Delhi District Court
Ca No. 61/05 1 Satpal vs State on 14 May, 2007
CA No. 61/05 1 Satpal Vs State
IN THE COURT OF SH VINOD KUMAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No.61/05
Satpal S/o Chhotu Ram
R/o 583, Munirka,
RK Puram N. Delhi APPELLANT
Vs
STATE RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal against the judgment dt. 5.11.05 and order on sentence dt. 25.11.05 passed by Sh Brijesh Garg, Ld Metropolitan Magistrate New Delhi in case no 1218/2, FIR no 448/93 police station Ambedkar Nagar vide which the appellant was convicted U/s 279/304-A IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine in the sum of Rs 500/- U/S 279 IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine in the sum of Rs 1000/- U/S 304-A IPC.
Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 8.11.93, at 12.20 pm near shop No. 5, Khan Market, MB road, appellant was driving tempo no DDL-5440 make Tata 408 and struck against a cyclist Pappu and caused grievous CA No. 61/05 2 Satpal Vs State injuries to pillion rider Girdhari which resulted in the death of Girdhari. Later on during the trial, it was found that Pappu, the pillion rider of the cyclist had also expired but it is not clear whether he expired due to the present accident or due to some other reason.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in all twelve witnesses. PW1 Braham Pal Vashisht is the only eye witness. Although this witness could not identify the accused, however, he narrated how the accident taken place. PW5 Chhotu Ram the owner of the offending vehicle has stated that accused was driving the vehicle on the said date. His testimony has not been challenged by the appellant. Accordingly, there is no doubt about the identity of the accused. Now, the sole question before this court is as to whether accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner or not. Ld counsel for appellant has assailed the findings of Ld Metropolitan Magistrate on this point which are as under:
This witness was crossexamined by the Ld APP and in his crossexamination, this witness has admitted that the accused was driving the tempo at a fast speed and the accident has taken place due to negligence and fault of the driver of the tempo. Counsel for the accused has preferred not to crossexamine this witness and therefore, the testimony of this witness has remained unrebutted and unchallenged and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that PW1 Dr Braham Pal Pandey has established on record beyond a shadow of doubt that the accused was driving the offending tempo in a rash or negligent manner.
I have carefully perused the testimony of PW1 Braham Pal Vashisht. In crossexamination by Ld APP, he CA No. 61/05 3 Satpal Vs State testified as under:
I could not see whether the front part of the said tempo hit with the said cycle. I cannot say whether the tempo no. was DDL 5440. I could not see the driver of the said tempo so I cannot recognise him. It is correct that the said tempo was in a fast speed. I could not see whether the on injured was dragged with the tyre of the said tempo. It is correct that said accident has taken place due to negligence and fault on the part of the said driver on the said tempo.
I am of the opinion that even if this witness has stated that the accident had taken place due to negligence of tempo driver, still it was the duty of the prosecution to prove as to in what manner the accident had taken place. Simply stating that tempo was being driven in fast speed or that appellant was driving the vehicle in a negligent manner and he was at fault is not sufficient. In the entire testimony it is not stated by the witness as to which part of the tempo hit the said cyclist. It is not on record as to whether the road was crowded or not. It is also not testified by the witness as to what was the approximate speed of the vehicle. The prosecution always shoulders onerous responsibility to prove case case beyond reasonable doubt. It was duty of prosecution to ask appropriate question to bring out on record as to in what manner the accident took place. The sole eye witness namely Braham Pal in his examination has simply stated that tempo hit the cycle and both the persons fell down with their cycle and sustained injuries. In crossexamination also he has not been able to explain as to in what manner the accident took place. In fact, he testified that he could not see as to whether the front part of the said CA No. 61/05 4 Satpal Vs State tempo hit the cycle. Therefore, it is clear that by examining PW1, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that as to whether the applicant was rash or negligent in driving the tempo. Possibility of a pure accident in the present case cannot be ruled out. I, therefore, give benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit him. Bail bond surety bond cancelled.
Copy of the judgment alongwith trial court record be returned back to the trial court. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
on 14.2.07 VINOD KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
NEW DELHI.