Delhi District Court
State vs Vikram Singh on 4 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF Ms POOJA AGGARWAL:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 476/06
PS Shalimar Bagh
State Vs Vikram Singh
Date of Institution: 23.02.2008
Date of Judgment: 04.09.2019
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 527653/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 06.07.2006
(c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Rakesh Kumar
(d) Name of Accused, his : Vikram Singh
parentage & residence S/o Sh. Ram Phal
R/o Village Madina, Tehsil and PS
Maham, District Rohtak, Haryana
(e) Offence complained of : Under Section 279/338 IPC
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order : Conviction
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The accused Vikram Singh has been sent to face trial for the commission of offences under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') on the allegations that on 06.07.2006 at about 06:30 am at Outer Ring Road, Jail Road red light, Rohini, Delhi he was driving Truck bearing HR 46B 1998 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving the same in the said manner, he caused grievous hurt to one Sonveer Singh.
FIR No. 476/2006PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 1 of 24
2) Subsequent to the completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in Court against the accused, the accused was summoned and notice was then served upon the accused Vikram Singh for the commission of offences under Section 279/338 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses.
4) PW1 Rakesh Kumar being the complainant testified that on 06.07.2006 when he was going in his TATA Qualis bearing No. DL1CG 6722 from Pitampura to Shahdara and was standing at red light Jail Road, outer ring road, at about 06:30 am, waiting for green signal, one Truck bearing No. HR 46B 1998 came and hit his Qualis from behind upon which he deboarded his Qualis to catch the accused/driver but the driver of the offending vehicle took his truck back and also hit against another vehicle i.e. Vikram which was standing behind his truck, one motorcyclist was also injured and thereafter the driver of the truck ran away from the spot leaving the offending truck on the road. PW-1 further testified that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the truck and that the police was called who came and recorded his statement Ex PW1/A, prepared the seizure memo of the three vehicles ie Ex PW1/B to Ex PW1/D on which he identified his signatures. He correctly identified the accused in the Court and also identified the offending truck through photographs Ex PW1/E to PW1/H. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel wherein he testified that he could not identify the driver of the truck as he had FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 2 of 24 run away and also denied as to any document having been prepared in his presence at the spot. PW1 was also duly re-examined by the Ld APP wherein he reiterated his testimony as stated in his cross-examination as correct.
5) During the course of the trial, vide a separate statement, the accused did not dispute the identity of the offending vehicle ie HR 46B 1998.
6) PW2 Rajesh Kumar testified as to being the owner of truck bearing No. HR 46B 1998 and further testified that on 06.07.2006, the said truck was being driven by the accused. He further testified that he had been served a notice u/s. 133 M. V. Act to which he replied vide Ex. PW2/A and identified his signatures thereon. He further testified as to having got the truck released vide superdarinama Ex. PW2/B, he correctly identified the accused in the Court and also identified the offending truck through photograph Ex. PW1/H. He was not cross- examined by the accused despite opportunity.
7) PW3, Sh Surender Pal Singh being the then Duty Officer proved the factum of registration of FIR No. 476/2006 ie Ex PW3/B on 06.07.2006 on the basis of rukka received from Ct. Balbir Singh at about 9.40 am sent by SI Ramesh Dutt. He also proved his endorsement Ex PW3/A on the rukka and testified as to having given the original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct Balbir Singh. He was not cross examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused despite opportunity.
FIR No. 476/2006PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 3 of 24
8) PW4 Ct. Ashok being the then DD writer testified that on 06.07.2006 at about 7.05 am, he had received wireless message from control room regarding traffic jam at GT Road, Sector 21, Rohini in respect of which he recorded DD No. 12B ie Ex. PW4/A which was handed over to SI Ramesh Dutt for taking action. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity.
9) PW5 HC Balbir Singh (Ct Balbir as he then was) testified that on 06.07.2006, one DD entry No. 12 B was received by SI Ramesh Dutt regarding accident upon which they both reached at the spot at Haiderpur red light, outer ring road where they found one Qualis bearing registration number DL 1CG 6722, one Vikram Tempo bearing registration number DL 1LF 5574, one motorcycle bearing registration number DL7SAK 0877 and one Truck bearing registration number HR 46B 1998 at the spot in accident condition where the driver of Qualis ie Rakesh met them, IO recorded the statement of Rakesh on which he also prepared rukka and then the IO went to Springdales Hospital leaving PW5 at the spot. PW5 further testified that the IO then returned to the spot and got the FIR registered through him and after receiving the copy of FIR, the IO seized all the above said four vehicles vide seizure memo(s) Ex PW1/B, PW1/C, PW1/D and Ex PW5/A on which he also identified his signatures and further testified that thereafter all the four vehicles were deposited in the Malkhana.
10) PW5 further testified that the owner of the offending vehicle ie Rajesh Kumar produced the accused in the Police Station at about 8.30 pm FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 4 of 24 where the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/C, IO seized DL of accused vide Ex. PW5/D and other documents of the offending vehicle ie RC, insurance, fitness, permit were seized vide Ex. PW5/E. He correctly identified the accused in the Court and also identified the offending vehicle through photographs Ex. P1 to P14. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity.
11) PW6 Sohanveer Singh ie the injured herein testified that on 06.07.2006, he was going on a motor cycle bearing no. DL7SAK 0877 with his cousin brother Deepak towards Pitampura via ring road when at about 06:30 am and that when they were standing at red light Jail Road, outer ring road waiting for green signal, the accused who was driving one Truck in a rash and negligent manner hit against one Qualis car which was stationed in front of the above said motorcycle whereafter the accused hit against one Vikram Tempo while reversing the offending truck and thereafter in order to escape from the place of incident with the truck, the accused hit against the abovesaid motorcycle in a high speed due to which they fell down on the road with the motorcycle, he came under the said motorcycle and the accused run over the motorcycle due to which he sustained injuries on both his legs. PW-6 correctly identified the accused in the court and also identified the offending truck through photograph Ex. PW1/H. He also admitted the registration number of the truck as HR46B 1998 during his cross-examination by the Ld APP for the State. PW6 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
FIR No. 476/2006PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 5 of 24
12) PW7 Dr Pankaj Kumar Anand, being the then Visiting Consultant, Springdales Hospital, Prashant Vihar, testified that on 06.07.2006, one patient Sonu was brought in the hospital and examined by him vide MLC No. 587 ie Ex PW7/A on which he had endorsed that the patient had sustained crush injuries left whole leg and injury over right ankle, he had advised for X-ray and had also opined the nature of injuries as grievous. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
13) PW8 Retd ASI Ramesh Dutt being the investigating officer could not testify the facts in his examination in chief, upon which he was duly cross-examined by the Ld APP for the State wherein he testified on similar lines as PW5 HC Balbir. PW8 went on to admit that from the spot he had gone to Springdales Hospital, Prashant Vihar where the injured was being operated upon and was unfit for statement and his MLC would be given later. He further testified that from the spot, he had gone to the spot and prepared the tehrir Ex PW8/A, had got the FIR registered and had also prepared the site plan Ex PW8/B. PW8 went on to testify that he had also given a notice under Section 133 MV Act to the owner of the truck Rajesh Kumar ie Ex PW8/C and that the accused was identified at the PS by PW Rakesh Kumar upon which the accused had been arrested. He further testified that all the four vehicles had been got mechanically inspected vide his requests ie Ex PW8/D to Ex PW8/G. He went on to testify that the Qualis, Tempo and Vikram had been released on superdari vide Ex PW8/H to Ex PW8/J identifying his FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 6 of 24 signatures thereon. He further testified that the injured SomVeer was found to be fit for statement on 11.07.2006 upon which his statement was recorded, his MLC was obtained and statement of witness Deepak was also recorded. He correctly identified the accused in the court and admitted that he could not tell the facts earlier as his memory has been affected by a paralytic attack which he suffered one year earlier. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld defence Counsel.
14) PW9 Dr Anu Nayyar testified that on 06.07.2006 she was working in Springdales Hospital, Prashant Vihar as MD Radiology on which day, on the basis of X-rays pertaining to Sonu, she prepared X-ray report, Ex PW9/A. She further testified that on 10.07.2006, she gave the report Ex. PW9/B and also proved the X-ray report ie Ex. Z1. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel during which PW9 testified that from the X-rays, she had found one fracture on Lateral Malleous of right fibula ie a bone of right ankle was fractured.
15) PW10 Mohd Ashraf testified that on the day of the incident, he was in Vikram Tempo no. DL 5574 which was stationed at the red light when he was going from side of Sultanpuri to Khajuri Khas. He further testified that one truck came from behind, crossed his Vikram, hit against a bike stationed a little ahead from him and then the truck driver reversed his truck and hit against his vehicle and in the process, it also hit one Qualis and the driver fled leaving behind the truck. He further testified that the police came and recorded his statement. PW10 did not identify the accused or the offending vehicle in the Court upon which FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 7 of 24 he was duly cross-examined by the Ld APP for the State during which he admitted that the registration number of the vikram was DL 1LF 5574, that the incident took place on 06.07.2006 at red light, Jail road, outer ring road and that after the incident, the offending vehicle went towards Badli after crushing the motorcyclist. PW10 further admitted that the driver of the Qualis stopped the truck with the help of public persons near Outer Ring Road, Badli bus stop and that the driver of the truck then fled leaving the truck behind. He also admitted haing given his statement Mark X to the police but even in his cross-examination, he did not identify the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. PW10 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
16) PW11 Sh Deepak being another eye-witness testified that on 06.07.2006 at about 06:30 am, he was returning from Pitampura after work with his brother Sohanveer Singh on motor cycle DL 0877 and when they reached at the red light near Rohini Jail they met with an accident by truck bearing No. 1998 as the said Truck hit against their motor cycle from behind. He further testified that he had fallen on the right side and sustained injuries on right leg while the truck ran over right leg of his brother crushing it. He further testified that the truck driver had fled from the spot with the truck and that he had taken his brother to the hospital with the help of a passerby school van. He further testified that he had been discharged after first aid while his brother was treated at the hospital. He correctly identified the accused in the Court and was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
FIR No. 476/2006PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 8 of 24
17) PW 12 Retd ASI/Tech Devender being the mechanical inspector proved the mechanical inspection reports Ex PW12/A to Ex PW12/D and was duly cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
18) After the prosecution evidence was closed, statement of accused alongwith additional statements of accused were recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused who maintained his innocence stating that he had been falsely implicated. The accused also opted to lead defence evidence and examined three witnesses in his defence.
19) DW1 Kaptan Singh testified that the accused was his neighbour and on 06.07.2006 he was working as a labourer in the street in his area till 5.00pm. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld APP for the State.
20) DW2 Manoj testified as to being neighbour and nephew of the accused. He further testified that on 06.07.2006, he was working as a labour with the accused in their street and had been called by the contractor Rajinder Singh for labour work at the work site at about 5.00 am where they both worked till 5.00pm with a lunch break of about 1 hour at about 12 noon. He was also duly cross-examined by the Ld APP for the State.
21) DW3 Rajender Singh testified as to being a contractor and further testified that in 2006, he had undertaken the construction work of FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 9 of 24 Madina village and the accused was working there as a labor on 06.07.2006 from 5.00 am to 5.00 pm. He was also duly cross-examined by the Ld APP for the State.
22)Final arguments were then advanced by Ld. APP for the State and by Ld. Counsel for the accused which have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
23)It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, co- gent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the ac- cused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
24) In the case at hand, it was for the prosecution to prove:
1. the factum of the accident having taken place by the offending vehicle;
2. the identity of the accused as being the driver of the offending vehicle;
3. that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place and
4. that grievous injury resulted to Sonveer from such rash and negligent act of the accused.FIR No. 476/2006
PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 10 of 24 Factum of accident being caused by the offending vehicle
25) In the present case, PW1 Rakesh Kumar has supported the case of the prosecution during his examination in chief as he has categorically testified that on 06.07.2006 at about 6.30 am, when he was standing at Red light Jail Road, Outer Ring Road in his Tata Qualis bearing no. DL-1CG-6722 waiting for the signal to turn green, the truck bearing no. HR-46B-1998 of ten tyres had come and hit his Qualis from behind upon which he got down to apprehend the accused but the driver of the offending truck took his truck back hitting a Vikram which was standing behind his truck and one motorcyclist was also injured in the accident. PW1 has further categorically testified that the accused had taken his truck around 30 away from the spot after which the driver of the truck ran leaving the truck on the road. The witness PW1 Rakesh also identified the vehicle through the photograph Ex.PW1/H. Nothing material could be elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 Rakesh to discredit his testimony as to the factum of the accident having been caused by the truck bearing number HR 46B 1998.
26) PW5 HC Balbir Singh and PW8 Rtd. SI Ramesh Dutt have both corroborated the factum of the vehicles ie Qualis Car bearing no. DL- 1CG-6722, Vikram Tempo bearing no. DL-1LF-5574, motorcycle bearing no. DL-7SAK-0877 and Truck bearing no. HR-46B-1998 having been found in accidental condition at the spot i.e. Haiderpur Red Light Outer Ring Road.
27) Even PW6 Sohanvir Singh, being the injured herein, has also testified FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 11 of 24 during his examination in chief on similar lines as PW1 and though he could not tell the registration number of the truck during his examination in chief as he did not remember the same, he correctly identified the offending truck bearing registration no. HR-46B-1998 through the photograph Ex.PW1/H and even during the cross- examination by the Ld. APP, he admitted the registration number of the offending truck to be HR-46B-1998. During the entire cross- examination of PW6, the Ld. Counsel for the accused was unable to elicit anything to discredit his testimony in respect of the factum of the accident having been caused by the vehicle bearing no. HR-46B-1998 nor any suggestion was put as to him as to the accident not having been caused by the said vehicle bearing no. HR-46B-1998.
28) The mechanical inspection report of the truck i.e. Ex.PW8/F also corroborates the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses in respect of the accident having been caused by the truck bearing no. HR-46B- 1998 by hitting the vehicles from behind since as per the report, fresh damages on the front bumper with scratches and dents, damages on the front body and front right side indicator light were present on the truck.
29) Hence, in view of the testimony of PW1 Rakesh Kumar, PW5 HC Balbir and PW8/ Retd SI Ramesh Dutt has also in view of testimony of the injured PW6 Sohanvir duly corroborated by the mechanical inspection report Ex PW8/F and the factum of the truck having been found at the place of incident itself in the accident condition, the factum of the accident having been caused by the offending vehicle bearing no.
FIR No. 476/2006PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 12 of 24 HR-46B-1998 stands duly proved even more so as the identification of the truck bearing no. HR-46B-1998 by the prosecution witnesses inspire confidence of Court, as they have with stood the rigours of cross-examination wherein in no question nor any suggestion was put to them as to the accident not having taken place by the truck bearing no. HR-46B-1998.
30) It has been argued on behalf of the accused that PW1 Rakesh Kumar as well as PW10 Mohd. Ashraf have turned hostile during their evidence and hence, there exist reasonable doubts on the basis of which the accused be acquitted. However, there is no merit in the argument as raised as not even a single suggestion has been put to PW1 Rakesh Kumar during his cross-examination in respect of the identity of the offending truck and even PW10 Mohd Ashraf has admitted in his cross- examination that the driver of the Qualis had stopped the offending vehicle with the help of public persons near Outer Ring Road, Badli Bus Stand, upon which the driver of the offending vehicle fled leaving behind the truck. It can thus be inferred from the said testimony of PW10 Mohd. Ashraf that the accident was in fact caused by the truck which was found at the spot and in view of the testimony of PW5 HC Balbir and PW8 Rtd. ASI Ramesh Dutt, the identity of the offending truck stands sufficiently proved since PW10 Mohd. Ashraf has himself stated that he did not remember whether the registration number of the offending vehicle was HR-46-B-1998 but he did not at any point of time he deny that no accident took place by the offending truck bearing no. HR-46B-1998.
FIR No. 476/2006PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 13 of 24 Factum of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident
31)PW2 Sh Rajesh Kumar, ie the registered owner of the truck bearing registration no HR 46B 1998 has testified that his truck was being driven by the accused Vikram on 06.07.2006 and he also proved his reply to notice under Section 133 MV Act ie Ex PW2/A. PW2 Rajesh also correctly identified the accused in the Court. His testimony as to the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident remained uncontroverted as for reasons best known to the accused, he did not cross-examine PW2 despite opportunity.
32)The injured PW 6 Sohan Vir being the injured in this case has also supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the identity of the accused in as much as he has correctly identified the accused Vikram in the Court and during his cross-examination he has categorically testified as to having seen the accused Vikram after he had hit his bike when he was reversing his truck. PW11 Deepak, has also correctly identified the accused Vikram in the Court and nothing material could be elicited in his cross-examination to render this identification uncredit-worthy.
33)It has been argued on behalf of the accused that PW1 Rakesh Kumar turned hostile during his cross-examination as to the identity of the accused whereas PW10 Mohd Ashraf could not identify the accused in the Court, hence the prosecution has failed to prove its case. However, FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 14 of 24 there is no merit in the argument as raised. For instance, while the PW1 Rakesh testified in his cross-examination that he did not identify the driver of the truck, in his entire cross-examination, not even a single suggestion was put to him as to him having falsely identified the accused in his examination in chief or as to the accused not being the driver of the offending truck at the time of the accident. No reason has come on record to disbelieve the identification of the accused as to being the driver of the offending truck as testified to by PW1 in his examination in chief even more so when the said identification has been duly corroborated by the testimony of injured/PW6 Sohan Vir and PW11 Deepak.
34)Further, the non-identification of the accused by PW10 Mohd Ashraf in the Court also does not raise any doubt as to the accused not being the driver of the offending vehicle since even PW10 Mohd Ashraf has not categorically testified that the accused was not the driver of the truck since he has merely testified that he could not identify the driver of the truck. It is pertinent to note that such non-identification could be for a number of reasons including lapse of time since in this case, the evidence of PW10 was recorded after the lapse of more than 12 years from the date of incident and hence the mere non-identification by PW10 Mohd Ashraf is of no material consequence even more so as the mere non-identification of the accused by PW10 does not in any manner take away the creditworthiness of reliability of the testimony of the other witnesses ie PW2 Rakesh, PW6 Sohanvir and PW 11 Deepak who have given cogent testimony corroborating the testimony of each FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 15 of 24 other as to the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.
35)Hence, from the testimony of PW2 Rakesh, PW6 Sohanvir and PW11 Deepak, the factum of the identity of the accused Vikram as to being the driver of the offending vehicle ie HR 46B 1998 at the time of the accident stands duly proved.
Accident being result of rash and negligent driving of accused
36) To prove its case, it was also imperative for the prosecution to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused while he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. It has to be borne in mind that a rash act is primarily an overhasty 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 (Ref: Mohd. Aynuddin alias Miyam v. State of A.P. (2000) 7 SCC 72).
37)In the present case, PW1 Rakesh has testified in his examination in chief that on 06.07.2006 when he was going in his TATA Qualis bearing No. DL1CG 6722 from Pitampura to Shahdara and was standing at red FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 16 of 24 light Jail Road, outer ring road, at about 06:30 am, waiting for green signal, one Truck bearing No. HR 46B 1998 came and hit his Qualis from behind upon which he de-boarded his Qualis to catch the accused/driver but the driver of the offending vehicle took his truck back and also hit against another vehicle i.e. Vikram which was standing behind his truck, one motorcyclist was also injured and thereafter the driver of the truck ran away from the spot leaving the offending truck on the road. PW-1 further testified that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the truck. PW6 Sohan Vir Singh also testified on similar lines and reiterated in his cross- examination that he had been hit from behind when he was standing at the red light.
38)It is duly noted that it is the duty of a driver of a motor vehicle to drive the same with caution and reasonable care. However, in the present case, no such care or caution was taken by the accused as he hit the TATA Qualis bearing No. DL1CG 6722 while it was stationary at red light Jail Road, then reversed his truck and hit against another vehicle i.e. Vikram which was standing behind his truck and he also hit one motorcycle from behind. The mechanical inspection reports of the Qualis ie Ex PW8/D and motorcycle Ex PW8/E corroborates the version of the prosecution as to the Qualis and motorcycle having been hit from behind, the mechanical inspection report of the Vikram ie Ex PW8/G corroborates the version of the prosecution as to it having been hit from the front when the offending truck was being reversed.
FIR No. 476/2006PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 17 of 24
39)The act of hitting a vehicle from behind is in itself rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Truck ie the accused herein especially when it is not the defence of the accused that the accident took place due to any fault of the driver of the qualis or motorcycle or Vikram like as to them having applied brakes suddenly or as to them having veered suddenly in front of the truck etc. ie as to the accident having been caused despite exercise of due care and caution of the driver of the vehicle since it has been sufficiently proved that the accident took place when the vehicles were stationary at the red light before being hit by the offending vehicle. Strength for this inference is drawn from the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Paras Nath V State of Delhi, 2004 Cri L.J. 731 where it has been observed in Para no.7 that "it is not the case of the appellant that a scooterist has applied the brake all of a sudden, therefore, the appellant was taken unaware which led the appellant's truck hitting the scooter from behind. The act of negligent can be clearly attributed by the petitioner as he was solely responsible of causing this accident without any fault of the scooterist." (emphasis supplied).
40)In the present case, the accused while driving his truck negligently did not stop even after hitting the Qulais of the PW1 Rakesh despite it having come on record in the mechanical inspection report Ex PW8/F that the brakes of the Truck bearing No HR 46B 1998 were ok. The accused went on to hit the Vikram which was behind it and then it went on to hit the motorcycle of PW6 Sohanvir from behind. This act of hitting a vehicle which is stationary also amounts to failure on part of FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 18 of 24 the accused to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally and to the Qualis/Vikram/motorcycle drivers in particular. The negligence of the accused is also writ at large in his act of hitting three vehicles which were stationary at the red light.
41)No evidence has been led by the accused nor any suggestion has been put to any witness as to accident having been caused due to any negligence on the part of the Qualis/ motorcycle or the Vikram. No evidence has come on record as to the accident having been caused despite exercise of due care and caution of the driver of the vehicle as the accused has chosen to merely deny all the incriminating evidence put to him during his statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, in view of the creditworthy testimony of the PW1 Rakesh, PW6 Sohan Vir and PW11 Deepak, the prosecution is held to have proved beyond reasonable doubt the factum of accused driving his truck with rashness and negligence leading to the accident.
Injury to the victim Sohanvir Singh due to rash and negligent act of the accused
42)As PW6, the injured Sohanvir Singh has testified that after being hit by the offending truck, he had fallen down on the road and had come under the motorcycle and the offending truck had run over his motorcycle due to which he sustained injuries in both his legs. The nature of injuries has been duly corroborated by the testimony of PW7 FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 19 of 24 Dr Pankaj who proved the MLC Ex PW7/A wherein the crush injuries of whole left leg and injury over right ankle was endorsed by PW7 which testimony has gone unrebutted since PW7 was not cross- examined by the accused despite opportunity. The factum of such injury being grievous has been sufficiently proved from the testimony of PW9 Dr Anu Nayyar who proved the X-ray report Ex PW9/B wherein the fracture has been reflected in lateral malleous fibula. Hence the prosecution has also been able to prove that the accident resulted in grievous injury to Sohanvir.
Arguments of the accused
43)An argument had been raised by the accused that as the PW1 Rakesh and PW10 Mohd Ashraf had turned hostile during their evidence in the Court, they had destroyed the case of the prosecution. However, there is no merit in the argument as raised as now it is well settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected wholesale, merely on the ground that the prosecution had dubbed him 'hostile' and had cross- examined him. Even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Court to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Court finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 20 of 24 the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be credit worthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Court should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto. (Ref: Syad Akbar vs State Of Karnataka AIR 1979 SC 1848).
44)In the present case, the injured/PW-6 has completely supported the case of the prosecution and his testimony has also been corroborated by the examination in chief of PW1 Rakesh in respect of the offending vehicle having caused the accident, in respect of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle at that time and also in respect of the accused driving his vehicle with rashness and negligence at that time. Further, the testimony of PW11 Deepak also sufficiently corroborate the testimony of PW6 Sohanveer and when the testimony of the said witnesses is read in conjunction with the mechanical inspection report, the mere non identification of the accused by PW1 Rakesh during his cross-examination or the factum of PW10 Mohd. Ashraf not supporting the case of the prosecution is not sufficient to discard the testimony of other prosecution witness which inspires the confidence of this court since no material contradiction have come on record in their evidence.
45)Another argument has been raised by the accused that the defence witness DW1 Kaptan Singh, DW-2 Manoj and DW-3 Rajender Singh have testified consistently that on 06.07.2006 the accused was present FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 21 of 24 in his village and working as a labourer from 5.00 am to 5.00 pm and hence was not even present at the spot at the time of incident. However, the argument has raised is devoid of merit since no written proof of the accused having worked as a labourer under DW-3 Rajender on the day of the accident has been placed on record nor any document has come on record that any contract for construction of street in village Madina had been given to the DW-3 Rajender for which any work was being undertaken in the said village. The testimony of DW1 Kaptan Singh and DW2 Manoj also does not inspire the confidence of this Court since it has come on record that they are relatives of the accused and hence the possibility of them deposing falsely to save the accused cannot be ruled out even more so as the accused himself did not set up any defence as to him working as a labourer on the date of the incident when his statement was recorded u/s 281 read with 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The fact that the accused did not cross examine PW2 Rajesh when he identified the accused as the driver of the offending truck in his reply Ex.PW2/A further falsifies the defence of the accused as raised.
46)Another argument has been raised on behalf of the accused that it is unacceptable that PW6 Sohan Vir would have seen the driver at the spot due to the pain and that it was not acceptable that if two persons were on a motorcycle which was hit by a truck from behind, only the driver would get injured and not the pillion rider since if a vehicle is hit from behind, it is natural for the pillion rider to get hurt and not the driver. It is pertinent to note that the accused has not filed any FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 22 of 24 expert/medical opinion to corroborate this argument or justify such inference and in the absence of the same, the arguments as raised does not inspire confidence.
47)It has been further argued on behalf of the accused that there were lot of contradiction between the testimony of PW6 Sohanveer Singh in the court and his statement given to the IO on 11.07.2006. It is pertinent to note that during the entire cross-examination of PW6, he was not confronted with such statement and in the absence of the same, any contradiction or variation in the testimony of PW6 Sohanveer Sing vis a vis the said statement cannot be looked into.
48)Another argument has been raised on behalf of the accused that the testimony of the IO/PW8 Rtd. SI Ramesh Dutt is not reliable as he has testified that he did not remember anything about the case and that he had suffered the paralytic attack due to which his memory was affected. It is pertinent to note that the defect in the testimony of a police witness pertains only to the investigation in the matter and does not discredit the testimony of the eye-witnesses even more so as the IO has admitted during his cross-examination the entire investigation as conducted by him in this case. Hence, even this argument as raised by the accused does not assist him.
Decision
49)In view of the above discussion and as no material contradiction has come on record in respect of the investigation carried out by the FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 23 of 24 investigating agency, as the prosecution has been able to discharge the onus cast upon it and has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving his truck bearing number HR 46B 1998 in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident and caused grievous injury to Sohanvir Singh, the accused Vikram Singh S/o Sh Ram Phal is convicted of offences under Section 279/338 IPC in FIR no. 476/06, PS Shalimar Bagh.
50)Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
by POOJA
on 04.09.2019 POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Date:
2019.09.04
16:11:22 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 24 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2019.09.04
16:11:34 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 476/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/338 IPC State Vs Vikram Singh Page No. 24 of 24