Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunil Kumar on 4 August, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM03(SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Sunil Kumar
FIR No.253/2006
U/s : 279/427 IPC
P.S. : Vasant Vihar
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. : 253/2006
2.Date of the Commission of the offence : 13.06.2006
3.Name of the accused : Sunil Kumar S/o Sh.
Chander R/o Chidi
Gaon District Rohtak,
Haryana.
4.Name of the complainant : Mohd. Mehtab S/o
Mohd. Khalil R/o Purnia
District, Baisi, PS
Chotapur, Village
Maruan, Bihar.
5.Offence complained of : 279/427 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Convicted
FIR No253/2006 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Under Section279/427 IPC
2
8.Date of final order : 04.08.2011
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The story of the prosecution is that on 13.06.2006 at about 01:00 a.m. at Red Light Outer Ring Road, Malai Mandir, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Vasant Vihar, the accused Sunil Kumar was driving Tempo bearing number HR56C0061 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in such a manner, the accused hit against the AC container bearing number HR38K3540 and caused damage to the said AC container of amount exceeding Rs.50/ and thereby committed offences punishable under section 279/427 IPC.
On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant Mohd. Mehtab, an FIR bearing number 253/2006 under section 279/427 IPC was lodged at Police Station Vasant Vihar on 13.06.2006 at 02:45 a.m. After investigation, chargesheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed before the court on 05.05.2007.
On the basis of the chargesheet, a notice for the offences punishable under section 279/427 IPC was framed against the accused Sunil FIR No253/2006 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Under Section279/427 IPC 3 Kumar and read out to the said accused person, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 07.01.2009.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has examined four witnesses.
PW2 Const. Mohd. Faruq in his examinationinchief has stated that on 13.06.2006 he was posted as Constable at Police Station Vasant Vihar and on that day on the receipt of a call vide DD No.6, he along with ASI Kailash at about 01:00 p.m. had gone to the place of occurrence at Outer Ring Road opposite Malai Mandir were he found one container and one Tata 407 Tempo (2). He further stated that the driver of the container was present at the spot and driver of the tempo was shifted to the hospital. The said witness further stated that IO prepared rukka. Site plan was prepared by the IO vide Ex.PW2/A. Both the vehicles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/D. The said witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, but nothing material is found in his cross.
PW4 SI Kailash Chand in his examination in chief has stated that on 13.06.2006 he was posted as ASI at PS Vasant Vihar. The said witness further stated that on that day, he was on emergency duty and he received DD No. 6B and on receiving of DD No. 6B, he along with Ct. Mohd. Farooq FIR No253/2006 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Under Section279/427 IPC 4 reached at spot i.e. Malai Mandir Red Light, Outer Ring Road, Vasant Vihar where he found one container No. HR 38K 3540, which was hit by a tempo bearing No. HR 55C 0061, in accidental condition. The said witness had recorded the statement of the driver of the container namely Mohd. Aftab under section 161 Cr.P.C. He prepared the rukka and the same was handed over to Ct. Mohd. Farooq for registration of the case. The said witness also prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW2/A. The said witness also seized the offending tempo and container vide Ex. PW2/B and C. The personal search of the accused was conducted by the said witness vide Ex.PW/D. The said witness further stated that he got conducted the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles on the same date i.e on 13.06.2006. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A and thereafter, released on police bail on the same date. The said witness handed over the possession of both the vehicles to the MHC(R) of PS Vasant Vihar and after investigation of the present matter, he filed the charge sheet before the Honourable court. The said witness identified the accused during his deposition before the court.
The above said witnesses, examined by the prosecution, are formal witnesses in the present case.
The only witnesses who could prove the story of the prosecution is the complainant himself namely PW3 Mohd. Mehtab and eye witness PW1 Sh. Jaswant Singh.
FIR No253/2006 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Under Section279/427 IPC 5 PW1 being eye witness namely Sh. Jaswant Singh in his examinationinchief has stated that at the relevant time he was first driver on AC Truck No.3540 and at Red Light Vasant Vihar collusion with his truck took place with Tata 407. He further stated that the offending vehicle, i.e Tata 407 was being driven by the accused and the AC truck bearing number 3540 was being driven by second driver Mehtab. The said witness further stated that the collusion took place due to sudden apply of break at the red light. He further stated that Tata 407 hit his truck from behind.
The said witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, but nothing material is found in his cross.
PW3 Mohd. Mehtab is the complainant himself who has deposed that on 12.06.2006 at night at 02:00 a.m he was driving container bearing number HR38K3540 and the accused while driving Tata 407 hit his container from behind. He further stated that the accused was at fault since the accused hit his standing container. Police recorded his statement vide Ex.PW3/A. The said witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, but nothing material is found in his cross.
After all witnesses have been examined, statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused in his statement stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Submissions made by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for FIR No253/2006 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Under Section279/427 IPC 6 the accused heard.
Before analysing the evidence on record, it is necessary to examine the essential ingredients of section 279/427 IPC.
The essential ingredients of section 279 IPC are as follows: (1)Whoever drives his vehicle (2)On a public way (3)In a rash and negligent manner (4)So as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
In the present matter it has been established that the offending vehicle bearing number HR56C0061 was being driven by the accused as has been deposed by PW1 Sh. Jaswant Singh. This fact has further been corroborated by PW3 Sh. Mohd. Mehtab, who was driving the vehicle bearing number HR38k3540, which was hit. Further, it has not been disputed that the accident took place on the outer ring road which is a public way and the same has also been depicted in site plan Ex.PW4/A. Further, now it has to be seen that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. As regards the rashness, it has come before the court that the accident took place when the vehicle bearing number HR38K3540 was standing at the red light. It has been deposed by PW1 Sh. Jaswant Singh that the accident took place on account of sudden application of FIR No253/2006 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Under Section279/427 IPC 7 brakes at the red light and the offending vehicle hit the truck bearing number HR38K3540 from behind. It has been clearly deposed by PW1 that the truck bearing number 3540 was standing at the red light and was hit by the offending vehicle being driven by the accused from behind. Further, in his cross examination this witness has denied the suggestion that the brakes were applied suddenly and on this account, the accident took place. The fact that the accident took place on the red light has also been substantiated by PW2 Const. Mohd. Farooq. Apart from this, to prove the rashness of the accused, PW3 Mohd. Mehtab has also deposed that on the morning of 13.06.2006 he was driving the Container No.3540 which was stopped at the red light Vasant Vihar on account of red light signal and the accused while driving the offending vehicle bearing number HR56C0061, hit his container from behind. He also deposed that the accused got entangled with the steering wheels of his Tata 407 and when he could not be pulled out, police was called. This witness further deposed that the accused, being the driver of the offending vehicle, was at fault as he had hit the standing container, which was standing at the red light. The accused has also been duly identified by the said witness. Further, in his cross examination also, this witness has denied the suggestion that the accident took place on account of sudden application of brakes on the red light by him.
Further, it is clear from the sequence of events that the truck bearing number 3540 was hit from behind when it was stationary at red light. FIR No253/2006 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Under Section279/427 IPC 8 Further, from the above discussion it is clear that the container bearing number 3540 was hit by the offending vehicle bearing number HR56 C0061 from behind when it was stationary at a red light signal. This fact has been corroborated by the testimonies of two material witnesses being PW3 Mohd. Mehtab and PW1 Jaswant Singh.
Thus, all the ingredients of section 279 IPC are made out against the accused and the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused under section 279 IPC.
Now coming to whether the ingredients of section 427 IPC are fulfilled.
Section 425 IPC defines mischief and the essential ingredients are as follows: (1)Whoever (2)with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause (3)Wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person (4)causes destruction of any property or any such change in the property which destroys or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously, is said to commit mischief.
In this respect, apart from the deposition of two material witnesses being PW1 Jaswant Singh and PW3 Mohd. Mehtab, who have deposed as regards the rashness of the accused, other police witnesses have also deposed FIR No253/2006 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Under Section279/427 IPC 9 that site plan was prepared by the IO which is Ex.PW2/A. Further, seizure memos of both the vehicles being Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C also mentions the damage in the front portion of the offending vehicle and in the back portion of the damaged vehicle. This fact has also been substantiated by the Mechanical Inspector's report. Also it can safely be presumed that the accused even though did not intent to cause any harm to the damaged vehicle, it can be said that he knew that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person and thereby, did cause damage to the damaged vehicle thereby diminishing its value and accordingly, committed mischief. Hence, all the ingredients of section 427 IPC are also made out and the accused is accordingly, convicted for the offences punishable under section 279/427 IPC.
Be put up for arguments on sentence on 08.08.2011 at 02:00 p.m. ANNOUNCED ON 04.08.2011 (CHETNA SINGH) MM03(South)/04.08.2011 Certified that this judgment contains 9 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM03(South)/04.08.2011 FIR No253/2006 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Under Section279/427 IPC