of the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle but even the so called eye witnesses also does not appear to be worthy of credence. The prosecution has also failed to establish the fact that after caus- ing the accident, the accused did not help the motorcyclist and had fled away from the spot.
21. Therefore, in these circumstances, accused Pappu stands acquitted for the offences u/s 279/304A IPC and section 134(a) of the M.V. Act.
22. The bail bonds, if any furnished by accused at the time of commencement of trail stands cancelled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. Case property if any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu to assail this judgement and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Rishabh Kapoor)
MM-03 (Central), THC, Delhi
FIR No.131/2014 State Vs. Pappu