Delhi District Court
State vs . Krishan on 20 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL PAHUJA, MM-04,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. KRISHAN
FIR NO. 280/11
PS: RANHOLA
U/S: 279/304-A IPC &
u/s 3/181 MV Act
JUDGMENT
Case no. : 61283/16
Date of commission of offence : 25.12.2011
Date of institution of the case : 08.10.2012
Name of the complainant : Sh. Pappan
Name of accused and address : Krishan s/o Sh. Ram Ashish
Yadav, r/o RJ-143B, Narsingh
Garden, Khyala, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 279/304-A IPC & u/s 3/181
MV Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date on which reserved for judgment : 20.09.2018
Date of announcing of judgment : 20.09.2018
******************************************************************************************************************************* BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of accused Krishan pursuant to charge sheet filed by PS Ranhola U/s 279/304-A IPC & u/s 3/181 MV Act FIR No. 280/11, PS Ranhola Page 1/8 subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 280/11.
2. As per the prosecution, on 25.12.2011 at about 06.40 AM at Balaji Chowk, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, accused was driving a truck bearing no. HR-55A-7901 on the public way in rash and negligent manner.
While driving so, he hit his truck against a cyclist namely Ram Dayal and caused his death. Accused was found driving truck without holding a valid driving license. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable U/s 279/304-A IPC & u/s 3/181 MV Act.
3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, notice for offence punishable under section 279/304-A IPC & u/s 3/181 MV Act was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial the accused pleaded guilty for the commission of offence punishable u/s 3/181 MV Act and was convicted accordingly.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4. The prosecution in support of present case has examined ten witnesses in total.
5. PW1 Smt. Indirawati identified the dead body of her deceased husband vide identification statement Ex. PW1/A. PW1 was not cross-examined on behalf of accused.
6. PW2 Sh. Pappan who is the complainant in the present case deposed that on 24.12.2011 at 06.40 AM, he was waiting for passenger at Auto Stand Balaji Chowk along with his TSR bearing no. 0593. It is further FIR No. 280/11, PS Ranhola Page 2/8 stated that in the meanwhile one truck bearing registration no. HR-55A- 7901 came from the side of Pipal Chowk, Mohan Garden in rash and negligent manner and struck against one cyclist who was coming from his front side. It is further stated that the cyclist fallen down and due to the accident blood oozed out from his head. It is further stated that the aforementioned truck was stopped and the driver was apprehended. It is stated that the name of the accused was disclosed as Krishan and this witness correctly identified the accused before the court during trial. It is further stated that the cyclist died on the spot and PW2 made a PCR call at 100 number. It is further stated that one Suraj reached at the spot and identified the dead body stating that he was his father and the name of the cyclist was Ram Dayal. It is further stated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of accused. PW2 filed the complaint to the police Ex. PW2/A and accused was handed over to the police. PW2 exhibited on record the photographs as Ex. P1 to P5. PW2 was cross- examined on behalf of accused.
7. PW2 ASI Ranvir Singh was the Duty Officer, who exhibited on record the computerized copy of the FIR as Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW2/B. PW2 was not cross-examined on behalf of accused.
8. PW5 Sh. Tasnumuddin Siddiqui exhibited on record the mechanical inspection reports of Cycle make Atlas and truck make Eicher bearing no. HR-55A-7901 prepared by him as Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B respectively. PW5 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
9. PW6 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, Incharge Mortuary, SGM Hospital exhibited on record postmortem report of deceased namely Ram Dayal as Ex. PW6/A. This witness also identified his signatures and signatures of Dr. Munish Wadhwan at point A and B respectively. PW6 was cross-examined FIR No. 280/11, PS Ranhola Page 3/8 on behalf of accused.
10. PW7 Ct. Sandeep stated that on 25.12.2011 he received a telephonic message from the then duty officer regarding an accident and PW7 was directed to visit Balaji Chowk, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar. It is stated that on that PW7 immediately went to the spot where SI Rajpal met him and handed over to him tehrir for registration of FIR. PW7 accordingly went to the PS and after registration of FIR came back to the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR along with original rukka to SI Rajpal. PW7 was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
11. PW8 SI Rajpal was the IO of the case, who deposed qua the manner and his involvement in the investigation. This witness relied upon several documents which are already exhibited on record in the testimony of PW2, PW4, PW5 and PW6. In addition to the said documents this witness also exhibited on record rukka/tehrir as Ex. PW8/A, seizure memo of bicycle as Ex. PW8/B & seizure memo of truck as Ex. PW8/C, registration certificate of the offending vehicle as Ex. PW8/D, notice served upon the accused for production of documents as Ex. PW8/E, statement of Suraj is Ex. PW8/F. This witness correctly identified the photographs of accidental bicycle as Ex. P1 to P4 and photographs of offending vehicle as Ex. P5 (Colly). PW8 witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused. PW4 Ct. Narender deposed on the same lines as that of this witness. PW4 exhibited on record the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B respectively. PW4 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
12. PW9 Sh. Mool Chand is the registered owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR55A7901 exhibited on record the superdarinama executed in respect of the said vehicle as Ex. PW9/A. PW9 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
FIR No. 280/11, PS Ranhola Page 4/813. PW10 ASI Durga Prasad was the Duty Officer, who exhibited on record the DD entry no. 8A regarding accident at Balaji Chowk, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar as Ex. PW10/A. PW10 was not cross-examined on behalf of accused.
14. No other witness was left to be examined, hence PE was closed vide order dated 27.08.2018.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C :
15. Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him to which he pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter as the said accident was not caused by him and he was on his side and was driving in a very low speed because the said road was not in a good condition and suddenly some persons stopped his vehicle and called the police. Thereafter, he came to know that the said accident had taken place that is why they caught him, although the said accident was not caused by his vehicle. It is further stated that the witnesses have deposed falsely at the instance of IO because the accident took place on the other side and his vehicle was on the other side of the road. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS:
16. Ld. APP for state has argued that on a combined reading of prosecution witnesses testimony, offence U/s 279 & 304-A are proved beyond doubt.
FIR No. 280/11, PS Ranhola Page 5/817. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused. It is argued that no cogent evidence has been led on record to prove the negligence on the part of the accused. It is argued that PW2 i.e. the complainant is a planted witness as he was not at the spot at the time of accident. Arguing further Ld. counsel submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt due to tainted testimony of PWs, hence accused is entitled to be acquitted.
FINDINGS:
18. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused have been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully.
19. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Accused is indicted for the offences U/s 279/304-A IPC. Section 279 IPC punishable 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. Section 304 A IPC provides punishment for causing death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.
20. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has to prove three aspects. Firstly that accused Krishan was driving the offending truck bearing no. HR-55A-7901 on 25.12.2011 at about 06.40 AM at Balaji Chowk, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Secondly the said offending vehicle was being driven by the accused in rash or negligent manner causing the accident in question. Thirdly due to said accident victim Sh. Ram Dayal scummed to his injuries.
FIR No. 280/11, PS Ranhola Page 6/821. After appreciating the evidence and going through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses this Court finds the accused not guilty for any offence charged herein and he deserves acquittal for the following reasons:-
22. The star witness of the prosecution i.e. PW2 Sh. Pappan is the only eye witness alleged to have witnessed the accident. There are some material discrepancies in the testimony of PW-2 that creates strong doubt on his being eye witness to the incident. Firstly, PW-2 Pappan stated that the offending vehicle was riding on the left side of the road and the bicycle rider was riding on the left side of the road. In view of this statement of PW2 Pappan it cannot be culled out that the offending vehicle struck against the cycle which was coming from front as they both were going on their side of road. Secondly, PW-2 has not stated in his examination in chief as to in what manner the driving of the accused was rash and negligent. So, merely stating that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner does not prove the rashness or negligence. Thirdly, and most importantly PW2 Pappan in his cross examination stated to be present at point X as per site plan Ex. PW2/D and according to him the offending vehicle was coming from point Y and the cyclist was coming from point Z so bare perusal of the site plan reflects that this witness has not occasion to see the manner of the driving of the accused. On the contrary, as per the site plan cyclist is shown to be coming from the direction from a road where the witness PW2 Pappan was standing. The statement of PW2 Pappan is contrary to the site plan.
23. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the FIR No. 280/11, PS Ranhola Page 7/8 prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution. Also, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to be acquitted.
24. In view of the observations given above and the evidence led on record, this Court is of the view that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving by the accused. The testimony of star witness PW2 Pappan does not inspire confidence due to material discrepancies. No other independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. The offences charged against the accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence coming on record entitles the accused for the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the accused namely Krishan S/o Sh. Ram Ashish Yadav is hereby acquitted of charges punishable u/s 279/304A IPC in the present case.
25. Requirements of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. have been complied with. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed VISHAL by VISHAL
PAHUJA
PAHUJA Date: 2018.09.20
16:35:03 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA)
COURT ON 20.09.2018 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 08 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL PAHUJA
PAHUJA Date: 2018.09.20
16:35:10 +0530
(VISHAL PAHUJA)
MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
FIR No. 280/11, PS Ranhola Page 8/8