Delhi District Court
State vs . Moti Nagar 1/7 on 7 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Dinesh Kumar
FIR No. 137/13
PS Moti Nagar
U/s 279/304-A IPC
JUDGMENT
Sr. No. of the case : 469/2/14
Unique case ID No. : 02401R0352622014
Date of Institution : 25.07.2014
Date of Commission of Offence : 25.04.2013
Name of the complainant : ASI Surat Singh
Name & address of the accused : Dinesh Kumar
S/o Murat Thakur
R/o H.No.8/158, Mehram Nagar
New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 279/304-A IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 07.03.2015
Date of announcing of judgment : 07.03.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/304-A IPC.
FIR No. 137/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 1/7
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 25.04.2013 at about 10:52 PM on road towards Moti Nagar to Raja Garden near Red Light, Delhi, the accused Dinesh Kumar was found driving vehicle (Taxi) bearing registration no.DL-1T-6042 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in such a manner, he hit against motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-4SAR-4430 and caused death of motorcyclist Kuldeep Singh S/o Late Sh. Prabhujeet Singh. FIR
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 137/2013 under section 279/304-A IPC was lodged at Police Station Moti Nagar.
CHARGE
4. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 279/304-A IPC was framed against accused Dinesh Kumar to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 10.11.2014.
6. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 10 witnesses of which PW Shyam Lal is the only eye witness of the accident as PW Indermohan is the witnesses of identification of the dead body and PW Harjeet Kaur is the superdar of victim motorcycle. Sh. Devender Kumar is the Mechanical Inspector. Remaining are police witnesses, who reached the spot after receiving the DD entry and others are the doctors. Thus the only relevant witness to prove rashness and negligence on the part of the accused is Sh. Shyam Lal. FIR No. 137/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 2/7
7. Prosecution has examined only one witness i.e (1) Shyam Lal.
8. PW1 Shyam Lal deposed that on 25.04.2013 at about 10:45 PM, he was coming from the side of Moti Nagar and he was going towards Rajouri Garden. When he reached at Raja Garden Chowk, he saw that one person was lying on the road in accidental condition. Public persons were gathered on the spot. It is stated that he also saw that one motorcycle was also standing at the spot. Somebody called the police at 100 number. PCR van came at the spot and took the injured to DDU hospital for medical examination/treatment. It is stated that the said victim was badly injured and could not able to move himself. Thereafter, this witness informed the relatives of the injured as injured told them his address which was near to the house of this witness. It is stated that thereafter on 06.05.2013, he visited PS Moti Nagar. IO seized one Ambassador car bearing no. DL-1T-6042 in his presence vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. It is stated that accused driver namely Dinesh Thakur @ Dinesh Kumar was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B. This witness correctly identified three photographs of above said seized vehicle as Ex.P1 (collectively).
9. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP after taking permission from the court. During cross examination by Ld. APP, it is stated by him that on 25.04.2013 when he reached at the spot, public persons were gathered and they were telling that one car taxi Ambassador black colour bearing no. DL-1T-6042 hit one motorcycle bearing no.DL-4SR-4430 from behind and in consequence of that, the driver of the said motorcycle fell down and sustained injuries in his head and legs. He denied the suggestion that he had himself seen the above said accident and he is not deposing the true facts as he has been won over by the FIR No. 137/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 3/7 accused driver namely Dinesh Thakur. He further denied the suggestion that he had himself seen the accused Dinesh Thakur on the spot who was driving the said Ambassador taxi/car. He denied the suggestion that thereafter on 06.05.2013, when he visited the PS Moti Nagar, the said accused driver namely Dinesh Thakur was present in the PS and he correctly identified him in the PS and thereafter, IO arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B. He denied the suggestion that he is not identifying the accused as he has been won over by the accused.
10.PW1 Shyam Lal is the only eye witness of the accident in the present case, however, he has totally turned hostile and has denied that he had seen the accident. He also failed to identify the accused as the offender. Despite cross- examination by Ld. APP for State, his testimony remained unrebutted, in fact in his cross-examination, he specifically stated that public persons have told him that one Ambassador taxi had hit one motorcycle from behind, he denied that he had seen the accident. As the only eye witness Shyam Lal has turned hostile and denied the entire prosecution story, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the present case was a result of an act of accused and that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing no.DL-1T-6042 which was being driven by the accused Dinesh Kumar in a rash and negligent manner. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences U/s 279/304-A IPC. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled FIR No. 137/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 4/7 "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs". reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "In case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". Hence vide a separate order, PE was closed.
11.In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression.
Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts.
FIR No. 137/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 5/7
12.It has been held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
13.In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/304-A IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused. Recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is also dispensed with.
Final Order
14.The essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 Indian Penal Code are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. For an offence under Section 304-A, the act of accused must be rash and negligent, which should be responsible for the death which does not amount to culpable homicide.
15.The prosecution in the present case has failed to prove how the act of the accused was rash or negligent to bring the same under the purview of Sections 279/304-A Indian Penal Code. As the only eye witness Shyam Lal has turned hostile, hence, it can never be proved that the accident in question was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the accused which is an essential ingredient for offence U/s 279/304-A IPC. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under s.258 of Cr.P.C to stop FIR No. 137/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 6/7 the proceedings against accused Dinesh Kumar qua offences u/s 279/304-A IPC and hereby releases the accused Dinesh Kumar under sections 279/304-A IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal as the material witness i.e. Shyam Lal has been examined.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 07.03.2015 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 7 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 137/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 7/7