Delhi District Court
State vs . Hari Om on 27 April, 2012
1 FIR No:595/2001
State Vs. Hari Om
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 595/2001
PS: Dabri
U/s 279/304A IPC
State V. Hari Om
Date of institution of the case : 15/04/2002
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 27/04/2012
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 1222/2
b) Date of commission of offence : 16.07.2001
c) Name of the Complainant : HC Ramesh Kumar
No.341/SW, PS: Dabri,
New Delhi.
d) Name of accused and address : Hari Om
S/o Sh. Ram Narayan
2 FIR No:595/2001
State Vs. Hari Om
R/o Village Sahbad
Mohammadpur, Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : u/s 279/304A IPC
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 27/04/2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The present case was registered against the accused Hari Om on the allegation that on 16.07.2001 at about 8.40 am at Railway Station main Palam Road, near Sanatan Dharam Mandir, New Delhi he while driving Bus No. DL 1PA 2599 in rash and negligent manner, struck against Bhagat Singh (deceased) S/o Sh. Ram Lal because of which he sustained injuries and died due to that injuries. On receiving information about the incident, HC Ramesh Kumar reached at the spot and at his 3 FIR No:595/2001 State Vs. Hari Om complaint, the present case was registered. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against accused Hari Om for the offence u/s 279/304A IPC.
2. Accused was summoned and notice was served upon the accused for the offence u/s 279/304A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and trial started.
3. Prosecution has filed list of Eleven witnesses and has examined Nine witnesses.
4. PW1 Dr. Arvind conducted the post mortem on the body of deceased Bhagat Singh on 17.07.2001. As per his opinion the cause of death was shock consequent upon blunt forceful impact caused due to road traffic accident. His post mortem report is Ex.PW1/A. PW2 HC Ashmita 4 FIR No:595/2001 State Vs. Hari Om was the duty officer and on 16.07.2001 she registered the FIR of the present case, copy of which is Ex.PW2/A and her endorsement on the rukka in this regard is Ex.PW2/B.
5. PW3 Sh. Maan Singh is cited by the prosecution as an eye witness of the incident. When he appeared before the court, he stated that he had not witnessed the accident himself but he reached there following an information given to him by a boy at his house. When he reached at the spot, his brother (deceased) was just being taken to the hospital by a PCR Van. He also followed him by a bus to the said hospital. Accused was not arrested in his presence. He identified deadbody of his deceased brother vide memo Ex.PW3/A. Police obtained his signatures on certain papers at the hospital one of which is personal search memo Ex.PW3/B.
6. PW4 Ct. Mehtab Singh deposed that on 16.07.2001 he along 5 FIR No:595/2001 State Vs. Hari Om with HC Ramesh went to the spot where they found bus No. DL 1P 2599 in an accidental condition. Injured was removed to the hospital by CAT. Driver (accused) of the offending vehicle was produced by the public. IO went to S.J. Hospital. He and accused Hari Om remained at the spot. On return IO handed over him rukka and send him to PS for registration of FIR. Bus was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A and documents were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/C. D/L of accused was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/B.
7. PW5 Manoj Kumar Yadav stated that he is the registered owner of the offending vehicle. On the day of occurrence, Hari Om was driver of the Bus. He replied the notice vide Ex.PW5/A. He got released the bus on superdginama on Ex.PW5/B. He brought the bus Ex.P1.
8. PW6 Ram Singh identified the deadbody of his brother Bhagat Singh at Safdarjung Hospital vide memo Ex.PW6/A. 6 FIR No:595/2001 State Vs. Hari Om
9. PW8 HC Ramesh Kumar stated that on 16.07.2001. He along with Mehtab Singh reached at the spot and stated identical version as of PW4. He prepared tehrir Ex.PW8/A and got the case registered through Mehtab Singh.
10. PW9 Inspector Avtar Singh conducted the further investigation. He prepared site plan Ex.PW9/A. Bus was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW9/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/B. D/L, R/C and Insurance was seized vide memo's Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C. He obtained mechanical inspection report Ex.PW9/C. He served notice u/s 133 M.V. Act Ex.PW9/D and obtained reply Ex.PW5/B. Dead body after post mortem handed over to his relatives. He completed the charge sheet. 7 FIR No:595/2001
State Vs. Hari Om
11. No other witness was examined by the prosecution despite several opportunities and thereafter PE closed. Statement of accused recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the allegations against him and stated that he do not want to lead any evidence in his defence.
12. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the accused is the actual culprit and he deliberately drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased because of which he died. Accused be given maximum punishment. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the accused stated that he had not committed any offence. He is innocent. Story of the prosecution is concocted one. He is falsely implicated in the present case and facing the trial of this false case since last about 11 years and he may be acquitted. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record and analyzed the statement of witnesses.
8 FIR No:595/2001
State Vs. Hari Om
13. In the present case, case of prosecution is based only on PW3 who is cited as the eye witness. Therefore, the statement of this witness must be uncontradictory and corroborative to become reliable. When he appeared before the court, he stated nothing against the accused and turned hostile. He is cross examined at length by Ld. APP for the State. But nothing came out against the accused in his cross also. He specifically denied that his statement was recorded by the police or he recognized the accused at the time of accident. In his chief examination he clearly stated that he reached at the spot after the accident already occurred. Therefore, statement of this witness is only hearsay and moreover in his whole statement he stated nothing showing that accused had caused the said accident or accused was driving the offending bus.
14. The version of FIR is also self contradictory. As per complaint 9 FIR No:595/2001 State Vs. Hari Om Ex.PW8/A on which the FIR was registered, it is mentioned by the complainant that when he reached at the spot, the offending bus was present there and there was crowd of public persons and out of said crowd, public persons handed over the accused to him stating that it was the person who caused the accident and which was apprehended by the public persons. Thereafter, it is also mentioned by the complainant himself that no eye witness was present there. None from the said public persons who apprehended the accused or who handed over the accused to the police was joined into investigation by the I.O.
15. There is no other evidence to show the fact that the accused by driving the offending bus in rash and negligent manner caused the said accident. PW5, owner of the bus only stated that on the date of incident, accused was driver on his bus but in his cross he admitted that he had not any documentary proof/ note book showing the employment of driver on 10 FIR No:595/2001 State Vs. Hari Om his buses. He further admitted that in addition to accused Hari Om, he had also employed another driver on the same bus.
16. However, only establishing that accused was driving the said bus on that day is not sufficient but it is also to be established that accused was driving the said bus in rash and negligent manner and struck the said bus against the deceased because of which he died.
17. None of the person from passengers or conductor of the bus brought before the court as a witness by the prosecution. There is no any other evidence neither documentary nor circumstantial to establish the fact that accused was driving the bus at the time of incident in a rash and negligent manner. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are only procedural formal witnesses and having no direct knowledge about the facts of the alleged incident.
11 FIR No:595/2001
State Vs. Hari Om
18. The presence of rash and negligent act is sine qua non to hold the accused guilty for the offence u/s 279/304A IPC. It is also held by Hon'ble Patna High Court in Munile Sao Vs. State of Bihar (1997)3 Crimes 200 (Pat.) that in order to impose criminal liability on the accused, it must be found as a fact that collusion was entirely or mainly due to the rashness or negligence.
19. The above said discussion shows that the material placed on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to complete the chain of evidence and ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused. There is nothing to show that the circumstances suggest that the incident was occurred due to only the rash and negligent act of the accused. Hence, accused Hari Om S/o Ram Narayan is hereby acquitted in the case FIR No.595/2001 for the offence u/s 279/304A IPC. Bail bonds of accused 12 FIR No:595/2001 State Vs. Hari Om shall remain in force for the period of three month starting from today in accordance with section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on this 27th day of April' 2012 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) This judgment contains 12 pages METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE which bears my signatures at DWARKA COURTS/DELHI each page.
13 FIR No:595/2001
State Vs. Hari Om FIR NO: 595/2001 PS: Dabri U/s 279/304A IPC State V. Hari Om 27/04/2012 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused is present on bail with Ld. Counsel
Sh. Rupendu Singh.
Final arguments heard today.
Vide separate judgment pronounced and dictated in the open court, accused Hari Om is acquitted in the present case. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI