Delhi District Court
State vs . Mayank on 18 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS TANYA BAMNIYAL METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. MAYANK
FIR No. 471/17
U/s : 279/337 IPC and 3/181 MV Act
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of Institution : 13.02.2018
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 22.10.2019
Date of judgment : 18.11.2019
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 471/17
2. Date of the Commission : 16.12.2017
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : Mayank,
: S/o Sh. Ravinder,
: R/o H.No. 459/215,
: Bholi Nagar,
: Masjid Moth,
: South Extension PartII,
: New Delhi.
4.Name of the complainant : Ms. Tanya Tyagi,
: D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
: R/o H. No. 62C/9,
: Ratan Garden,
: Old Railway road,
: Gurgaon.
5.Offence complained of : 279/337 IPC and 3/181 MV Act
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Convicted for the offences alleged.
FIR No. 471/17 State Vs. Mayank 1/7
BRIEF FACTS:
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 16.12.2017 at about 2.30 pm near Gate no. 1 Metro Station, Malviya Nagar, within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar accused Mayank was driving a vehicle i.e. make Hyundai Grand i10 bearing no. DL 12 CL 4687 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 279 of I.P.C. It is further alleged that on the aforesaid date, time and place while driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner accused hit a pedestrian i.e. the complainant Ms. Tanya Tyagi due to which she fell down and sustained simple injuries and thus he committed an offence punishable under section 337 IPC. It is further alleged that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused was driving the vehicle without having valid driving license and thereby accused committed an offence punishable under section 3/181 Motor Vehicles Act.
2. On the basis of the said facts and on the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 471/17 under section 279/337 IPC and 3/181 MV Act was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, chargesheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 13.02.2018.
4. On the basis of the allegations in the chargesheet and documents annexed thereto, a notice for the offences punishable under section 279/337 IPC and Section 3/181 MV Act was framed against the accused on 07.07.2018 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS :
5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses.
FIR No. 471/17 State Vs. Mayank 2/7 (a) PW1 was Sh. T.U. Siddiqui who inspected the Hundai Magna i20 car
(silver coloured) bearing registration no. DL12CL4687. He exhibited his report as Ex. PW1/A.
(b) PW2 was complainant/injured Ms. Tanya Tyagi who deposed about the alleged incident. She exhibited her statement/complaint as Ex. PW2/A and the photographs of the offending vehicle as Ex.P1 (colly).
(c) PW3 was Ct. Karampal who went to the spot on the day of incident alongwith driver Ct Anil.
(d) PW4 was HC Kavinder Kumar who accompanied the IO to the spot.
(e) PW5 was the Senior Consultant from Rainbow Children's Hospital namely Dr. SK. Sinha who examined the patient Ms Tanya Tyagi and prepared her MLC bearing No. 0001/274 dated 16.12.2017 Ex. PW5/A and opined the nature of injury as simple.
(e) PW6 was the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case namely ASI Anil Kumar. He exhibited the rukka as Ex. PW6/A.
6. The accused admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C. the FIR registered in the present case which was exhibited as Ex. X1 on 07.07.2018.
7. Prosecution evidence was closed on 01.08.2019. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused (SA) under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 23.09.2019. Accused sought to lead defence evidence.
8. Accused examined himself as DW1 U/s 315 Cr.PC and vide separate statement of accused, DE was closed on 15.10.2019.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
9. It was argued by ld. APP for the State that there is no malafide intention of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused and accused was driving in rash and negligent manner consequent to which victim also sustained injuries thus the FIR No. 471/17 State Vs. Mayank 3/7 prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused be convicted for the charges levelled against him.
10. Per contra it was argued by ld counsel for the accused that the accident did not take place due to rash or negligent driving of the accused and victim sustained only simple injuries due to her own fault as she was wearing earphones while crossing the road and also not walking on the footpath thereby herself being negligent. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
11. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.12.2017 at about 2.30 pm near Gate no. 1 Metro Station, Malviya Nagar, within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar accused Mayank was driving a vehicle i.e. make Hyundai Grand i10 bearing no. DL 12 CL 4687 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 279 of I.P.C. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the aforesaid date, time and place while driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner accused hit a pedestrian i.e. the complainant Ms. Tanya Tyagi due to which she fell down and sustained simple injuries and thus he committed an offence punishable under section 337 IPC. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused was driving the vehicle without having valid driving license and thereby accused committed an offence punishable under section 3/181 Motor Vehicles Act.
12. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses to prove its case. PW1 Sh. T.U. Siddiqui, Mechanical Inspector deposed that he inspected the vehicle of the accused i.e. Hyundai Grand i10 silver colour bearing no. DL 12 CL 4687 and gave his report regarding the same Ex. PW1/A which describe the damage on the vehicle as fresh damages and the point of impact as accidental impact on the front FIR No. 471/17 State Vs. Mayank 4/7 left side of the aforesaid vehicle. There is no reason to disbelieve testimony of PW1 and thus it is proved that the vehicle of the accused had fresh damages due to alleged accident.
13. The prosecution also examined star witness PW2 Ms. Tanya Tyagi who deposed about the incident and was also cross examined, however nothing could be elicited from the victim/injured which could discredit the case of the prosecution. She stuck to her stand also correctly identified the accused and the vehicle with which the alleged accident was caused i.e. the car of the accused.
14. PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 are formal witnesses and the accused could not shake the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses through crossexamination.
15. PW5 i.e. Dr. SK. Sinha proved the injuries sustained by the injured as mentioned in MLC report bearing no. 0001/274 dated 16.12.2017 Ex. PW5/A.
16. Further no contradiction or improvements are found in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and all the prosecution witnesses also stood the test of crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel whereas there are contradictions in the version of the accused. It was admitted by the accused during crossexamination on 15.10.2019 that at the time of the incident he was not having a permanent driving license. He himself volunteered that he had a learner's driving license at that time.
17. The accused during examination in chief also stated that the complainant was coming from opposite side and was not walking on the footpath. It was also deposed by the accused that the complainant was also walking with her earphones on. The accused admitted that his car hit the complainant due to which she fell down on the road and sustained injuries and was not able to stand properly.
18. However the accused introduced a completely new version in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC by stating that the accident took place due to one auto which took the left turn and there was one bike in front of the auto thus in order to FIR No. 471/17 State Vs. Mayank 5/7 save the auto and bike he slowed down his vehicle and took the slight left turn wherein the complainant was coming from opposite direction and was not walking on the footpath.
19. To invite the wrath of the law under Section 279 IPC it is to be proved by the prosecution that the offender was
(a) Driving the vehicle and
(b) Such driving must be so rash and negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
20. In the present case in hand the accused has admitted that he was driving the vehicle without a permanent license. It is also admitted by him that his car had hit the complainant however it is his defence that the incident took place due to the negligence of the complainant.
21. It is settled that a rash act is primarily over hasty act and is thus opposed to a deliberate act, in rashness, the criminality lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness or indifference to consequences for attracting the offences U/s 279 IPC, the rashness or negligence attributable to the accused must be criminal rashness or negligence.
22. It is true that the section does not require an element of mens rea for getting involved therein. What is essentially required is the utter callousness or recklessness or the indifferent or unmindful attitude towards consequences.
23. In the present case in hand it is himself admitted by the accused that he was not having a permanent license and possessed only leaner's license at the time of the incident. It is not unknown that there are certain precautions which needs to be taken by the learner's licensee while driving which are as under: * The learner's license holder should get training under the supervision of a permanent driving license holder.
* The learner license holder has to display symbolL in a Red colour that should be visible from a distance.
FIR No. 471/17 State Vs. Mayank 6/7
24. Thus it is incumbent upon the learner licensee to paste or paint an L sign at the back and front of the vehicle in Red on a white background and be accompanied at all times by a person holding a regular license.
25. It is clear from the report of the Motor Inspector also, that the vehicle of the accused did not had such sign and it is also not the defence of the accused that any permanent license holder was accompanying him at the time of the incident. This reflects that the accused was reckless, casual, indifferent and unmindful of the consequences. Apart from the above there are also contradictions and improvements in the version of the accused which makes his defence doubtful whereas the complainant has stood stuck on her stand and thus the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence accused Mayank is convicted for the offences U/s 279/337 IPC and 3/181 MV Act.
26. At request of accused previous bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused are accepted U/s 437 A Cr.P.C. Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date: 2019.11.19 11:39:39 +0530 Announced in the Court (TANYA BAMNIYAL) on 18.11.2019 MM02(SD)/18.11.2019 Certified that this judgment contains 7 pages and each page bears my Digitally signed by signatures. TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date: 2019.11.19 (TANYA BAMNIYAL)11:39:44 +0530 MM02(SD)/18.11.2019 FIR No. 471/17 State Vs. Mayank 7/7