Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramashish on 17 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK KUMARII, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 68/12
PS. Dwarka North
U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act
State Vs. Ramashish
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. no. of the case : 421963/2016
B. Date of institution : 09.07.2012
C. Date of offence : 07.04.2012
D. Name of the complainant : SI Sunil Kumar
E. Name of the accused : Ramashish S/o Sh. Jagdish
F. Offence complained of : u/s 279/337 IPC and u/s 3
read with 181 MV Act
G. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
H. Final order : Convicted
I. Date of such order : 17.03.2018
Brief statement of reasons for decision
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution and as culled out from chargesheet are that on 07.04.2012 at about 10:40 FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 1/16 PM, at Red Light, Sector16B, Near Police Complex, Dwarka, New Delhi the accused herein was found driving his offending vehicle i.e. Tata 407 truck bearing registration no. HR55H4931 in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others. It has further been alleged that while driving the offending vehicle in aforesaid manner, he hit the same against the Government Vehilce i.e. police Gypsy bearing registration No. DL1CJ0311 which was being driven by Ct. Lakhmi Chand and due to the said impact, Ct. Kuldeep and HC Nawab Singh sustained simple injuries. It has also been alleged that on the aforesaid date and time of accident the accused was driving his vehilce without a valid driving license. On the basis of the complaint given by SI Sunil Kumar, the instant FIR under section 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Dwarka North, New Delhi. Accused was apprehended at the spot. During the course of investigation, the doctors opined to the nature of the injuries sustained by Ct. Kuldeep and HC Nawab Singh as simple in nature. On conclusion of investigation, the chargesheet under sections 279/337IPC r/w sections 3/181 of the MV Act was filed in the court.
2. Accused was summoned by the court for facing trial for the aforesaid offences. In compliance of Section 207 CrPC, the copy of the chargesheet and the documents annexed with it were supplied to the accused. Prima facie charge for the offences punishable under section 279/337 IPC r/w sections 3/181 of the MV Act was made out against the accused. Accordingly, on 08.04.2013 the Ld. Predecessor of this court framed FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 2/16 the charge against the accused, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. PW1 HC Nawab Singh deposed that on 07.04.2012 he was posted as HC at PS Chhawla and on the day of accident he alongwith SI Sunil Kumar, Ct. Kuldeep and driver Ct. Laxmi had gone to Nangal Rai, Sagarpur for investigation in case FIR No. 84/12 under section 302/34 IPC in a Government Gypsy bearing no. DL1CJ311; after investigation when they were coming back to PS Chhawla via Sector16, Dwarka then at about 10:40 PM when their Gypsy reached near Police Complex Red Light, Sector16, Dwarka a Tata 407 truck came from their right side in rash and negligent manner and at high speed and their Gypsy due to the impact turned turtle; he sustained injuries and became unconscious and regained consciousness in the hospital. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he deposed that he had seen the accused before getting unconscious. The witness correctly identified the accsued as the driver of the offending vehicle and deposed that the number of the offending vehilce was HR55H4931; the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The witness correctly identified the offending vehicle and the spot in the photographs already Ex.PW2/1(colly). In his cross examination the witness deposed that the accident took place exactly in the middle of the red light and their Gypsy was hit from the right side; he received some minor injuries due to the accident; when they crossed the spot there was no signal FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 3/16 however, orange light blink at that time.
4. PW2 Lakhmi Chand deposed on the lines of PW1 and he also deposed that the vehicle a Tata Truck bearing no. HR55H4931 came from their right side in zig zag and rash and negligent manner in high speed and hit their Gypsy due to which it turned turtle; HC Nawab Singh and Kuldeep Singh sustained injuries; He and SI Sunil somehow came out of hte Gypsy and apprehended the driver of the offending truck whose name was disclosed as Ramashish; the witness correctly identified the accused; PCR van which was parked at some distance from the accident spot came and took HC Nawab Singh and Kuldeep Singh to the hospital; IO came to the spot to whom accused Ramashish was handed over; IO recorded the statement of SI Sunil and registered a FIR; this witness also proved the arrest memo of accsued Ramashish as Ex.PW2/A. In his further examination in chief the identity of the offending vehicle was not disputed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and the offending vehilce was exhibited as Ex.P1. Witness also correctly identified the photograph of the spot and the vehicle as Ex.PW2/1 (colly).
5. In his cross examination the witness deposed that SI Sunil had told him to drive the vehicle in a slow speed prior to the accident. Witness denied that he was driving the vehicle in high speed or during the red light or that he caused accident with the offending vehicle.
6. PW3 Kuldeep Yadav, also deposed on the lines of PW1 and FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 4/16 PW2. The witness also deposed that one Tata 407 truck bearing number HR 55H4931 was being driven by its driver in a zig zag manner and came from their right side and hit their Gypsy; thereafter he became unconscious and regained his consciousness at Ayushman Hospital; he had not seen the accused before loosing his consciousness. The identity of the offending vehicle was not disputed by the accused. The witness correctly identified the photographs of Tata 407 truck as Ex.P1 and of Gypsy as Ex.P2 in the photographs Ex.PW2/1 (colly). The witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he deposed that his statement was not recorded in the present case; The truck was coming in a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner; SI Sunil had signalled the truck to stop; however the driver of the truck namely Ramashish did not stop and hit against their Gypsy; because of the impact their Gypsy turned turtle and he and HC Nawab received injuries. This witness could not identify the accused.
7. In his cross examination PW3 deposed that accident took place at the red light of law university and police colony; the signal of their side was green; the accident took place before crossing the red light; he had seen the Tata 407 truck i.e. the offending vehicle before the accident took place; at that time there were no vehicles ahead or behind the said Tata 407; witness denied the suggestion that on seeing the police vehicle the accused had slowed down the speed of his vehicle, however as police Gypsy was being driven in a high speed therefore the accident took place.
FIR No. 68/12PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 5/16
8. PW4 HC Karam Chand proved the FIR as Ex.PW4/A (OSR), endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW4/B. Nothing material came on record during the cross examination of this witness.
9. PW5 Puran Chand deposed that on 09.04.2012 he conducted the medical inspection of two vehicles i.e. one police Gypsy bearing no. DL1CJ 0311 and one Tata 407 bearing number no. HR55H4931; he proved his inspection reports as Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B respectively. The witness was not cross examined by the defence despite opportunity being afforded to them.
10. PW6 SI Sunil Kumar deposed on the lines of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and he also deposed that at the time of accident red signal was given to the abovesaid truck and green signal to their vehicle; the said truck jumped the red light prior to hitting them and suddenly hit their vehicle; at the time of incident he was signalling to said truck to stop by showing his hand and was also alarming his driver for stopping the vehicle; the offending truck dragged their Gypsy upto the divider situated to the next end of the road; he and Ct. Lakhmi Chand did not sustained any injury and HC Nawab and HC Kuldeep sustained injury; near the spot one PCR was also parked and they brought Ct. Kuldeep and HC Nawab Singh to Ayushman Hospital; in the meanwhile he alongwith Ct. Lakhmi Chand caught the driver of the offending truck whose name was later on revealed as Ramashish; the witness correctly identified the accused; IO/SI Pritpal Singh alongwith Ct. Sunil came to the spot and FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 6/16 accused was handed over by him to IO; he proved his statement recorded by IO as Ex.PW6/A and site plan as Ex.PW6/B. The witness correctly identified the photographs of the offending vehicle and the same were already Ex.PW2/1 (colly). The identity of the offending vehicle was also not disputed by the defence counsel and the same are Ex.PW6/1. During the cross examination of this witness nothing material came on record.
11. PW7 Retd. SI Pritpal Singh deposed majorly about the investigation conducted by him and that he received the MLC No. 2642/12 and 2643/12; he proved the rukka as Ex.PW7/A, seizure memo of permit and insurance of the offending vehicle as Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C respectively, seizure memo of police Gypsy as Ex.PW7/D, seizure memo of the diriving license of driver of Gypsy as Ex.PW7/E . He also deposed that accsued was also arrested by him vide arrest memo already Ex.PW2/A and he got both the vehicles mechanically inspected. Accused was correctly identified by this witness in the court.
12. In his crossexamination witness deposed that traffic signal at the spot of the accident is red light traffic signal and not a blinker; at the time of accident the vehicle of victims was not going to attend any urgent call; he did not took the log book of the vehicle of victim; as per his investigation the accused was in a hurrry due to which the incident occured; the offending vehicle hit the back right portion from the side of the victim's vehicle and therefore, he concluded that accused was in a hurry and was rushing through FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 7/16 the road intersection without waiting for the victim's vehicle to pass.
13. PW8 Ct. Sunil Kumar deposed that majorly on the lines of PW7. He correctly identified the accused, offending vehicle and the police Gypsy. In his cross examination the witness deposed that accused Ramashish was present at the spot. However, he was not injured.
14. PW9 ASI Surender Singh deposed that MLC result of the injured Sunil Kumar, Nawab Singh and Kuldeep were obtained by him; he interrogated accused Ramashish in respect of the driving license however, he was not able to produce the same, therefore, the section 3 read with 181 of the MV Act was added in the chargesheet. The witness was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity being afforded to them.
15. On 10.05.2016, accused in his statement recorded under section 294 read with 313 and 281 CrPC admitted the genuineness of the MLC of injured namely Kuldeep and Nawab Singh both dated 07.04.2012 as Ex.P/A/1 and Ex.P/A/2 respectively. On 11.07.2017 accused admitted the genuineness of DD No. 35A dated 07.04.2012 under section 294 Cr.P.C as Ex.P/A/3.
16. Statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded on 23.08.2017. In the said statement all the incriminating evidence against the accused were put to him seeking his explanation. He stated that he was driving his vehicle properly and the light was green. The police Gypsy had jumped the red light and it came in front of his vehicle. The head light of the FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 8/16 police Gypsy was off. The accused also stated that he gave driving license to the police at the spot and he also stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused opted to lead evidence in his defence and accordingly examined one witness.
17. DW1 Kaushalender Singh Yadav deposed that on 07.04.2012 i.e. the day of accident, he alongwith other labourers and with the driver of the truck namely Ramashsih were coming in the aforesaid truck from Dwarka and were going towards Gurugram; when they reached near Sector16, Dwarka Red Light the driver of the truck stopped his vehicle as it was red light; they started moving as the light turned green; in the meanwhile one police Gypsy which was trying to catch some one came and hit their truck from the right side; they raised alarm and thereafter they started threatening them and gave beatings; they were made to ran away from the spot and accused Ramashish was apprehended from there; the accident occured due to the negligence of the driver of the police Gypsy. In his cross examination the witness deposed the speed of their truck was 1020 Kilometeres per hour; he and Ramashish were alone in the said truck i.e. offending vehicle. Thereafter the matter was listed for final arguments.
18. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused. I have also carefully perused the case file.
19. The cardinal principle of criminal law is that the accused is FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 9/16 presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt of the accused exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
20. In the present case, prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 279/337 IPC and section 3 read with 181 of the MV Act that:
(i) accused was driving his vehicle on a public way;
(ii) Simple hurt to any person must have been caused;
(iii) it must have been caused by rash or negligent act/driving of the accused; and
(iv) the accused must have been driving his vehicle without a vaild driving license;
21. To impose criminal liability under this section it is necessary that the simple hurt should have been the direct result of a rash or negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. Culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that the mischievous and the illegal consequence may follow but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent its happening. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution required of him, and that if he had he would FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 10/16 have had the consciousness. Rash or negligent act is an act done not intentionally or designedly. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act, and is thus opposed to a deliberate act, but it also includes an act which, though it may be said to be deliberate yet done without due deliberation and caution. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is the genus of which rashness is a species. In order that rashness or negligence may be criminal it must be of such a degree as to amount to taking hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely to be caused thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk or doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences.
22. In the case in hand, the accused has been duly identified by the PW1, PW2, PW6 namely HC Nawab Singh, Ct. Lakhmi Chand and SI Sunil Kumar respectively. It is pertinent to mention here that all the aforesaid PWs were present at the spot and were travelling in the vehicle which had met with the accident with the offending vehicle. Further, the accused in his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC has also admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle and that the accident took place involving his vehicle. The said fact also gets corobarated from the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW6 and DW1. In view of the testimony of the aforesaid PWs and DW regarding the identity of the accused which has been duly corroborated, hence, there is no FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 11/16 doubt regarding identity of the accused. In the similar manner identity of the offending vehicle i.e. Tata 407 truck bearing No. HR55S4931 has also been established beyond any reasonable doubt and the accused has also not disputed the identity of offending vehicle. Besides that, the accused has also admitted the MLC of the injured persons Kuldeep and Nawab Singh as Ex.P/A/1 and Ex.P/A/2 respectively. Accused has also admitted the DD No. 35A as Ex.P/A/3. Therefore, in view of the same, it is convincingly established from the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6 and the medical documents that the injuries sustained by injured persons namely Ct. Kuldeep and HC Nawab Singh were caused to them due to the accident in question. In view of the above discussion, not only the identity of the accused and identity of the offending vehicle but also the fact that the injured persons namely Ct. Kuldeep and HC Nawab Singh sustained simple injuries in the accident as alleged by the prosecution, have been duly established beyond any shadow of doubt. Further, the accident took place at Red Light, Sector16B, Near Police Complex Dwarka, New Delhi and the same is admittedly a public way.
23. Thus, the only point of contention in the instant case is whether the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash or negligent manner or not. In that regard four eyewitnesses have been examined by the prosecution which are namely PW1 HC Kuldeep Singh, PW2 Ct. Lakhmi Chand, PW3 Ct. Kuldeep Yadav and PW6 SI Sunil Kumar. PW1 has testified that "a truck Tata 407 came from our right side in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and hit against our Gypsy due to which our Gypsy turtled down. I FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 12/16 sustained injury and became unconscious". PW2 Ct. Lakhmi Chand deposed that "a Tata truck bearing no. HR55H4931 came from our right side in a zig zag way and in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and hit against our Gypsy just back to the driver seat due to which our Gypsy turned turtle and ended up side ways resting with the driver side". PW3 Ct. Kuldeep Yadav deposed that "one Tata 407 bearing no. HR55H4931 which was being driven by its driver in a zig zag manner came from our right side and strucked agaisnt our Gypsy". PW6 SI Sunil Kumar deposed that "I saw that one truck bearing no. HR55H4931 came from our right side at that time. The said truck was driving at a high speed and hit to our Gypsy due to which our Gypsy turned turtle. At that time red light signal was given to the abvoesaid truck and green signal was given to our vehicle. The said truck jumped the red light prior to hitting us and suddenly hit our vehicle. At the time of incident I was signaling to said truck for stopping the truck from showing my hand and I also alarming to my driver for stopping the vehicle. Thereafter, the said offending truck dragged our Gypsy upto divider situated to the next end of the road". It is crystal clear from the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6 that offending vehicle Tata 407 truck was being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and further from the testimony of PW6 it is also clear that accused had jumped the red light prior to hitting their vehicle and that the offending truck dragged their Gypsy upto the divider also points towards that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
FIR No. 68/12PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 13/16
24. Accused has taken the defence during his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC that the police Gypsy had jumped the red light and the signal for his vehicle was green and therefore police Gypsy came in front of his vehicle and the head lights of the Gypsy were also not working. Whereas the DW1 Kaushalender Singh Yadav in his testimony had deposed that one police Gypsy which was trying to catch someone came, and hit their truck from the right side. The stand taken by the accused in his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC is opposite to the question which were put to the PWs during their cross examination and that the accused has completely changed his line of defence which does not inspire confidence. It is highly improbable that a smaller vehicle hitting a bigger vehicle would turn turtle, whereas the probability of a smaller vehicle being hit by a bigger vehicle and turning turtle are quite high. It is also pertinent to mention here that DW1 appears to be an interested and tutored witness and his testimony does not inspires confidence and therefore is unworthy of credit as the same is evident from the contradictions occuring in his testimony e.g. in his examination in chief the said DW deposed that he alongwith other labourers and the driver of the truck were coming from Dwarka and were going towards Gurgoan. It is trite to mention here that in his cross examination conducted on the same day the said witness deposed that he and Ramashish alone were inside the said truck. A reasonable man ought to have been more circumspect and cautious in driving his vehicle while crossing a traffic intersection. However, in the present case, the accused culpably omitted to take the aforesaid requisite precaution and drove his vehicle in haphazard FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 14/16 and in rash and negligent manner. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6 regarding the rash and negligent act of the accused. The injuries sustained by Ct. Kuldeep and HC Nawab Singh in the accident clearly manifests that the accused failed to take due deliberation and caution. The manner in which the accident took place and the harrowing consequences that followed it, can lead to only one inescapable inference that the accused was culpably rash and negligent. Moreover, the legal maxim "res ipsa loquitor" i.e. the things speaks for themselves further fortifies the allegations of the prosecution regarding the rash and negligent act of the accused. It has also come on record in the testimony of PW6 SI Sunil Kumar that the offending truck dragged their Gypsy upto the divider situated to the next end of the road. The accident could not have resulted in the injuries sustained by the victims, had the accused would have taken sufficient precautions that were expected and required from him as a reasonable and prudent man confronted with the same situation. Hence, his act of driving is duly established to be criminally rash and negligent.
25. PW9 ASI Surender Singh had also deposed that accused was not able to produce a vaild driving license for which section 3/181 of the M.V Act was added in the chargesheet. As on date accused has not produced any vaild driving licence being possessed by him on the date of accident.
26. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has proved all FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 15/16 the essential ingredients of offences punishable under sections 279/337 IPC and section 3 read with 181 of the MV Act beyond any reasonable doubt by leading convincing and clinching evidence against the accused. Hence, the accused Ramashish is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under section 279/337 IPC and section 3 read with 181 of the M.V Act. Put up on 09.04.2018 for arguments on quantum of sentence.
PRONOUNCED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT.
(DEEPAK KUMAR II) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 06 DWARKA COURTS: DELHI 17.03.2018 FIR No. 68/12 PS. Dwarka North U/s.279/337 IPC r/w 3/181 MV Act State Vs. Ramashsish No. 421963/2016 Page No. 16/16