Delhi District Court
State vs . Swaran on 20 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL PAHUJA, MM-04,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. SWARAN
FIR NO. 643/2007
PS: MOTI NAGAR
U/S: 279/337/338 IPC
JUDGMENT
Case no. : 68400/2016
Date of commission of offence : 09.12.2007
Date of institution of the case : 24.03.2008
Name of the complainant : Sh. Rajkumar
Name of accused and address : Swaran
S/o Sh. Udai Raj
R/o RZ-301, Peepal Wali
Gali, Khyala, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 279/337/338 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date on which reserved for judgment : 20.12.2017
Date of announcing of judgment : 20.12.2017
******************************************************************************************************************************* BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of accused Swaran pursuant to charge sheet filed by PS Moti Nagar U/s 279/337/338 IPC subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No.643/2007.
2. As per the prosecution, on 09.12.2007 at about 06:30 PM at Karampura Road in front of Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, Delhi, accused was FIR No. 643/2007, PS Moti Nagar Page 1/9 driving a Vikram vehicle bearing registration no.DL-1LF-2942 on the public way in rash and negligent manner. While driving so, he hit against one another Vikram vehicle bearing registration no.DL-1LH-1919 and caused simple injuries to its passengers namely Ravinder and Meena Devi and also caused grievous injuries to its driver namely Rajkumar. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, notice for offence punishable under section 279/337/338 IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4. The prosecution in support of present case has examined 11 witnesses in total.
5. PW1 Sh. Raj Kumar stated that on 09.12.2007 he was driving Vikram Tempo No. DL-1H-1919 at about 06:15 PM carrying his family. It is further stated that when he reached near Moti Nagar Flyover, one Vikram Tempo, number not remembered, came from back side in a rash and negligent manner and hit against his tempo due to which it turned turtle and he sustained injuries on his right leg, his family members also sustained injuries. It is further stated that the said Vickram tempo was driven by accused and accused was apprehended by the public persons at the spot. PW1 and other injured persons were taken to DDU Hospital where police recorded his statement Mark-X. This witness was cross-
examined on behalf of accused.
6. PW2 Sh. Ravinder stated that on 09.12.2007 at about 06:30 PM, he FIR No. 643/2007, PS Moti Nagar Page 2/9 alongwith his family members were going in one Vikram bearing registration no. DL-1H-1919 being driven by PW1 Raj Kumar. It is further stated that one Vikram came from the back side and hit against their vehicle following which he and his family members sustained injures. This witness did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner, hence with the permission of the Court he was cross-examined by Ld. APP. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused.
7. PW3 Smt. Meena Devi stated that on 09.12.2007 she alongwith her family members were coming from Satsang in Tempo, number of which not remembered, being driven by Raj Kumar. She further stated that about 06-07:00 PM when they reached Shadipur flyover going towards Moti Nagar at Karampura stand, one tempo, number of which not remembered, came from the back side in a fast speed and in rash and negligent manner and hit their tempo following which she, her son and the driver of tempo sustained injuries. She further stated that the tempo which hit their tempo was driven by the accused. This witness was cross-examined by the accused.
8. PW4 Sh. Dharmender did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner, hence with the permission of the Court he was cross- examined by Ld. APP. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused.
9. PW5 ASI Dev Dutt was the Duty Officer, who exhibited on record DD no.32A as Ex.PW5/A, FIR as Ex.PW5/B and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW5/C. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
10. PW6 HC Mahender Kumar stated that on 09.12.2007 after receiving FIR No. 643/2007, PS Moti Nagar Page 3/9 the call he reached at Acharya Bhikshu Hospital where ASI Mahavir was already present. He further stated that IO recorded the statement of complainant on the basis of which rukka was prepared and FIR was registered. He exhibited on record the arrest memo as Ex.PW6/A, personal search memo as Ex.PW6/B, seizure memo of the offending vehicle and the vehicle driven by the complainant as Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D respectively. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
11. PW7 Retired ASI Devender Kumar (Technician) exhibited on record the mechanical inspection report of D-van bearing no.DL-1LH-1919 and D- van bearing no.DL-1LF-2942 prepared by him as Ex.PW7/A and PW7/B respectively. PW7 was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
12. PW8 HC Naresh Kumar was the MHC(M), who exhibited on record the relevant entries in register no.19 at serial no.3006/07 and 3010/07 as Ex.PW8/A and PW8/B vide which the case property i.e. offending vehicle and victim vehicle were deposited in the Malkhana.
13. PW9 Dr. Vinal Sharma, Senior Medical Officer, exhibited on record the MLC bearing no.27504 of Meena Devi, MLC bearing no.27505 of Ravinder, MLC bearing no.27506 of Raj Kumar as Ex.PW9/A, PW9/B and PW9/C respectively. He was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
14. PW9 Retired ASI Mahavir Singh stated that on receipt of information vide DD no. 32 A, he along with DGH Dharmender reached at Acharya Bhikshu Hospital where complainant Raj Kumar was found admitted for treatment. It is further stated that, he recorded the statement of the complainant/injured and prepared rukka Ex.PW9/B. This witness exhibited site plan as Ex.PW9/C and the application moved before the FIR No. 643/2007, PS Moti Nagar Page 4/9 doctor as Ex.PW9/A. It is further stated that on 14.12.2007 a notice under section 133 MV Act Ex.PW9/D was served on the registered owner of offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1LF-2942. This witness recorded statement of witnesses U/s 161 Cr. P.C and after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet before the court. PW9 was cross- examined on behalf of accused.
15. PW10 Retired SI Hari Kishan stated that 09.12.2007 he was on patrolling duty whereby he received an information and accordingly he reached Acharya Bhikshu Hospital where three persons namely Meena Devi, Ravinder Kumar and Raj Kumar were found injured and they were removed in PCR to DDU Hospital. He further stated that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by the IO. He was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
16. No other witness was left to be examined, hence PE was closed vide order dated 10.10.2017.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C :
17. Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him to which he pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS:
18. Ld. APP for state has argued that on a combined reading of prosecution witnesses testimony, offence U/s 279, 337 and 338 IPC are proved beyond doubt.
FIR No. 643/2007, PS Moti Nagar Page 5/919. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has argued that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused. It is argued that none of the witnesses supported the case of prosecution, hence their testimony cannot be relied upon. Arguing further Ld. counsel submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt due to tainted testimony of PWs, hence accused is entitled to be acquitted.
FINDINGS:
20. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused have been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully.
21. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Accused is indicted for the offences U/s 279/337/338 IPC. Section 279 IPC punishable for offence of driving a vehicle in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Section 337 IPC provides punishment for causing simple injuries to any person by doing any rash or negligent act. Section 338 IPC provides punishment for causing grievous injuries to any person by doing any rash or negligent act.
22. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has to prove three aspects. Firstly that accused Swaran was driving the offending vehicle bearing no.DL-1LF-2942 on 09.12.2007 at Karampura Road in front of Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, Delhi. Secondly the said offending vehicle was being driven by the accused in rash or negligent manner causing the accident in question. Thirdly due to said accident victim Ravinder and Meena Devi received simple injuries and Raj Kumar received grievous injuries.
FIR No. 643/2007, PS Moti Nagar Page 6/923. After appreciating the evidence and going through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses this Court finds the accused not guilty for any offence charged herein and he deserves acquittal for the following reasons:-
24. Prosecution witnesses have categorically identified the accused as driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Nowhere in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses it has been disputed by the accused. In fact in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused did not deny the same. In view of the evidence led on record, the identity of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle stands established, hence first aspect stands proved.
25. Now coming to the testimony of complainant i.e. PW1 Raj Kumar. During his examination-in-chief, this witness stated that the accident was caused by accused while driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hitting the offending vehicle at the back of victim's vehicle. This witness did not explain the circumstances as to in what manner, the act can be called or said to be rash or negligent. In fact during his cross- examination, this witness could not tell the speed of his vehicle or the vehicle of the accused. In his examination-in-chief, the witness stated that the offending vehicle hit from the back whereas during the cross- examination, it is stated to have hit from the right side. The witness further stated during his cross-examination that he does not know about the contents of the documents prepared by police on which his signatures were obtained. It is important to note that without referring to circumstances or the manner, merely stating that the act was rash or negligent does prove that the accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner. Similarly, PW3 also failed to explain the circumstances under which the accident took place or the act of the driver of offending vehicle could be said to be rash or negligent. This witness could not even tell as to whether any other person was sitting beside the accused in his FIR No. 643/2007, PS Moti Nagar Page 7/9 tempo or not nor she could tell whether there was any occasion for her to see the manner of driving of the offending vehicle by the accused. Hence, testimony of PW1 and PW3 cannot be given due weightage or cannot be said to be sufficient to establish the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused.
26. PW2 failed to identify the accused as driver of the offending vehicle in his testimony. Nowhere in his examination-in-chief, the fact of driving of offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner by the driver is mentioned by PW2. This witness did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner. Similarly, PW4 also did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner as he completely denied having any knowledge about the case.
27. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to be acquitted.
28. In the instant case there are material inconsistencies and lacunas in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, especially the star witnesses that failed to establish the act of the accused as rash or negligent on record. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accident has taken place due to rash or FIR No. 643/2007, PS Moti Nagar Page 8/9 negligent driving by the accused nor the condition of the accused as drunken has been proved on record. The evidence coming on record entitles the accused for the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the accused Swaran is hereby acquitted of all the charges in the present case.
29. Requirements of Section 437-A Cr.P.C have been complied with. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA) COURT ON 20.12.2017 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 09 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(VISHAL PAHUJA) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 643/2007, PS Moti Nagar Page 9/9