Delhi District Court
State vs . Om Prakash on 13 December, 2021
N THE COURT OF MR. RAHUL VERMA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE07, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 429/2017
PS - SUNLIGHT COLONY
U/s.279/338/471 IPC & 3/181 MV Act
STATE VS. OM PRAKASH
JUDGMENT
Part A - The list at a glance A. Serial No. of the Case: 20547/2019 B. Date of Commission of 12.11.2017 offence:
C. Name of the Complainant: Shri Rahmat Hussain S/o Mohd.
Hussain R/o House No.1567, Ground Floor, Gali No.12/2, Valmiki Mohalla, Tughalkabad, Govindpuri, New Delhi.
D. Name of Accused: Om Prakash Kumar S/o Shri
Chaturbhuj Rai R/o House
No. C452, BlockC, New
Ashok Nagar, New Delhi.
E. Offence complained of: 279/338/471/474 IPC
3/181 MV Act.
F. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
G. Final Order: Convicted for offences
punishable u/s.279/338/474 IPC
& 3/181, 119/177 & 184 of MV
Act.
Acquitted for offence
punishable u/s. 471 IPC.
H. Date of such order: 13.12.2021
I. Date of Institution of Case: 07.06.2019
State Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 1 of 12
PART B - A BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.11.2017 at about 09:30 PM at Ashram Chowk towards Bhogal to Mathura road near red light Badarpur within the jurisdiction PS Sunlight colony, accused was driving a vehicle i.e. scooty bearing registration number DL 7SCC 6448 on a public way in a rash and negligent manner (as he jumped the red light) so as to endanger human life and safety of others. Further, on the above said date time and place, the accused while driving the above said vehicle in the aforesaid manner, struck against a vehicle i.e. scooty make honda bearing registration number DL 5SAT 6389 after jumping the red light causing grievous injuries to its driver / complainant namely Rehmat Hussain. Further, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused was found driving the aforesaid vehicle without having a valid driving license and had jumped red light. Further, he was also found in possession of a forged driving license bearing no. 201000/NW/NTV/10 and had the intention to use the same as genuine which he knew or had reasons to believe the same to be forged and thereafter also used the same as genuine having known or having reasons to believe that the same is forged and thereby committed offences made punishable u/s. 279/338/471/474 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter, referred to as "IPC") & 3/181, 119/177, 184 The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter, referred to as "MV Act").
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C and the cognizance of offence was taken. Copy of the challan was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Code").State Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 2 of 12
3. On the basis of the contents of chargesheet and after hearing both the parties, charge was framed against the accused for offences punishable under Section 279/338/471/474 IPC & 3/181, 119/177, 184 of the MV Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Vide statement recorded under Section 294 of the Code dated 03.10.2019 & 04.03.2020, the accused admitted the genuineness of following documents:
(i). FIR (without contents) registered in the present case Ex.PA1
(ii). DD no. 29A dated 12.11.2017 PS Sunlight Colony and DD no. 33A dated 12.11.2017 PS Sunlight Colony Ex.PA2 and Ex.PA3
(iii). MLC bearing no. 500061264 dated 12.11.2017 Ex.PA4
(iv). MLC bearing no. 500061263 dated 12.11.2017 Ex.PA5
(v). Discharge summary of victim Rehmat Hussain Ex.PA6
(vi). X Ray report of victim Rehmat Hussain dated 12.11.2017 alongwith
02 X ray films Ex.PA7 (colly.)
(vii). Superdarinama of vehicle bearing no. DL7SCC6448 alongwith copy of RC Ex.PA8 (colly.)
(viii). Panchnama of scooty bearing no.DL7SCC 6448 Ex.PA 9
(ix). 06 photographs of vehicle i.e. scooty bearing no. DL 7SCC6448 already Ex.P2 (colly.)
(x). 06 photographs of vehicle i.e. scooty bearing no. DL 5SAT6389 already Ex.P1 (colly.)
(xi). 02 Verification letter of DL bearing no. 201000/NW/NTV/10 dated 06.04.2018 issued by district transport officer Wokha Nagaland already Ex.PW6/A (colly.)
(xii). Verification letter dated 29.11.2019 issued by motor vehicle officer Wokha Nagaland Ex.PA10.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined following witnesses: State Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 3 of 12
(i) PW1 Rehmat Hussain / complainant deposed that on 12.11.2017 at about 9:30 AM he was going from his shop at Barapulla towards his house Tughlakabad extension on his scooty bearing no. DL 5SAT 6389 and when he reached at Ashram chowk red light, green signal was on for the passengers going towards Mathura road and when he tried to cross the red light one scooty came from Mathura side bearing no. 6448 and hit his scooty from front side. He further deposed that the accused was driving the abovesaid scooty and his son Rizwan Hussain was the pillion rider. Further, due to the impact of hitting, he fell down on road and received injuries on his left leg. Further, that abovesaid incident took place due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused as there was a red light in the direction in which the acused was driving and thus he was liable to stop his vehicle but he did not do so. Further, that the accused had jumped the red light which led to the accident and thereafter, PCR van reached at the spot and took him to the hospital i.e. AIIMS trauma centre. He relied upon the following documents:
(i) Complaint : Ex. PW1/A.
(ii) Superdaginama : Ex. PW1/B
(iii) Panchamana of scooty : Ex. PW1/C
(iv) Arrest Memo of accused : Ex. PW1/D
(v) Photographs of vehicle bearing registration no. DL5SAT6389 : Ex. P1 (Colly).
(vi) Photographs of vehicle bearing registration no. DL5SCC6448
: Ex. P2 (Colly.)
The witness was duly cross examined.
(ii) PW2 Sh. T. U. Siddiqui tendered his mechanical inspection reports
of vehicle bearing no. DL 5SAT 6389 and vehicle bearing no. DL 7SCC 6448 as Ex.PW2/A & Ex. PW2/B, respectively.
State Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 4 of 12He was duly crossexamined.
(iii) PW3 ASI Yogesh Kumar deposed that on 13.11.2017 he was posted at traffic circle Lajpat Nagar and on that day he was on duty at Ashram chowk. He further deposed that at about 09:30 PM, he was conducting the traffic challan and, in the meantime, he saw that there was a traffic jam just below the Ashram flyover. Thereupon he went down to the spot i.e. below the Ashram flyover where two scooties were found in accidental condition. He further deposed that the two persons were also got injured in that accident. Thereupon he called the 100 number from his mobile number 9811499611. Thereafter, PCR reached at the spot and took both the injured to hospital.
Witness was duly cross examined.
(iv) PW4 Rizwan Hussain deposed on similar lines as of PW1 and was duly cross examined.
(v) PW5 Rtd. SI Shalendra Singh / Investigating Officer deposed regarding various stages of investigation carried out by him and he tendered following documents in evidence:
(i) Statement of victim : Ex. PW1/A
(ii) Rukka : Ex. PW5/A
(iii) Site Plan : Ex. PW5/B
(iv) Seizure memo of scooty bearing no. DL 5SAT 6389 : Ex. PW5/C
(v) Seizure memo of scooty bearing no. DL 7SCC 6448 : Ex. PW5/D
(vi) Arrest Memo of accused : Ex. PW1/D State Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 5 of 12
(vii) Personal Search Memo of accused : Ex. PW5/E
(viii) Seizure Memo of RC : Ex. PW5/F
(ix) Seizure Memo of DL : Ex. PW5/G
(x) Photocopy of RC given by accused : Ex. PW5/H
(xi) Original DL : Ex. PW5/I
(xii) 06 photographs of scooty bearing no. DL 5SAT 6389 : Ex. P1 (Colly).
(xiii) 06 photographs of scooty bearing no. DL 7SCC 6448 : Ex. P2 (Colly).
Upon a leading question, the witness deposed that at the time of incident, complainant was driving the scooty bearing no. DL 5SAT 6389. He also deposed that at the time of incident, accused was driving the scooty bearing no. DL 7SCC 6448.
He was duly cross examined.
(vi) PW6 HC Komal deposed that on 22.02.2018 he was posted at PS Sunlight Colony as HC when the present case was marked to him for further investigation. During the investigation, he obtained the result of MLC of Rehmat hussain. Thereafter, he verified the DL bearing no. 201000/NW/NTV/10 of accused from motor vehicle department, Nagaland and he received the communication from motor vehicle department, district transport office Wokha Nagaland which was on record and the same was then exhibited as Ex.PW6/A (colly.). He further deposed that as per these documents, the DL of the abovesaid number was issued to one Sonjit and the DL of the accused was found to be fake. Further, that during investigation, he recorded the statement of son of the victim / complainant namely Rizwan Hussain and he also obtained the discharge summary of the victim Rehmat Hussain.
State Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 6 of 126. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 04.03.2020.
7. Statement of accused u/s. 313 r/w 281 of Cr.P.C was recorded on 24.11.2020 wherein the accused denied the incriminating evidences against him and refused to lead defence evidence.
8. Subsequently, final arguments from the counsel for accused and Ld. APP for the State were heard.
9. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 279/338/471/474 IPC and Section 3/181, 119/177, 184 MV Act. To prove a case U/s. 279/337/338 IPC against the accused, the prosecution has to prove the following facts: (1) That the accident actually took place.
(2) That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.
(3) That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
(4) The victim suffered grievous injury.
10. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to discuss the meaning of the expression "rash" and "negligent". These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However, as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances. A distinction between "rashness" and "negligence" is that "rashness" conveys an idea of doing a reckless act without considering any of its consequences, whereas, "negligence" connotes State Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 7 of 12 want of proper care. It was held by the Apex Court in the case of S.N. Hussain v. State of A.P., (1972) 3 SCC 18 that:
"Rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
11. In the case at hand, the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C did not dispute the factum of the accident or his involvement in the same, rather blamed the complainant for the accident. He stated that "I did not jump the red light. In fact, complainant jumped the red light".
12. Since the factum of the accident has not been disputed by the accused nor has he disputed his identity or that of the above said scooty, hence, the only question before this court is whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and had caused grievous injuries to the complainant.
13. The prosecution examined total six witnesses to prove its case. PW1 Rehmat Hussain / complainant deposed that on 12.11.2017 he was driving his scooty with one pillion rider Rizwan Hussain and when he reached at Ashram chowk State Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 8 of 12 red light, the green signal was on for the passengers going towards Mathura road and when he tried to cross the red light, one scooty came from Mathura side bearing no. 6448 and hit his scooty from front side. He further deposed that due to the impact, he fell down on the road and received injuries on his left leg. PW4 Rizwan Hussain, who was pillion rider, also deposed on similar lines as that of PW1 and stated that the accused jumped the red light and hit the scooty driven by the complainant.
14. The testimony of both the witnesses i.e. the injured/complainant PW1 and the pillion rider PW4 have remained intact and no material discrepancy has been found in the same. It is settled law that court can act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. In opinion of this court, the complainant PW1 and the pillion rider PW4 have given a trustworthy and reliable account of the incident and though, no corroboration is required, as a matter of prudence it would be beneficial to discuss the other material on record.
15. Perusal of record shows that both the vehicles i.e DL 7SCC6448 & DL 5SAT6389 were seized from the spot of the accident vide memo Ex. PW 5/C & Ex. PW5/D respectively. The same were proved by PW5 SI Shailender Singh.
16. Further, mechanical inspection report Ex. PW2/A shows damage on the front portion of the scooty of the complainant. Damage on the front portion of the offending vehicle is also shown in the mechanical inspection report. Though, the defence has stressed the point that the Mechanical Inspection report is not clear as to whether the impact was on the right or the left side of the scooty driven by the complainant, the same does not put any shadow of State Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 9 of 12 doubt on the prosecution version as the presence of the accused on the spot or the factum of the accident is not disputed. Further, perusal of site plan Ex. PW5/B clearly shows that the vehicle of the accused was found on the wrong side of the road at the time of the accident. This supports the case of the prosecution that the accused was driving the vehicle negligently. When the same is seen in light of the testimony of PW1 and PW4, it leads to inescapable conclusion that the accused jumped the red light, which is indubitably fraught with rashness and negligence, and hit the vehicle of the complainant because of which both the vehicles fell down and the complainant suffered grievous injury. The factum of the grievous injury ie. fracture in left tibia and febula is also proved by the admitted documents i.e. MLC of the injured Ex. PA4, discharge summary Ex.PA6 and X Ray report Ex.PA7 (colly).
17. Clearly the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the commission of offence under Section 279 & 338 IPC. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances as discussed above, offence under Section 119/177 MV Act and Section 184 of the MV Act also stands proved.
18. The accused is also charged under Section 471/474 IPC and 3/181 of the MV Act. Perusal of Section 471 of the IPC reveals that the offence herein pertains to the dishonest or fraudulent use of any forged document as genuine. Further, Section 474 IPC provides for the punishment for being in possession of a document, as described under Section 466 IPC knowing it to be forged and intending it to be so used.
19. Regarding the charge under Section 471/474 IPC, testimony of PW6 HC Komal and admitted documents i.e. Verification letter of DL bearing no.
State Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 10 of 12201000/NW/NTV/10 dated 06.04.2018 Ex.PW6/A (colly) and Verification letter dated 29.11.2019 issued by motor vehicle officer Wokha Nagaland Ex.PA10 clearly proves that the said DL was issued to one Sonjit and not to the accused, and hence the DL of the accused bearing no. 201000/NW/NTV/10 was forged.
20. However, qua charge under Section 471 IPC, it is not case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of the same while driving the said vehicle. It is not clear as to how and in what manner the accused was actually using the forged driving license as genuine one. Therefore, in opinion of this court, ingredients of Section 471 IPC are not satisfied. However, since the said driving license was produced by the accused himself during the investigation when he was asked for the same, and was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/G, it is clear that the accused was in possession of a forged driving license and he intended the same to be used as genuine fraudulently or dishonestly. Thus, commission of offence by the accused under Section 474 IPC is established beyond reasonable doubt. Since it is clear that that at the time of the accident the accused did not possess any effective or valid driving license, which is in contravention of Section 3 MV Act, the offence under Section 3/181, MV Act also stands proved.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused and that the grievous injuries were caused to the complainant as a result of such driving. The prosecution has also proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence under Section 474 IPC and Section 3/181 MV Act.
State Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 11 of 1222. Accordingly, the accused is held guilty of offences punishable under section 279, 338 and Section 474 IPC, Section 3/181, 119/177 and 184 of the MV Act, and he is accordingly convicted for the same.
23. The guilt of the accused has not been proved for offence under Section 471 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC.
24. Copy of this judgment be given to both the sides, free of cost.
Announced in open court on 13.12.2021.
(RAHUL VERMA) MM07/ SOUTHEAST DISTRICT /SAKET COURT COMPLEX/ NEW DELHI/13.12.2021 State Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 12 of 12