Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Kumar Bhatia on 23 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-08, (SOUTH-WEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA
FIR No. 559/17
U/s 279/338 IPC
PS : Uttam Nagar
Date of Institution : 28.09.2018
Date of Judgment : 23.11.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 28624/2018
2. Name of the Complainant : Radhey Shyam, S/o Dharampal R/o C-11, Vikas Enclave, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi
3. Date of commission of offence : 02.08.2017
4. Name of accused person : Anil Kumar Bhatia, S/o Balbir Kumar Bhatia, R/o VPO Dhanana, District Sonipat, Haryana
5. Offence charged : U/s 279/338 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Gaurav Dutt
8. Final Order : ACQUITTAL State Vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia FIR No.559/2017, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 23.11.2023 Page No. 1 of 9 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.11.23 17:18:04 +0530 BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. The accused Anil Kumar Bhatia has been charge-sheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 12.08.2017 at about 9 AM at Shiv Vihar, J.J Colony, Govt. School, the accused Anil Kumar Bhatia was driving the TATA mixture vehicle bearing registration no. HR 63B 3435 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others and thus, while so driving in the aforesaid manner he hit against bicycle of one person namely Radhey Shyam due to which the said person had sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, it has been alleged that accused has committed an offences U/s 279/338IPC.
3. After conclusion of investigation, the present charge-sheet was filed against the accused u/s 279/338 IPC.
4. On receipt of charge-sheet, cognizance of offence was taken. Copy of the charge-sheet alongwith all annexures was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. After giving an opportunity to the State as well as to the accused for making submissions on notice, a notice for offence u/s 279/338 IPC was served upon the accused on 27.06.2022 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
KUMAR 2023.11.23
17:18:11
+0530
6. Prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case.
7. First and foremost, it should be noted that the complainant Radhey Shyam who was also the eye-witness of the present case and who had sustained grievous injuries in the present accident could not be examined by the prosecution as he had passed away during the pendency of the trial. Hence, he was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 18.08.2023 passed by this Court.
8. As PW-1, ASI Satender was examined by the prosecution. During his examination-in-chief, he deposed that in the year 2017, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar. On 12.08.2017, he was on emergency duty along with SI Gautam. On that day, SI Gautam had received DD No. 38A after that he along with SI Gautam had gone to the spot where they had found one truck bearing no. HR 63B 3435 and a cycle in an accidental condition. During the course of investigation, they came to know that PCR van had taken the injured to the hospital. Thereafter, IO SI Gautam left the spot and went to the hospital. PW-1 further deposed that after some time, SI Gautam came back at the spot and prepared tehrir and the same was handed over to him for the registration of FIR. Thereafter, PW-1 went to PS Uttam Nagar and got the FIR registered. After the registration of the FIR, SI Gautam seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A and also seized the cycle vide memo Ex. PW1/B. IO had also arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C and also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/D. He correctly identified the accused and the case property in the Court. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
State Vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia
FIR No.559/2017, PS Uttam Nagar
Judgment dated 23.11.2023 Page No. 3 of 9
Digitally signed
by ANIMESH
KUMAR
ANIMESH Date:
KUMAR 2023.11.23
17:18:18
+0530
9. Sh. Arun Kumar, the brother of the victim/injured, was examined as PW-2. During the examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 12.08.2017 at about 9:30 AM, he came to know that his brother Radhey Shyam had met with an accident. Thereafter, he reached at the spot where he found his brother's cycle in an accidental condition. He also found one truck bearing no. HR 63B 3435 in an accidental condition at the spot. Thereafter, he came to know that PCR van had taken his brother to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. IO had prepared the site plan in his presence. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
10.ASI Mukesh Kumar was examined as PW-3 by the prosecution. He deposed that on 12.08.2017, he was malkhana incharge at PS Uttam Nagar. He had made entry in register no. 19 vide no. 4735 of Tata Mixture truck bearing no. HR 63B 3534 and one cycle make Atlas Black colour bearing chases no. D/ 4218608. He had also brought the register no. 19 in the Court. As per the entry, the offending vehicle was released to its owner Rajesh on 04.09.2017. He had identified the case properties from the photographs.
11.SI Satyawan was examined as PW-4. He had filed the charge-sheet in the present case before the Court. SI Gautam was the main investigating officer of the present case who was examined as PW-5. He gave an account of the investigation conducted by him in the present case. He deposed on similar lines as deposed by PW-1. Both these witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
12. The record also transpires that without admitting the contents therein the accused did not dispute the factum of registration of the present FIR along State Vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia FIR No.559/2017, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 23.11.2023 Page No. 4 of 9 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR ANIMESH Date:
KUMAR 2023.11.23
17:18:25
+0530
with certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and mechanical inspection report u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
13. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused was recorded U/s 313 CrPC wherein accused submitted that he was falsely implicated in the present case and chose to lead defence evidence (DE). He had examined himself in DE as DW-1. During the DE, the accused deposed that at the time of the accident, he had parked this vehicle bearing registration no. HR 63B 3435 on the road side at Vikas Puri. He had gotten down from his vehicle and went to nearby places in search of address of the location where he had empty his truck. Thereafter, when he returned to the spot, he found that the police officials who demanded relevant documents from him. Thereafter, he was taken to the police station on the pretext that he had caused the accident. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State.
14. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of State as well as the accused.
15. It was contended by defence counsel that the accused was not at all negligent and the accident was caused by some other wheeler which had escaped from the spot after hitting the bicycle of the victim. The accused had merely parked his vehicle at the spot and had gone to search one address. He was falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case. No eye- witness was examined by the prosecution in the present case. Thus, it was argued that accused is completely innocent and has nothing to do with the accident.
State Vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia
FIR No.559/2017, PS Uttam Nagar
Judgment dated 23.11.2023 Page No. 5 of 9
Digitally signed
by ANIMESH
KUMAR
ANIMESH Date:
KUMAR 2023.11.23
17:18:33
+0530
16.Per-contra, it was the arguments of the Ld. APP for the state that it is not disputed that accident happened because of which the victim Radhey Shyam had sustained grievous injuries. Also, the police witnesses who had reached at the spot immediately after the accident had found the offending vehicle at the spot in an accidental condition. Thus, it is argued on behalf of the state that all the ingredients for convicting the accused u/s 279/338 IPC have been proved beyond reasonable doubts.
17. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the case file meticulously.
18. After perusing the materials available on record including the evidences led by both the parties, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Anil Kumar Bhatia beyond reasonable doubt in the present case for the offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC, for the reasons discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.
19. First and foremost, it should be noted that the prosecution has not examined even a single eye-witness in the present case who had seen the accident. The complainant/injured Radhey Shyam could not be examined as he had passed away during the pendency of the trial. No other eye-witnesses were examined by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution did not see the accident.
20. Secondly, even it is assumed that it was the accused who had caused the accident in the present case, it could not be said that he had caused the accident while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
State Vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia
FIR No.559/2017, PS Uttam Nagar
Judgment dated 23.11.2023 Page No. 6 of 9
Digitally signed
by ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2023.11.23
17:18:39 +0530
PW-1 and PW-5 who were the police officials who had reached at the spot after the accident had only stated that they had found the offending vehicle in an accidental condition. They did not state as to whether it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. None of the PWs explained in detail the manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at the time of accident. They also did not state anything which would indicate any rashness or negligence on the part of accused. Since, none of them were the eye-witnesses of the accident, they could not explain in detail as to the manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven at the time of accident i.e. whether it was being driven in a high speed, dangerous manner, being driven in wrong side etc.
21. Moreover, the factum of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused could also not be inferred form other materials brought on record by the prosecution. No skid marks were found at the spot. In fact, as per the mechanical inspection report, only scratches were found on the frond side bumper and left side corner of the offending vehicle which could only show that the impact of the accident was minimal.
22.In this context, it is also pertinent to quote the relevant extracts from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab & Anr (2005) 6 SCC 1. wherein the Hon'ble Court relied upon the following;
"Negligence is the breach of duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those consideration which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something State Vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia FIR No.559/2017, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 23.11.2023 Page No. 7 of 9 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.11.23 17:18:45 +0530 which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.....inter-alia, The definition involves three constituents of negligence: (1) A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the former's conduct within the scope of the duty; (2) breach of the said duty; and (3) consequential damage. Cause of action for negligence arises only when damage others".
23. It was further held that :
"in order to hold the existence of criminal rashness or criminal negligence it shall have to be found out that the rashness was of such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard knowing that the hazard was such a degree that injury was most likely imminent. The element of criminality is introduced by the accused having run the risk of doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences. Inter-alia.......in criminal proceedings, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral certainty as convinces the mind of the Court, as a reasonable man, beyond reasonable doubt. Where negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence, the negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment."
24.Thus, in the light of the above, it cannot be said that the accused negligent State Vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia FIR No.559/2017, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 23.11.2023 Page No. 8 of 9 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR ANIMESH Date:
KUMAR 2023.11.23
17:18:52
+0530
or rash while driving the offending vehicle rather what transpired on the fateful day was nothing but an unfortunate accident and the accused cannot be imputed with any reckless state of mind.
25.In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, benefit of doubt goes to the credit of accused and accordingly, accused Anil Kumar Bhatia stands acquitted for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC.
26. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in open court, on this day of 23rd November, 2023.
This judgment consists of 09 signed pages. Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.11.23 17:19:03 +0530 (ANIMESH KUMAR) MM-08 / SOUTH WEST DWARKA / NEW DELHI 23.11.2023 State Vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia FIR No.559/2017, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 23.11.2023 Page No. 9 of 9