Delhi District Court
State vs Sapna Kediya on 28 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 5853/2022
FIR No. : 238/2020
Police Station : Saket
Section(s) : 279/337/338 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
Sapna Kedia
W/o Sh. Bijendra Kumar
R/o A59, Ground Floor
NFC, New Delhi .... Accused
1.Name of Complainant : Sh. Yashpal 2. Name of Accused : Sapna Kedia 3. Offence complained of or proved : 279/337/338 IPC 4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty 5. Date of commission of offence : 13.06.2020 6. Date of Filing of case : 27.08.2022 7. Date of Reserving Order : 19.04.2025 8. Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 9. Final Order : Convicted Argued by - Ld. APP for the State. Ld. Counsel for the accused. State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 1 of 17
"The effects of our actions may be postponed, but they are never lost"
Lao Tzu Prosecution has brought on record unambiguous evidence that the accused driving the offending vehicle rashly, and negligently, led to the alleged incident. Accused tried to plug loopholes in the case of prosecution, but could not do so. She stands convicted, accordingly.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. Succinctly stated, it is the case of prosecution that on 13.06.2020, at about 05:15 pm, at Shivalik Market, Sector 1, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Saket, the accused was found driving car bearing registration no. DL4CBA2639 on the wrong side, and in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. It is further the case of prosecution that while driving the above mentioned vehicle in above said manner, she hit the motorcycle of the complainant namely Yashpal, which resulted in simple injury to him, and grievous injury to the pillion rider, Sh. Pawan Singh. Thus, it is alleged that she committed offences punishable u/s 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Cognizance was taken, and accused was summoned to face trial. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, charge was framed against her under Section 279/337/338 IPC, State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 2 of 17 to which she pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of PE.
3. In support of its version, prosecution has examined four witnesses.
PW Name of PW Nature of Testimony
PW1 Sh. Yashpal Complainant/injured
PW2 Sh. Pawan Injured
PW3 SI Hariman IO
PW4 W/Ct. Parul Formal witness
4. Accused admitted, as per Section 294 CrPC, the genuineness of:
1 Endorsement by DO Ex A1 2 The subject FIR Ex A2 3 Certificate U/S 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex A3 4 Mechanical Inspection Report of vehicle bearing no.
Ex A4 DL-3SDD-0252 5 Mechanical Inspection Report of vehicle bearing no.
Ex A5 DL-4CBA-2639 (offending vehicle) 6 MLC No. 6743/2020 of injured Yashpal Ex A6 7 MLC No. 6744/2020 of injured Pawan Singh Ex A7 4.1 In view of the above said admission, rest of the prosecution witnesses, all formal in nature, were dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined. PE was closed thereafter.
5. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statement of accused was recorded under Section 281/313 CrPC, wherein she claimed State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 3 of 17 to be innocent and denied the allegations levelled against her. She stated that she had seen the injured lying on the road, and had taken them to the hospital, with a view to help them. She stated that she was not involved in any accident. Accused opted not to lead any DE in the affirmative.
6. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of final arguments. Arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
7. Before proceeding further, it shall be apposite to note the provisions of law germane for the adjudication of present proceedings :
Section 279 IPC - Rash driving or riding on a public way -
Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt to injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 337 IPC - Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal saferty of others -
Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 338 IPC - Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others -
Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 4 of 17
8. Liability for the aforesaid offences can be affixed upon the accused only if the prosecution is able to prove he was "rash or negligent" when driving the offending vehicle, which resulted in the accident. In Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam vs State Of Andhra Pradesh (2000) 7 SCC 72, the scope of the terms "rashness or negligence" was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India thus, "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."
9. With the above in mind, the facts of the case shall be adverted to. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had to establish -
(i) That the accident took place on a public way.
(ii) That the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.
(iii) That in the accident that took place, injured Yashpal sustained simple injuries, and injured Pawan sustained grievous injuries.
(iv) That the accident took place because of the 'rashness or negligence' of the driver of the offending vehicle.
State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 5 of 17
(v) That the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at the relevant time.
10. It is not the case of the accused that she was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Rather, as culled out from her defence, as evident from her cross examination of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, and also her statement recorded u/s 313/281 CrPC, she has admitted that she was indeed driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Further, accused has not controverted the case of the prosecution to the extent that the accident occurred on a public way. Also, the accused has not controverted the case of the prosecution that in the accident that occurred, two victims sustained injury. In fact, the MLC of both the victims, Yashpal S/o Sh Jeet Singh, Ex A6 and Pawan Singh S/o Sh. Hukum Singh, Ex A7 have been admitted by the accused to be correct. As such, ingredients no. (i), (iii) & (v) stand satisfied in the present case.
11. Now, the defence taken by the accused is that her vehicle was not involved in the accident, and the prosecution evidence shall now be examined to ascertain if it has been able to prove against the accused that her vehicle was involved in the accident, and that the accident took place due to her rash and negligent driving.
12. The testimonies of the two injured forms the fulcrum of the case of prosecution. It is seen that the testimonies of both the injured, PW1 Yashpal and PW2 Pawan, are in tandem with each other, and do not deviate with the other's testimony in any material manner.
State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 6 of 17
13. PW1 Yashpal testified that on 13.06.2020, at about 05:15 PM, when he along with his friend Pawan Singh was going towards Max Hospital, Saket, they decided to stop at the market close to Mother Dairy, Pushp Vihar, Saket, to buy some snacks. He testified that when they were buying the snacks as aforesaid, one person who was driving a car bearing no. DL4CBA2639, of the make Verna, which was white in colour, came towards them, being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He deposed that a head on collision took place between the offending vehicle and their bike, because of which both of them fell down on the road, and sustained injuries. He testified that many people then gathered around the spot, and the driver of the car disembarked from her vehicle and said that because she was picking her bag from the backside of the car, she lost control over the vehicle, resulting in the accident. PW1 testified that the accused, with the help of another public person present at the spot, took him as well as the co-injured to the hospital. He testified that thereafter, his bike was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex PW1/C. He also testified that he gave a complaint to the IO, which is Ex PW1/A, on the basis of which the subject FIR was registered on 28.06.2020. He testified that the IO had prepared the site plan Ex PW1/B at his instance, which bears his signatures at point A thereof. He stated that thereafter, the accused was arrested on 17.08.2020 vide arrest memo Ex PW1/D in his presence. He also deposed that the photographs of his motorcycle which was involved in the accident are Ex P1 (Colly), and also identified the offending vehicle from the photographs Ex P2 (Colly).
14. On similar lines, PW2 Pawan testified that he was going towards State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 7 of 17 Max Hospital with his friend Yashpal on a bike of the make 'Hero Honda Splendor' to visit one of his relatives. He testified that both of them wanted to buy some fruits and accordingly, they had parked their vehicle at the side of the road. He testified that their vehicle was still not even turned off when they noticed that the accused was driving her car towards them at an extremely fast speed, and in a rash manner. He stated that the car was coming from the direction that they were facing. He stated that when the car hit their motorcycle, injured Yashpal was hit from the front side of the car and fell towards its rear, and he got stuck between the motorcycle as well as the offending car. He further testified that the accused tried to flee from the spot, but one of the tires of her car had burst during the incident. He further testified that then the accused herself sought the help of some wayfarer and in the said wayfarer's car, both he as well as injured Yashpal were shifted to the hospital. He also testified that the photographs Ex P2 (Colly) are of the offending vehicle, and the photographs Ex P1 (Colly) are those of the motorcycle involved in the accident.
15. Both the witnesses have categorically identified the offending vehicle, as well as the accused as the driver thereof.
16. The MLCs of both the accused revealed that they had sustained injuries on their legs/lower parts of their bodies at the time of accident. Since it is not the case of the prosecution that they had received any head injury, which would have made them unconscious, their identification of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the offending vehicle itself cannot be doubted. Furthermore, it is the story of the State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 8 of 17 prosecution, as culled out from the testimonies of the two witnesses, that the accident occurred because of a head on collision between the two vehicles, and it is not the case of prosecution that some vehicle had hit the vehicle of the injured from behind because of which they could not have identified the offending vehicle or the driver thereof. To this extent, case of prosecution has not been controverted by the accused. Thirdly, the accused has nowhere suggested to the two witnesses that there was any prior enmity between them. As such, there appears to be no reason why the injured would falsely implicate the accused in the case, while letting the real culprit go scot free. As they are stamped witnesses, their testimonies assume greater credence. For all the these reasons, the version of prosecution that it was the accused who had who was driving the offending vehicle and her vehicle was involved in the accident stands established. Accused could not dent the prosecution version in any manner. It is the case of the accused that her vehicle was never involved in the accident, and to establish this defence, the photographs of the accidental vehicle were shown to both PW1 and PW2, who admitted that from the photographs Ex P2 (Colly), no damage to the offending vehicle is reflected. However, when the seizure memo of the offending vehicle Ex PW3/B is seen, it is clear that the same was seized on 17.08.2020 i.e. nearly two months after the date of the accident. When the said document is read in conjunction with the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, Ex A5, which has been admitted by the accused to be correct, and which states that the offending vehicle had been recently repaired before its mechanical inspection, it becomes amply clear that the photographs Ex P2 (Colly) do not show any damage on the offending vehicle because the accused had got State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 9 of 17 the vehicle repaired much before the same was seized. Defence raised by accused that since no damage is visible on the body of the offending vehicle, it means it was no involved in the accident, is set at a naught.
17. It is seen that the accused suggested to PW1 that he had not given his statement to the IO in a timely manner as some discussion for settlement was going on between him and the accused. Similarly, it was asked to PW2 if he can specify anything qua talks of settlement that had taken place between the accused and his father after the accident. Implicit in both these suggestions is the admission of the accused that she had tried to attempt a settlement with the injured after the accident. If the accused had indeed not been involved in the accident at the relevant time, there was no occasion for her to so try to settle the matter. This further fortifies the case of the prosecution. Ingredient no. (ii) also stands satisfied.
18. Now, it shall be examined if the prosecution has also been able to prove that the cause of accident was the rash and negligent driving of the accused. From the testimony of PW1 and PW2, it is clear that a head on collision had taken place between the two vehicles. From the site plan Ex PW1/B, it is clear that it is the case of prosecution that when the accused had stopped their vehicle, they were facing towards the same direction as of the road itself, and were on the correct side thereof. Further, perusal of the site plan makes it clear that it is the accused who had come towards the wrong side of the road, and had hit a stationary vehicle. The site plan was assailed by the accused, and ld. counsel argued that the same cannot be relied upon, in as much as the same does not show any mother dairy booth State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 10 of 17 etc. While this objection is correct, and reflects a lapse on the part of the IO, the same does not indicate that the site plan as filed is completely incorrect. This is especially so as not even a suggestion was put to any of the two witnesses that they were not standing on the right side of the road when the accident took place. Both PW1 and PW2 have testified that the accident took place when the accused drove towards them and head on collided with their vehicle, which proves that accident took place as the offending vehicle was being driven on the wrong side of the road. The account of PW2 is even more eidetic in as much as he described how after the vehicle struck them, injured Yashpal got hit by the vehicle from the front side, and he got stuck between the offending vehicle as well as his own motorcycle. He also explained that the accused tried to then flee from the spot, but could not do so as the tire of her car had burst. The fact that the car tire had burst at the time of the accident, and the nature of the accident as described by PW2, itself speaks of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, that is the accused. It can be inferred that the unduly high speed of the car, or the fact that it suddenly came to a halt, would have resulted in the tyre bursting. From this circumstance, and the manner in which the incident unfolded, negligence of accused is found to be writ large in facts of case. Testimonies of PW1 and PW2 to the extent that the offending vehicle was being driven negligently, and regarding the manner in which the accident took place, has not been assailed by the accused in any credible manner. As such, the fact that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused also stands established. The last ingredient also stands established.
19. IO of the case also supported the prosecution version. IO/PW3 SI State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 11 of 17 Hariman testified that on 13.06.2020, he was posted as ASI at PS Saket. He testified that a PCR call was received regarding an accident at Shivalik Market, Sector 1 Pushp Vihar, New Delhi, whereupon, he reached the spot and found that the accidental vehicle i.e. the motorcycle bearing no. DL3SDD0252, Splendor black color, and the offending car bearing registration no. DL4CB2639 were present at the spot. He testified that the injured was removed to the hospital vide DD no. 77A. He testified that when he reached Max Hospital, he conducted due inquiry, but the injured sought some time for giving a complaint by saying that he was considering settling the case with the accused. He testified that he then recorded the statement of injured Yashpal at his home, being Ex P W1/A, whereupon he prepared the rukka, Ex PW3/A, on the basis of which the subject FIR was registered. He testified then that he then went to the spot with the complainant/injured Yashpal, and at his instance prepared the site plan, Ex PW1/B. He testified that he had seized the accidental vehicle during the investigation vide seizure memo Ex PW1/C, and also seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex PW3/B. He testified that he also served a notice u/s 133 MV Act to the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Ajay Kumar Kedia, being Ex PW3/C and PW3/D, and then arrested accused Sapna Kedia vide arrest memo Ex PW1/D. The witness correctly identified the vehicle of the victim as well as the offending vehicle from photographs Ex P1 and P2 (Colly). From the testimony of the witness, it is clear that there was some delay in the registration of the FIR, but that is attributable to the fact that the accused and the complainant were trying to settle the dispute inter-se. As already noted, the tenor of the cross examination of the accused also discloses that she had attempted such settlement with the State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 12 of 17 complainant before the registration of the FIR incident. In this context, the IO cannot be faulted with for not immediately seizing the offending vehicle as well as the vehicle of the victim. A suggestion was put even to this witness that neither of the vehicles show any accidental marks. The said suggestion was accepted as correct by the witness, who stated that the photographs do not reflect any accidental marks because they were obtained at the time of the release of the vehicles on superdari. As already discussed in the foregoing portions of this judgment, there was a considerable delay in the seizure of the offending vehicle, but the mechanical inspection report, which is an admitted document, shows that the vehicle had been recently repaired, and since there is no other explanation available on record, this court is impelled to raise an inference that the offending vehicle itself was the one that was involved in the accident. In his cross examination, the IO further admitted as correct the suggestion that the site plan was prepared on the instructions of injured / PW Yashpal. No contrary suggestion was put to the witness. The witness then admitted that the mother dairy booth and market near the spot of the incident do not find reflection in the site plan. Again, at the cost of reiteration, the site plan certainly is inaccurate to some extent, in as much as it does not show all the site details, but it does correctly show the position of the road and the direction in which the traffic was flowing on the road at the relevant time, and to that extent, the site plan has not been impugned by the accused either. Therefore, only for reason of lack of complete accuracy in the site plan, the same cannot be rejected, where it reflects some details of site correctly. Question regarding the knowledge of this witness regarding any settlement talk between the parties was put to State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 13 of 17 the witness as well, which again shows that the accused had attempted to settle the matter with the complainant / injured persons, and it can reasonably be inferred that the accused would not have tried to do so if she was not involved in the accident.
20. Certainly, from the testimony of the IO, it can be culled out that a lot of public witnesses could have been joined to the investigation. The vendor from where the injured persons were purportedly buying certain articles when the accident took place or the owner / person present at mother dairy booth etc., could have been joined to the investigation and examined. Failure of the IO to so join public witnesses to the investigation dents the prosecution case, but in view of the fact that both the injured have themselves given an eidetic account of the accident as it occurred, and the accused has not been able to discredit their testimony in any credible manner, the failure of the IO to conduct proper investigation is not fatal to the case of prosecution. The accused cannot be given any benefit of the lack in the investigation conducted by the IO. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment title Dhanaj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920, an accused cannot be acquitted on the sole ground of defective investigation, and to do so would be playing into the hands of the IO whose investigation was defective by design. Again, it was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paramjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 441 that mere defective investigation cannot vitiate the trial. In view of the conspectus of these judgments, the accused cannot stand to benefit by reason of defective investigation done by the IO.
State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 14 of 17
21. PW4 Ct. Parul testified that on 17.08.2020, she was posted as Constable at PS Saket, and she had accompanied IO SI Hariman to Pushp Vihar Market at about 05.00 PM where they met accused Sapna Kedia who was arrested vide arrest memo, Ex PW1/D. She further testified that the accused was then released on police bail. In her cross examination, she admitted that she never visited Max Hospital, Saket, regarding the present case. While her testimony does not add anything incriminatory against the accused on record, it certainly provides the link evidence to the prosecution case.
22. Scrutiny of the statement of accused Sapna Kedia u/s 313 CrPC also reveals that the same also supports the prosecution version. In her statement, she stated that she was driving past the alleged spot of the incident when she heard a very loud noise. She has stated that she saw that a motorcycle had fallen and two people had sustained injuries. She further stated that although she does not know why the motorcycle had fallen, she stopped to help the injured, and she got another car passing through the spot to stop, and with the help of this driver of the said car, she shifted the injured to the hospital. In her statement, she admitted her presence at the spot, the fact that she was driving the offending vehicle, and failed to explain as to why if she wanted to help the injured, she did not directly take them to the hospital in her own vehicle, but instead chose to leave her vehicle behind, and sought the help of another car passing through the area. Further, in her statement, she stated that her brother used to negotiate with the injured, again implying that she was trying to settle the matter with the injured, in implying that she had indeed caused the accident. It is trite that State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 15 of 17 statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 CrPC can be looked into. Reliance at this juncture can be placed on Md. Aslam vs State, CRL. A. No. 214/2016, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (DOD 25.04.2016), wherein it was held as under:
"6.47 Answers given in statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. have also some relevance. Though, such statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence since it is not recorded on oath nor it is subjected to any cross examination, yet such statement can, be taken into consideration, at the trial, against the accused for the purpose of arriving at the guilt or otherwise of the accused. Since no oath is administered to the accused, the statements made by the accused will not be, strictly speaking, evidence. Sub-section (3) also says that the accused shall not render himself liable to punishment if he give false answer. But, then comes sub-section (4), which provides that answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. Thus, the answers given by the accused, in response to his examination, under Section 313, can be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading of the above sub-section. Therefore, though not strictly construed as evidence, sub-section (4) permits that it may be taken into consideration in the said inquiry or trial. However, such self- incriminating statement indicting co-accused cannot be said to be sufficient in itself. The court can rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty but such statement should not be considered in isolation but always in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution. Reference be made to SANATAN NASKER VS. STATE OF BENGAL AIR 2010 SC 3570."
Further, in N.V. Subba Rao vs. State, through Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, 2013 (2) SCC 162, it was held as under:
"44. Finally, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for A-1 that the statement or answers to the questions under Section 313 of the Code cannot be the basis for conviction of the accused. We have already noted that the prosecution has not only relied on the answers given by the accused but also placed acceptable oral and documentary evidence on record to substantiate the charge. We hold that the statement under State vs. Sapna Kedia FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 16 of 17 Section 313 of the Code can be a relevant consideration for the courts to examine, particularly, when the prosecution has been able to establish the chain of events."
23. The statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC, as described, is consistent with the conclusion reached at by this Court qua the guilt of the accused.
24. In view of the above discussion, accused Sapna Kedia W/o Sh. Bijendra Kumar is convicted for the offences punishable u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
25. Copy of the judgment be provided to the convict free of cost. Let she be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Digitally
Pronounced in open Court on signed by
28.04.2025 in the presence Medha Medha Arya
Date:
of accused. Arya 2025.04.28
16:26:00
+0530
(Medha Arya)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
28.04.2025
State vs. Sapna Kedia
FIR No. 238/2020, PS: Saket Page 17 of 17