Delhi District Court
State vs . Pargat Singh on 20 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON, MM-6 (C), TIS HAZARI
COURT, DELHI.
FIR No.78/2008
U/s. : 279/304A IPC
P.S. : Civil Lines
State Vs. Pargat Singh
JUDGMENT
1. CIS number of the case : 2997115-2016
2. CNR number of the case : DLCT02-0001156-2008
3. The date of commission of offence : 26.03.2008
4. The name of the complainant : HC Onkar Nath
5. The name & parentage of accused : Pargat Singh
S/o Sh. Tara Singh
R/o 351, Bagh Kade Khan,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi.
6. Offence under which notice has been : U/s 279/304A IPC
served
7. The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted of offences
U/s 279/304A IPC
Date of Institution : 04.09.2008
Judgment reserved on : 20.11.2018
Judgment announced on: 20.11.2018
FIR No.78/2008 State Vs. Pargat Singh 1 of 10
PS Civil Lines
STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as unfolded from the charge- sheet are that on 26.03.2008, at about 2:00 PM, Opposite Pillar No.55 near Metro Station, Tis Hazari, Delhi, situated within the jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines, accused was found driving bus bearing registration No.DL-1PB-4188 in a manner so rash & negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so, hit against one pedestrian Kamla W/o Sh. TuslI Ram due to which she died. Thereby, the accused committed the offences punishable u/s. 279/304A IPC and accordingly, charge-sheet was filed.
2. The copy of charge-sheet as well as its annexures were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and notice of the accusation u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s 279/304A IPC was served upon accused Pargat Singh by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court vide order dated 08.03.2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution was thereafter given opportunity to prove the accusation against the accused and examined 10 witnesses. Relevant portion of testimony of witnesses is discussed hereinafter.
4. PW-1 ASI Onkar Nath (Complainant) deposed that on 26.03.2008, he was on patrolling duty in the area of Beat No.8, Boulevard Road. On that day, at about 2:00 PM, when he reached near Metro Station Tis Hazari and he was proceeding towards Subzi Mandi Barafkhana, he saw that one old lady whose name was revealed later on Kamla, was crossing the road infront of St. Stephens Hospital. Suddenly one bus bearing No.DL-1PB-4188 of route no.721 came FIR No.78/2008 State Vs. Pargat Singh 2 of 10 PS Civil Lines there from Subzi Mandi side. The driver of the aforesaid bus namely Pargat Singh was driving the same in rash & negligent manner and in a very fast speed and while driving so, hit that lady, who was crossing the road infront of St. Stephen's Hospital when she reached just near to divider. As a result of the same, she fell down on the road and her legs were crushed under the front wheel of the bus. He with the help of public persons stopped the bus and they caught its driver. The lady was shifted to St. Stephen's Hospital in TSR where she was admitted for treatment. The accident had taken place due to negligent driving of the accused. Thereafter, SI Bhoop Singh and Ct. Jeevan from PS Civil Lines reached at the spot and he told the entire incident to SI Bhoop Singh. He also handed over the accused to SI Bhoop Singh and then SI Bhoop Singh went to St. Stephens' Hospital, thereafter, he recorded his detailed statement proved as Ex.PW1/A. Then, SI Bhoop Singh got the case registered, prepared site plan, seized the offending vehicle vide memo proved as Ex.PW1/B and arrested the accused.
During cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot tell whether there was any zebra crossing on the road. He further deposed that he has seen the site plan and no zebra crossing has been shown by the IO in the same, from where the deceased was crossing the road. He further deposed that he has no knowledge of the person, who got admitted in the injured in the hospital. The deceased was taken to Hospital by public persons in TSR.
5. PW-2 HC Rajpal Singh (Duty Officer) proved the present FIR as Ex.PW2/A (inadvertently mentioned as Ex.PW3/A) and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW2/B (inadvertently mentioned as Ex.PW3/B).
6. PW-3 Retired ASI Gurdeep Singh (Mechanical Inspector) proved his detailed mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle bearing No.DL-
FIR No.78/2008 State Vs. Pargat Singh 3 of 10 PS Civil Lines
1PB-4188 as Ex.PW3/A. During inspection, he found no fresh damage, engine clutch, brakes, steering were ok and vehicle was fit for road test.
7. PW-4 HC Jivan Bhatt deposed that on 26.03.2008, he alongwith SI Bhoop Singh reached at the spot where they met Onkar Nath, accused and SI Bhoop Singh recorded his statement, prepared a tehrir and sent it to PS for registration of FIR through him. Accordingly, he went to the PS and got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he came back at the spot with the copy of FIR & original tehrir and handed over the same to the IO/ SI Bhoop Singh. The offending bus was seized vide memo already proved as Ex.PW1/B. The relevant photocopy of the documents of the bus were seized vide memo proved as Ex.PW4/A. Accused was arrested & personally searched vide memo proved as Ex.PW4/B & Ex.PW4/C respectively. The driving licence of the accused was also seized vide memo proved as Ex.PW4/D. Thereafter, the case property was deposited in the Malkhana and IO recorded his statement. Accused was correctly identified by him.
8. PW-5 W/Ct. Veronica (D.D. Writer) proved the DD No.54B regarding an accident on 26.03.2008 as Ex.PW5/A.
9. PW-6 Ct. Parmod (D.D. Writer) proved the DD No.79B regarding death of injured Kamla and informed about the same to SI Bhoop Singh on 26.03.2008 as Ex.PW6/A (OSR).
10. PW-7 Dr. B.K. Sharma proved the postmortem report of deceased Kamla, aged about 65 years as Ex.PW7/A. He opined that all the injuries were antemortem in nature consistent with road traffic accident and death was due to hemorrhagic shock.
FIR No.78/2008 State Vs. Pargat Singh 4 of 10 PS Civil Lines
11. PW-8 Retired SI Bhoop Singh (Investigating Officer) deposed that on 26.03.2008, on receipt of DD No.54B already proved as Ex.PW5/A he alongwith Ct. Jeewan Bhatt reached at the spot where one bus bearing No.DL- 1PB-4188 of route No.781 was found in accidental condition and HC Onkar nath was also found. Blood stains were also found on the spot. HC Onkar Nath had informed that injured lady was taken to St. Stephen's Hospital. Accused was also found present at the spot and during interrogation, he disclosed his name as Pargat. Accused was correctly identified by him in the court. He left HC Onkar Nath, Ct. Jeevan Bhatt and accused at the spot and went to the Hospital where he collected MLC No.190/08 of injured Kamal in which doctor opined as unfit for statement and thus, he did not recorded her statement. Then, he came back to the spot. He recorded the statement of HC Onkar Nath already proved as E.xPW1/A. He prepared rukka on the said statement proved as Ex.PW8/A and handed over the same to Ct. Jeevan Bhatt for getting the FIR registered. He prepared site plan of HC Onkar Nath proved as Ex.PW8/B. He also got clicked photographs of the spot alongwith offending vehicle, proved as Ex.P9/A1 to Ex.PW9/A4. Then, Ct. Jeevan Bhatt came back to the spot and handed over the original tehrir and FIR. Thereafter, he also seized offending vehicle, documents of the offending vehicle i.e. RC, Insurance, Permit, Authorization Card and Pollution Certificate vide memo proved as Ex.PW4/A. Then, accused was also arrested & personally searched vide memo proved as Ex.PW4/B & Ex.PW4/C respectively. The driving licence of the accused was also seized vide memo proved as Ex.PW4/D. He further deposed that he also received information regarding the death of injured vide DD No.79B, thus, section 304A IPC was added. Dead body was got preserved and death body was identified by the sons of the deceased vide memo proved as Ex.PW8/C & Ex.PW8/D respectively. After postmortem, FIR No.78/2008 State Vs. Pargat Singh 5 of 10 PS Civil Lines dead body was handed over to the LRs of the deceased vide memo proved as Ex.PW8/E. He also got mechanical inspection done of the offending vehicle. He collected postmortem report and recorded the statement of witnesses. He correctly identified the offending vehicle.
During cross-examination, he deposed that public persons were present at the spot. He admitted that there was a divider on the road where alleged incident occurred. He also admitted that as per the site plan, there was no zebra crossing at the spot of occurrence and the traffic run at a slow speed near the spot, being a busy road.
12. PW-9 Sh. Gyan Chand (photographer) clicked 4 photographs of the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1PB-4188, proved as Ex.PW9/A1 to PW9/A4 (colly).
13. PW-10 Dr. J.P.N Gupta deposed that he examined the patient Kamla on 26.03.2008 vide MLC bearing No.190/08 proved as Ex.PW10/A.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that vide separate statement dated 03.09.2012, accused stated that he shall not dispute the identity of vehicle during the examination of prosecution witnesses.
Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
15. Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused, which he denied in general, however, he was driving the aforesaid vehicle at the alleged place, date and time, however, no accident was committed by his rash & negligent driving.
Accused chose not to lead evidence in his defence. Thereafter,
FIR No.78/2008 State Vs. Pargat Singh 6 of 10
PS Civil Lines
matter was listed for final arguments.
16. Final arguments on behalf of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused have been heard.
During the course of final arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that no public witness has been cited by the prosecution in the present matter, though, the spot of alleged accident was a public place and as per testimony of the main eye witness of the prosecution, some passerby/ public person took the injured to the hospital. He has relied upon section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act and has stated that as no public person has been cited and examined as witness, despite their presence at the spot, an adverse be drawn against the prosecution. Further, he has relied upon the site plan proved as Ex.PW1/B and the complaint made by HC Onkar Nath proved as Ex.PW1/A. The entire record has been carefully perused.
17. The case of prosecution that on the alleged date, time and place, accused was driving the bus bearing registration No.DL-1PB-4188 in a manner so rash & negligent so as to endanger human life & personal safety of others and while driving so, hit against one pedestrian namely Kamla and caused her death not amounting to culpable homicide. So the first and foremost thing to be proved by prosecution is that the accused was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1PB-4188 on the date, time and place of accident. However, during trial, the accused has admitted in his statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr.PC that he was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PB-4188 on the date, time and place of accident. Further, the accused was arrested at the spot soon after the accident and the offending vehicle was seized. Therefore, it only remains to be proved by the prosecution that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in such a manner that would amount to rashness or negligence FIR No.78/2008 State Vs. Pargat Singh 7 of 10 PS Civil Lines on his part so as to endanger human life & personal safety of others and a consequence of the same, hit the pedestrian Kamla, who succumbed to her injuries caused by the said accident.
18. In order to prove the rashness/ negligence undertaken by the accused while driving the offending vehicle and that the alleged accident has been committed by him which resultant in death of Ms. Kamla, the prosecution has examined the only star/ eye witness, who is the complainant in the present matter HC Onkar Nath as PW-1. He has deposed that while he was on patrolling duty on 26.02.2008, at about 2:00 PM, he witnessed that the offending vehicle, being driven by accused in rash & negligent manner as well as at very high speed, had hit one lady namely Kamla, who was crossing the road, infront of St. Stephens' Hospital. As a result of which, she fell down on the road and her leg was crushed under the wheels of the bus. With help of public present at the spot, he stopped the bus and caught the driver, who is the present accused. The injured was taken to Hospital by public persons in TSR. However, for the reasons best known to Investigating Officer, the passerby/ public witness, who took the injured to Hospital (as mentioned in the MLC proved as Ex.PW10/A) or the public persons who stopped the bus and apprehended the accused has neither been cited by him nor examined by the prosecution.
19. Further, PW-1 as well as IO examined as PW-8 have admitted that there was no zebra crossing at the spot and the injured was crossing the road from in-between through the divider. Even the site plan proved as Ex.PW1/B reflects the same. Though, principle of contributory negligence is of no avail in criminal matter, however, conduct and circumstances are to be considered in deciding the rashness or negligence attributed to the accused. As relied by the defence, the complainant has also mentioned in his statement proved as FIR No.78/2008 State Vs. Pargat Singh 8 of 10 PS Civil Lines Ex.PW1/A that the accused, who was driver of the bus, had got the bus stopped at the bus stop, from where the deceased was crossing the road. It has only been deposed by PW-1 that accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash & negligent manner as well as at very high speed, however, no specific/ approximate speed has been mentioned by PW-1 on which the bus was being driven. Further, the manner of driving the vehicle by the accused in rash or negligent way also remained unexplained. On this point this Court is guided by the judgments of Superior Courts in "Badri Prasad Tiwari Vs. The State"
(1984) ACC 476, "Bbeda Kanta Phukan Vs. The State of Assam", 1992 Cri. LJ 1197 (Gau) and "State of Karnataka V Satish" (1998) 8 SCC 493.
20. Further to prove presence of PW-1 at the spot, no DD entry qua his patrolling duty is proved on record. Furthermore, his presence at the spot remains doubtful as despite being a police official, he has not cared to shift the injured to the hospital immediately and waited at the spot. He has also not specified the rash or negligent manner by which the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused and has stated in a stereo typed manner that accused was driving the offending vehicle at a very high speed.
21. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
22. Under the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded that in the present case the evidence on the record is not at all sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offences, hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to FIR No.78/2008 State Vs. Pargat Singh 9 of 10 PS Civil Lines prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, accused Pargat Singh is acquitted for the offences U/s 279/304A IPC.
Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI
BARNALA
Announced and dictated in the BARNALA TANDON
open Court today i.e. on 20.11.2018 TANDON Date: 2018.11.20
16:05:24 +0530
(Shefali Barnala Tandon)
MM-06, Central, Tis Hazari Court
Delhi
All pages are duly signed.
FIR No.78/2008 State Vs. Pargat Singh 10 of 10
PS Civil Lines