Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijay Singh on 28 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. APOORVA RANA, M.M-10,
DWARKA COURT (SOUTH WEST), NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSW02-029679-2017
Cr. Case8215/2017
STATE Vs. VIJAY SINGH
FIR No. 17 /2017
P.S Kapashera
28.07.2022
JUDGMENT
Case No. : 8215/2017
Date of commission of offence : 18.01.2017
Date of institution of the case : 27.09.2017
Name of the complainant : Sh. Rahul Yadav
Name of accused and address : Vijay Singh
S/o Sh. Banwari Lal
R/o Plot No. 31/34,
M. Block, Dharam
Pura, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 279/338 IPC. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Final order : Convicted Date reserved for judgment : 04.07.2022 Date of judgment : 28.07.2022 State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.1 / 21 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. The present case pertains to prosecution of accused Vijay Singh (here-in-after referred to as the accused), pursuant to charge sheet filed qua him under Section 279/338 IPC (hereinafter IPC for sake of brevity) subsequent to the investigation carried out at P.S: Kapashera, in FIR no. 17/2017.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.01.2017, at about 10:00 a.m., in front of Modi Farm House, Bijwasan, Kapashera, New Delhi, the accused was found driving a vehicle / RTV bearing number DL 1VA 9362, in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. Due to this act of the accused, his aforesaid RTV struck against one motorcycle, bearing no. DL 9SS 5075, of the victim namely, Sh. Rahul Yadav, which was being driven by him. Owing to the aforesaid collision, the said victim fell down alongwith his motorcycle in front of the offending vehicle, resulting in grievous injury to him. Consequently, an FIR was registered in the present case and after investigation, the police filed the present charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC.
3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. Notice for offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, the accused, vide his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, had admitted the copy of FIR No. State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.2 / 21 17/2017 along with certificate u/s 65 B of IEA, which was exhibited as, Ex. P/A/1, DD No. 12A which was exhibited as, Ex P/A/2, mechanical inspection report of vehicle no. DL1VA9362 and DL9SZ5075, which was exhibited as, Ex P/A/6 (Colly), MLC no. 7474 of Rahul Yadav which was exhibited as Ex P/A/3, X-ray report of Rahul Yadav which was exhibited as Ex P/A/4 (colly), discharge summary of Yash Roop Hospital of injured Rahul Yadav which was exhibited as Ex P/A/5 and TIP proceedings dated 29.06.2017 which was exhibited as Ex P/A/7.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4. The prosecution, in support of the present case has examined six witnesses in total.
5. PW-1 was Smt. Roshni Devi, who was the registered owner of the offending vehicle and who deposed that on the date of the incident in question, the accused was the person who was driving the offending vehicle. Through her, notice u/s 133 MV Act served to her, was exhibited as Ex. PW1/A, reply to the said notice was exhibited as Ex. PW1/B, seizure memo of original insuranec policy, permit and fitness of the offending vehicle was exhibited as Ex. PW1/C, superdarinama pertaining to offending vehicle was exhibited as Ex. PW1/D and photographs of the offending vehicle were exhibited as Ex. PW1/E (colly).
6. PW2 was Sh. Rahul Yadav, i.e. the complainant / State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.3 / 21 victim in the case, who deposed with respect to the manner and circumstances in which the incident in question occurred. He also deposed with respect to the liability of the accused with respect to the incident in question. He, inter-alia, deposed that on 18.01.2017, he was going on a bike bearing registration number DL9Z5075 to his college, Amity School of Engineering and Technology, from his home. That when he reached a little ahead of Kapashera red light, one RTV, coming from the wrong side, from the direction of Bijwasan, at a high speed, hit his bike from the front, due to which the said PW fell down and sustained injuries.
7. PW-3 was HC Hari Kishan, who deposed with respect to depositing of case property, i.e. the motorcycle bearing no. DL9SZ5075 by ASI Ram Singh in the malkhana. Through him, photocopy of relevant page of register no.19 containing the entry at serial no. 1369 was taken on record as Ex PW 3/A (OSR). He also brought on record the photograph of burnt motorcycle, Ex PW 3/B. He further deposed that the said motorcycle was burnt as high tension wire above the police station fell on the malkhana.
8. PW-4 was Ct. Rajender, who had accompanied IO ASI Ran Singh on the spot upon receipt of DD entry regarding the accident in question and who deposed with respect to the condition in which the vehicles in question were found at the spot, the way they were removed from the spot and the investigation carried out by the IO in the present case. Through State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.4 / 21 him, seizure memo of both the vehicles were exhibited as Ex.PW 4/A and Ex PW 4/B, seizure memo of driving licence and badge of accused was exhibited as Ex.PW 4/C and arrest memo of accused was exhibited as Ex.PW 4/D.
9. PW-5 was ASI Rohtash Lamba, to whom the investigation in the present case was handed over by the SHO on 22.05.2017. He deposed that he had moved an application before the court for TIP of the accused, however, the accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. The said PW recorded the supplementary statement of victim Rahul and filed the chargesheet in the present case Ex PW 5/A.
10. Lastly, PW-6 was ASI Ran Singh who was the IO in the present case and who deposed on similar lines as PW-4 and also deposed with respect to the investigation carried out by him in the present case. Through him, site plan was exhibited as Ex.PW 6/A, tehrir was exhibited as Ex. PW 6/B, notice u/s 133 M.V. Act was exhibited as Ex PW 6/C and police bail of accused was exhibited as Ex.PW 6/E.
11. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, PW at serial no. 2, Dr. Moin, PW at serial no.8 , DO/ASI Gangaveer, PW at serial no. 3, Sh. Puran Chand (mechanical inspection expert) and PW at serial no. 6, Sh. Dheeraj More, Ld. M.M, as per list of prosecution witnesses were dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with.
State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.5 / 2112. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, P.E was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
13. Statement of the accused u/s 281 Cr.P.C read with Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him. The accused controverted and denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that the accident in question did not occur due to any fault of his. Accused further opted to not lead evidence in his defence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
14. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence u/s 279/338 IPC has been proved beyond doubt.
15. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no evidence against him showing his liability in the present case and thus, he is entitled to be acquitted in the present case. It has also been argued that there are material contradictions State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.6 / 21 and lacunae/inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution, specially as regards the site plan prepared by the IO, due to which the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
16. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and accused have been heard. The evidence and documents on record have been carefully perused.
17. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. Accused Vijay Singh has been indicted for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC. Section 279 IPC provides punishment 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; and section 338 IPC provides punishment for causing grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others. To drive home the guilt of the accused under section 279/338 IPC in road accident cases, following ingredients are required to be proved:- a). That the accused was the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time when the accident occurred. b). That the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. c). That grievous hurt to the victim was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries suffered by way of rash and negligent driving of the State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.7 / 21 accused. It must be causa causans - the immediate cause, and not enough that it may be causa sine qua non - proximate cause. (Ref. Suleman Rahiman Mulam v. State of Maharasthra AIR 1968 SC 829; Ambalal D Bhatt v State of Gujarat AIR 1972 SC 1150).
18. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that the main ingredient upon which the said offences hinge upon is that the act of the accused should be done in a rash or negligent manner. These words "Rash" and "Negligent" have not been defined in the IPC. However, the meaning of the said terms have been exhaustively delineated by way of various judicial pronouncements. In Empress v. Idu Beg, (1881) ILR 3 All 776, Straight, J. made the following pertinent observations which have been quoted with approval by various Courts, including the Apex Court:
"Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence 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".
Similarly, in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam vs State Of Andhra Pradesh (2000 SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has inter alia held the following:
State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.8 / 21"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."
Again, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rathnashalvan vs State Of Karnataka (2007 SC) that:
"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 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."
19. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.9 / 21 is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal.
20. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it may be noted at the every outset, that the entire case of prosecution hinges upon the testimony of PW2, that is the victim himself, who deposed that on 18.01.2017, he was going on a bike bearing registration number DL9Z5075 to his college, Amity School of Engineering and Technology, from his home. That when he reached a little ahead of Kapashera red light, one RTV, coming from the wrong side, from the direction of Bijwasan, at a high speed, hit his bike from the front, due to which the said PW fell down and sustained injuries. He also correctly identified the photographs of the offending vehicle, i.e., the RTV bearing registration no. DL 1VA 9362, Ex. PW1/E, and also identified the accused as the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. The said witness had deposed during his cross examination that after the accident had occurred, he had seen the registration number of the offending vehicle and had also seen the accused come out of the offending vehicle from the driver's seat. No cross examination was conducted on behalf of the accused to challenge this factum of identification of accused by the victim in court during trial. Also, the accused had, during the course of investigation, refused to join the TIP proceedings, thus attracting adverse inference against him on this aspect. Further, in order to establish the identity of the accused as being the person who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of the incident, prosecution examined one Roshni Devi, i.e., the State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.10 / 21 registered owner of the offending vehicle, as PW1, who deposed that at the time of incident, the vehicle was being driven by the accused and also correctly identified the accused in the court and the photographs of the offending vehicle. Now, from perusal of the testimony of the various prosecution witnesses as well as the overall defence taken by the accused in the present matter, including at the time of recording of statement of accused under section 281 read with section 313 of Cr.P.C., it can be conclusively said that a collision had taken place between the two vehicles in question. Furthermore, even the registered owner of the vehicle, that is, PW 1 Roshni Devi, was not cross- examined on behalf of the accused and accused was correctly identified by the victim in the court, thus fortifying the fact that he was the driver of the offending RTV at the relevant time. Moving on, it is not disputed that the victim had suffered the injury in question owing to the accident in question. In fact, accused had admitted the MLC number 7474 of the victim, Ex.P/A/3, his X-Ray report, Ex.P/A/4 and the discharge summary of the victim pertaining to Yash Roop Hospital, Ex.P/A/5. Even otherwise, during the entire course of evidence, the aforesaid facts have not even been once denied on behalf of the accused. Thus, the facts that the accident in question had occurred between the two vehicles in question; that the accused was the driver of the offending RTV at the relevant time; and that, the victim had sustained grievous injury on account of the accident in question can be said to be uncontroverted and established facts.
State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.11 / 2121. In such a scenario, where the fact, that the accident had occurred resulting in grievous injury to victim, as alleged, and that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time, has been proved, the following issue remains to be determined:
(i) Whether the said accident was caused by a rash and negligent act, attributable to the accused by virtue of his being the driver of the offending vehicle / RTV at the relevant time.
22. To establish the aforesaid fact, the main witness whose testimony is relevant in this regard is that of Rahul Yadav, i.e., the victim / complainant, who was the sole eye witness to the accident in question. The circumstances in which the accident is purported to have occurred, were delineated by the said witness during his testimony, wherein, he deposed that on 18.01.2017, he was going on a bike bearing registration number DL9Z5075 to his college, Amity School of Engineering and Technology, from his home. That when he reached a little ahead of Kapashera red light, one RTV, coming from the wrong side, from the direction of Bijwasan, at a high speed, hit his bike from the front, due to which the said PW fell down and sustained injuries. He also deposed that blood started oozing from his face and hands and after sometime, he became unconscious and was taken to the Indian Spinal Injuries Centre. Now this account given by PW2 is in consonance with the overall case of the prosecution as regards the manner in which the accident had occurred. The main State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.12 / 21 allegations bringing out the essential ingredient of rash and negligent driving by the accused are to the effect that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the wrong side of the road at a high speed. Though, this court is conscious of the fact that driving at high speed alone is not sufficient to attract the culpability of the accused for the alleged offence, however, driving at a high speed on the wrong side of road, in the opinion of this court, can certainly be said to fall within the purview of a rash and negligent act. On this aspect, this court draws strength from Rule 17 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which prohibits driving on wrong side on a designated road, and is reproduced as follows:
17. One way traffic.- A driver shall not-
i. drive a motor vehicle on road declared 'One Way' except in the direction specified by sign boards;
ii. drive a vehicle in a reverse direction into a road designed 'One Way'.
23. PW2, during his testimony deposed that the offending vehicle/RTV was coming from Bijwasan side, which statement additionally corroborates the fact that the offending vehicle was being driven on the wrong side of the road. This contention is, in fact, fortified from the site plan prepared by the IO. A careful perusal of the site plan, Ex. PW6/A, shows that the IO has depicted the offending vehicle, RTV, at point 'A' on the site plan, where, it can be clearly seen to be facing in the direction opposite to the direction in which the flow of traffic on State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.13 / 21 the said road is depicted. Furthermore, it is also apparent from the site plan that the route in question is divided into two roads, with a divider in between, and the direction of flow of traffic on the road on which the vehicles were found in an accidental condition, is clearly depicted to be from Kapashera to Najafgarh/Bijwasan. Now the offending vehicle/RTV can be seen on the road which goes towards Bijwasan/Najafgarh from Kapashera and the face/front portion of the offending vehicle/RTV is clearly depicted to be in the direction away from the direction in which the traffic is supposed to move on the said road. All this goes on to show that the offending vehicle was indeed being driven on the wrong side of the road in question. The fact that the same was also driven at a high speed only further accentuates the act of rashness and negligence at the end of the accused. In fact, the accused being a driver by profession ought to have been aware of this basic rule of traffic/driving on the correct side of the road. Additionally, as per the mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle/vehicle of the victim, EX.P/A/6 (colly), the headlight and the cover, the numberplate, the shockers, the handle, the right side indicator and petrol tank from the left side, were all found to have sustained fresh damage. Also, as per the mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle/vehicle of the victim, EX.P/A/6 (colly), the front bumper, the support guard, front mirror and the headlight and indicator from the right side, were found to be freshly damaged. During the course of trial, the accused had admitted the genuineness of the mechanical inspection report of both vehicles. The description of the damage sustained by both the vehicles also State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.14 / 21 suggests a head on collision between the vehicles in question, thus appending a corroborative value to the version of the complainant and the prosecution case, altogether.
24. Now, the testimony of the victim/PW2 has remained unrebutted and unshaken on the aforesaid material particulars. The Ld. counsel for the accused has primarily addressed arguments in defence, on two fronts. Firstly, it was argued that in his examination in chief dated 15.11.2018, the victim appearing as PW2, omitted to mention the factum of rash and negligent driving by the accused, but, in his examination dated 20.02.2019, he improved his earlier version by stating that the accused was driving the offending RTV in a rash and negligent manner. At the very outset, it is imperative to note that the examination- in-chief of PW2 was not complete on 15.11.2018, and the same was deferred for want of photographs of the motorcycle. PW2 was further examined in chief on 20.02.2019, wherein the said witness commented on the rash and negligent driving of the accused as a concluding remark in his examination in chief. The same, in the opinion of this court, cannot be said to constitute an omission/improvement, per se, let alone the same being a material one. Even otherwise, an all together omission on part of the victim/eyewitness to state that offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, does anything but shatter the case of the prosecution. It is trite law that it is not the opinion of the witness as regards the rash and negligent driving of the accused which is significant, but what is essential is the depiction of the manner in which the offending vehicle was being State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.15 / 21 driven [reliance placed on Kishore Chand Joshi Vs. State (2018 Delhi HC)].
25. The second argument presented on behalf of the accused by the Ld. counsel for the accused is to the effect that the version of the prosecution as regards the wrong side driving of the offending vehicle by the accused is not in consonance with the site plan repaired by the IO. It was stated by the Ld. counsel for the accused that, on one hand, PW2/victim deposed that the RTV was coming from the wrong side, from side of Bijwasan at a high speed. However, in the site plan, Bijwasan is shown to be situated on the same side as the location of Kapashera, and in such a scenario, if the version of PW2 was to be relied upon, then the RTV can be said to be moving in the same direction in which the traffic on the said road was actually supposed to flow, thus, implying that the RTV was being driven in right direction. However, this argument raised on behalf of the accused is not tenable as the site plan is quite vivid in its description of directions in which the road in question goes. Careful perusal of the site plan shows that the IO, having marked the cardinal/compass directions on the site plan, stated in the note below the map that in the said site plan, one road runs from east to west direction, going from Kapashera to Najafgarh/ Bijwasan and on this road, in front of Modi Farms, mark 'A' is that spot where offending vehicle/RTV, coming from the opposite direction, was found in accidental condition and mark B is that spot on the site plan, where the vehicle/motorcycle of the victim was found in accidental condition, facing the RTV in question.
State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.16 / 21Not only this, but the IO has also clearly depicted with the help of arrows that the road on which the vehicles in question were found in an accidental condition, goes towards Bijwasan/Najafgarh, which is also evident from the fact that the other road (i.e., the road on the other side of the divider, diving the two roads) is shown to be going towards Kapashera. Furthermore, both these roads, that is, the road going towards Bijwasan and the other road going towards Kapashera, are shown to be divided with the help of a divider in between, which makes it amply clear that the road on which the vehicles in question were found in accident spot was a one-way route from Kapashera towards Bijwasan/Najafgarh, with the road on the other side of the divider being the route towards Kapashera. The aforesaid portrayal of the route in question on the site plan, the depiction of the condition in which the vehicles in question were found in an accidental condition at the marked points on the site plan, and the description given in the notes towards the bottom of the site plan, in the opinion of this court, leaves no room for doubt as regards the direction in which the offending vehicle was moving. No evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the accused as would suggest the state of affairs being otherwise, than what has been depicted in the site plan by the IO. At this juncture, it is imperative to note that this court is cognizant of the fact that the site plan has not been prepared by the IO at the instance of the complainant. However, the same, in the opinion of this court is not an irregularity as such, in light of the given facts and circumstances, as the same depicts the state of affairs as witnessed by the IO when he had reached at the spot, soon after State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.17 / 21 he received the DD entry regarding the occurrence of the accident in question. In such a scenario, the site plan can be said to have been prepared by the IO based on his own view of the accidental spot and the condition of the vehicles in question at that point, and not based on the version of the complainant. The IO was duly cross-examined on the aspect of lack of arrows showing the directions of the RTV and the motorcycle in the site plan, which fact was however, sufficiently explained by the IO during his testimony, when viewed in conjunction with the site plan. Even otherwise, it is a settled law that defective / improper investigation by the investigating agency is solely not a ground for acquittal as it would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designed to be defective [reliance placed on Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P. (1995 SC) and Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh (2003 SC)].
26. Additionally, it has also been argued by the Ld. counsel for the accused that there are certain inconsistencies/lacunae in the version of the prosecution witnesses, for instance, no public person was made witness in the case or was joined by the IO during investigation; and that, the victim failed to remember whether there was a divider on the road near the spot, and the same casts doubt upon the case of prosecution. However, the same in the opinion of this court are barely material if viewed in the backdrop of the otherwise strong and coherent case of the prosecution. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 601] that, State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.18 / 21 "normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so."
As far as the suggestion put forth by the Ld counsel on behalf of accused regarding non examination of public witness by the IO is concerned, it would be apposite to the reiterate the settled legal position that non-joining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and another V. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC
696. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following in Manjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab ( 2019 SC):
"13.2. Likewise, the submission about want of independent witnesses in support of prosecution case is also baseless. There is no rule that in every criminal case, the testimony of an injured eye-witness needs corroboration from the so-called independent witness(es). When the statement of injured eye-witness is found trustworthy and reliable, the conviction on that basis could always be recorded, of course, having regard to all the facts and surrounding factors. In the present case, the reliable evidence of the injured eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely for the reason that no independent witness was examined."
27. Apart from the above, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the accident in question occurred as the bike of the victim slipped owing to his own negligence and that the State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.19 / 21 offending vehicle was not at fault. However, there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest the said fact. In fact, as noted earlier, even the damage reported to have been sustained by the two vehicles, as per their mechanical inspection reports, corroborates the manner of accident as depicted by the victim/prosecution. The testimony of the victim/ PW2 has stood the vigorous test of cross examination and has remained steadfast on all material particulars. Not only this, it is the consistent testimony of all the PWs that the offending vehicle/RTV was coming from the wrong side, from Bijwasan. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner and has thus, proved all the ingredients constituting an offence u/s 279/338 IPC, alleged against the accused.
28. In the present case, in the opinion of this court, no such material contradictions / inconsistencies appear to have surfaced during testimony of the prosecution witnesses, as would impeach the credibility of version of prosecution and prove fatal to its case. The court has no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who have corroborated each other in all material aspects. The testimony of the victim in particular has remained untarnished and impeached. The contentions raised on behalf of the accused neither singularly nor holistically, shroud any doubt upon the version of the prosecution. As per the MLC, the injury sustained by the victim has been opined to be State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.20 / 21 grievous in nature, thus, attracting the culpability of the accused for offence u/s 338 IPC as well. Further, once the case of the prosecution had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it was incumbent upon the accused to rebut the same, which the accused has failed to do. The aforementioned leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has been able to duly prove its case against the accused, for offence punishable under sections 279/338 IPC, beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this court hereby, holds accused Vijay Singh guilty for commission of offence u/s 279/338 IPC.
29. In light of the aforesaid discussion, accused Vijay Singh is convicted for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC, alleged against him. Convict be heard separately on quantum of sentence.
30. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Announced in open court on 28.07.2022, in presence of accused. APOORVA Digitally signed by APOORVA RANA RANA Date: 2022.07.28 18:10:55 +05'30' (APOORVA RANA) M.M-10/Dwarka Courts/28.07.2022 It is certified that this judgment contains 21 pages, all signed by the undersigned.
APOORVA Digitally signed by
APOORVA RANA
RANA Date: 2022.07.28
18:11:09 +05'30'
(APOORVA RANA)
M.M-10/Dwarka Courts/28.07.2022
State Vs. Vijay Singh Page Nos.21 / 21