Delhi District Court
State vs Sushil Kumar on 10 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT - 01) :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
State Vs. Sushil Kumar
SC No. : 90/2017
FIR No. : 174/2014
U/S : 186/353/333 IPC
PS : Pul Prahladpur
Particulars of the case
a) Date of Offence : 07.05.2014
b) Offence complained of : 186/353/333 IPC
c) Name of the complainant : Constable Sanjay
d) Name of the accused No. 1 : Sushil Kumar
His parentage, S/o Kanhaiya Lal
R/o H. No.E-555, J J Camp,
Krishna Park, Parmi Devi
Mandir, Tigri, Delhi
Permanent address : Village- Sindhi Camp,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
e) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : Accused acquitted
g) Date of Institution : 17.02.2017
h) Date of Judgment reserved for orders : 02.12.2024
i) Date of Judgment : 10.01.2025
SC No. 90/2017
FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 1 of 21
j) Ld. Additional PP for the State : Sh. Nischal Singh
k) Ld. Counsel for accused : Sh. M. C. Sharma
JUDGMENT
1. CHARGE-SHEET 1.1 As per charge-sheet, on 07.05.2014, on receiving DD No.15A, SI Satish Chandra along with Ct. Rajeev reached at the spot i.e. MB Road, T Point, Karni Singh, Shooting Range. No eye witness was found. The injured had been taken to the hospital by the PCR. On getting DD No. 28A regarding MLC of the injured said police officials reached AIIMS Trauma Center wherein injured Sanjay was found admitted with alleged history of RTA patient standing on road hit by car and nature of injury pending investigation. Thereafter, the statement of injured Ct. Sanjay was recorded.
1.2 Constable Sanjay stated that he was posted at Kalkaji Circle of Traffic Police, Delhi as a Constable. He along with HC Pratipal were on duty at the aforesaid spot. Around 05:30 PM one white color car jumped red light and was instructed to stop. The driver initially slowed down the car and when Ct. Sanjay went near the car he suddenly sped up the car and deliberately hit him and escaped. However, he had noted down its registration no. i.e. HR 51AP 1610. He stated that he can identify the driver and action shall be taken against him.
1.3 On the basis of the MLC and the circumstances of the case, FIR was registered under section 186/353/337 IPC and investigation was conducted SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 2 of 21 by SI Satish Chandra. Details of the ownership of the car were obtained and the vehicle owner was served notice under section 133 MV Act. The IO also visited the residence of owner but the clue about the driver was not found. Result on MLC was obtained. Since the injured was a public servant the offence under section 333 IPC was added in place of 337 IPC. The husband of the owner of vehicle came in the police station but the driver could not be found. 1.4 On 10.07.2015, the injured joined investigation and site plan was prepared. Thereafter, on 06.11.2015, the accused Sushil Kumar was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. The IO produced the accused in the Court and moved TIP application. However, the accused refused to participate in the TIP. The accused was released on bail by the Court. Permission under section 195 Cr.P.C. was obtained and charge-sheet was filed against the accused Sushil Kumar under section 186/353/333 IPC.
2. CHARGE 2.1 On the basis of charge-sheet, charge under section 186/353/333 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the charge- sheet.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.1 In support of its case, prosecution has examined 9 witnesses as SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 3 of 21 follows:-
S. No. Name of the witness Nature of the evidence
PW1 Smt. Rajesh Sorout Owner of the offending
vehicle
PW2 SI Sunder Singh Duty Officer who recorded the
DD entry 28A and the FIR of
the case
PW3 Retd. ACP Narayan Singh Police officer who prepared
the complaint under section
195 Cr.P.C.
PW4 HC Sanjay Injured/complainant
PW5 Dr. Feeha Benazir Doctor who gave the opinion
about the nature of injury of
injured Sanjay
PW6 SI Pratipal Police official/eye witness
PW7 ASI Rajeev Constable who accompanied
the IO during investigation
PW8 Aditya Swaroop Medical Record Clerk who
proved the MLC of injured
Sanjay
PW9 Insp. Satish Chandra IO
3.2 The prosecution has exhibited following documents/objects in
support of its case:-
No. of Exhibit Nature of Exhibit
Ex.PW1/A Notice under section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act
Ex.PW2/A Copy of entry of DD No. 28A
SC No. 90/2017
FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 4 of 21
Ex.PW2/B Copy of FIR
Ex.PW2/C Endorsement on tehrir
Ex.PW3/A Complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C.
Ex.PW4/A Statement/complaint of injured Ct. Sanjay
Ex.PW5/P1 MLC of injured Ct. Sanjay
Ex.PW7/P1 Arrest memo of accused
Ex.PW7/P2 Personal search of accused
Ex.PW7/P3 Disclosure statement of accused
Ex.PW7/P4 Seizure memo of driving licence of accused
Ex.MO1 Driving licence of accused
Ex.PW8/P1 Authority letter of PW-8
Ex.PW8/P2 Certified discharge summary of injured Ct.
Sanjay
Ex.PW9/P1 DD No.24A dated 07.05.2014
Ex.PW9/P2 Tehrir
Ex.PW9/P3 Site plan
Ex.PW9/P4 TIP proceedings of accused
Ex.PW9/P5 Notice under section 91 Cr.P.C. issued to the
MLO, Faridabad for furnishing details of
owner of offending vehicle
3.3 Though 9 witnesses have been examined by prosecution but the
main witnesses of the case are:-
I) PW - 1 / Smt. Rajesh Sorout / owner of the offending vehicle;
II) PW - 4 / HC Sanjay / injured / complainant;
SC No. 90/2017
FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 5 of 21
III) PW - 6 / SI Pratipal / eye-witness;
IV) PW - 9 / Insp. Satish Chandra / IO.
3.4 PW-1 Smt. Rajesh Sorout deposed that on 07.05.2014 she was the
registered owner of vehicle bearing no. HR51-AP-1610. She is a house wife. The above said vehicle is still in her name and in her possession. She does not know who was driving the above said vehicle on 07.05.2014. She does not remember the exact date and year, however, one day police officials visited her house and her signatures were obtained by the police on the paper. She does not know what was written on the paper on which her signature was obtained. Her statement was not recorded by the IO. She further states that she does not know anything about the present case. She deposed that she did not produce any driver before the police.
Since PW-1 was resiling from her previous statement given to the police, she was cross-examined by Ld. APP.
During her cross-examination by the prosecution, she admitted her signature at point A on the notice u/s 133 M.V. Act vide Ex.PW1/A. However, she denied that she had informed the police that she was the registered owner of the above said vehicle and on the day of incident her driver Sushil Kumar was driving the said vehicle and that she will produce the driver before the police whenever he comes from Jaipur. She denied that she has given the reply of the notice u/s 133 M.V. Act at point X to X and thereafter, she had signed the same SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 6 of 21 at point A. She denied that accused Sushil Kumar was the same person who was driving the above said vehicle at the time of incident. She denied that she is deliberately not identifying the accused Sushil Kumar as a driver to save him. She denied that on 07.05.2014 her driver Sushil Kumar was driving the above said vehicle and he had hit the traffic police official near red light of Karni Singh Shooting range, M.B. Road by her above said vehicle and after hitting the traffic police official, he ran away from the spot with the above said vehicle. She denied that she had stated to police that her driver Sushil Kumar went to his native place Rajasthan after the incident and she had told the police that she will produce him on 25.05.2014 and on 06.11.2015 she produced the accused before the police and he was arrested. PW-1 was confronted with her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C dated 06.11.2015 mark X where aforesaid facts are mentioned but she denied having made such statement to the police. She denied that she has been won over by the accused being her driver. She denied that she is deposing falsely to save the accused.
PW-1 was cross-examined nil by Ld. Counsel for the accused. 3.5 PW- 4 HC Sanjay deposed that on 07.05.2014 he was posted as Constable in Traffic Police in the area of Kalkaji Circle. On that day he was on duty along with HC Pratipal at Karni Singh Shooting Range, M. B. Road, T Point. During his duty hours at about 05.30 pm when he was standing on the left side of the road at the said T point, one car of white colour came from Batra hospital side and after jumping the red light went towards shooting range road.
SC No. 90/2017FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 7 of 21 He signalled the driver of said car to stop because he had broken the traffic rule. On his signal, the driver of the car slowed his car and when he reached near the car, the driver suddenly increased the speed of car and deliberately hit the car against him and ran away. The registration number of said car was HR 51AP 1610 make Hyundai Verna. He sustained grievous injury on his right shoulder/arm. The information was given to the PCR van who took him to AIIMS Trauma Center where he was medically examined. SI Satish of PS Pul Prahladpur recorded his statement vide Ex.PW4/A. On 10.07.2015, IO took him to the house of owner namely Smt. Rajesh of the said car and there he saw the family members of Rajesh but none of them was the person who was driving the said car at the relevant time. Thereafter, IO took him to the spot and at his instance, he prepared the site plan.
On 06.11.2015, he came to the Saket Court complex and there he saw the accused in the custody of the IO and then he identified the accused and told the IO that he was the same person who had hit him with his aforesaid car. IO recorded his statement in this regard. The name of accused was revealed as Sushil Kumar. During his testimony, PW-4 identified the accused as the said person. He deposed that he can identify the car if shown to him, however, the identification of vehicle by the witness was not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel.
PW-4 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
SC No. 90/2017FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 8 of 21 3.6 PW -6 SI Pratipal deposed that on 07.05.2014 he was posted at Kalkaji Southern Traffic as HC. On that day, he was on traffic regulation duty with Ct. Sanjay at Karan Singh Shooting Range, T Point, M. B. Road. They noticed one car Verna white color bearing registration no. HR 51AP 1610 coming from Batra Hospital side and going towards Karan Singh Shooting Range after jumping the red light. Ct. Sanjay sigalled to stop the car. PW-6 further deposed about hitting of Ct. Sanjay by the car as deposed by PW-4 Sanjay.
PW-6 deposed that he noted down the registration number of the car and conveyed the information on 100 number. After sometime, PCR van came and took Ct. Sanjay along with them. SI Satish and Ct. Rajeev arrived from PS Pul Prahladpur and made enquiry from him. Thereafter, they left for the hospital. Later on, they returned to the spot and recorded his statement. PW-6 identified the accused during his testimony as the driver of the said car.
PW-6 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. 3.7 PW- 9 Insp. Satish Chandra deposed that on 07.05.2014 he was posted at PS Pul Prahlad Pur as Sub Inspector. On that day, he was on emergency duty from 8 AM to 8 PM. On that day, he along with Ct. Rajeev were already on a call vide DD No. 15A. At around 6 PM, he was marked another call vide DD No. 24A on phone by the duty officer. The certified copy of the said DD entry is Ex.PW9/P1. The DD No. 24A was regarding the information that at the shooting range one constable was hit by a car. He reached at the spot i.e. T SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 9 of 21 Point where the Shooting Range Road meets the Mehrauli Badarpur Road. Nobody was found there. After sometime HC Pritpal came there. He informed that PCR had taken injured Ct. Sanjay who was hit by a car. They were trying to trace out the car. Meanwhile, he received another DD entry 28A by phone from the Duty Officer. The said entry Ex.PW2/A was regarding the information from AIIMS Trauma Center that the Constable has been admitted by the PCR at Trauma Center. He along with Ct. Rajeev reached at AIIMS Trauma Center. Therein he recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjay vide Ex.PW4/A and collected his MLC. Thereafter, he returned to the spot. He prepared the tehrir Ex.PW9/P2 and sent Ct. Rajeev to the police station for registration of the FIR. After about one hour, he returned with the copy of FIR and rukka. He recorded the statement of HC Pratipal and Ct. Rajeev. He could not prepare the site plan since Ct. Sanjay was still in injured condition. He investigated the details of the owner of the registered vehicle mentioned by Ct. Sanjay in his statement. The registered owner of the vehicle was found to be one Ms. Rajesh Sarout W/o Sh. Gajender Singh R/o Charamwood Village, Faridabad. He served notice vide Ex.PW1/A u/s 133 MV Act to the said lady. In reply to the said notice, the lady stated that at the time of incident, her vehicle was being driven by her driver Sushil and that he has gone to his parental village at Rajasthan and when he shall return, he shall be produced before him. The reply of the owner is mentioned from Point X to X in the afore-said notice.
On 10.07.2015, he along with Ct. Sanjay went to the house of SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 10 of 21 registered owner of the vehicle. All the family members of the registered owner were shown to Ct. Sanjay but none of them were found to be driver of the offending vehicle at the time of incident. Then he took Ct. Sanjay to the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/P3 at his instance.
On 06.11.2015, the registered owner of the vehicle produced the driver namely Sushil Kumar in the police station. During his testimony, PW-7 identified the accused Sushil Kumar as said person. He further deposed that he also called Ct. Rajeev and interrogated the driver. Accused admitted his guilt and accepted the role in the incident. He arrested the accused vide Ex.PW7/P1, conducted his personal search vide Ex.PW7/P2, recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW7/P3 and seized his driving licence Ex.MO1. Thereafter, the accused was produced in the Saket Court before Ld. MM in muffled face. He moved application for conducting the TIP of the accused but he refused to participate in TIP. The certified copy of the TIP proceedings of the accused is Ex.PW9/P4. Ct. Sanjay had come to the Court for his work. He had shown the driver Sushil to Ct. Sanjay and he identified him as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of incident. He recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjay to this effect. Bail application of accused was filed before Ld. MM and the same was allowed. During investigation, he obtained the opinion of the doctor on the MLC of Ct. Sanjay and his hurt was opined to be of grievous nature. Section 337 IPC was converted into section 333 IPC. He obtained permission u/s 195 CrPC from the ACP Traffic as Ct. Sanjay was posted as Traffic Constable. The right SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 11 of 21 shoulder of Ct. Sanjay was dislocated in the incident and he remained admitted in hospital for few days.
The notice u/s 91 CrPC dated 17.05.2014 issued to the MLO Faridabad to get the details of the owner of the offending vehicle is Ex.PW9/P5 and the reply regarding the owner was given on the same notice by Registering Authority.
Thereafter, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the Court.
PW-9 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
4. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CrPC 4.1 After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s 313 CrPC and he denied all the allegations. He stated that Ms. Rajesh Sorout told him and he had appeared in Saket Court. He admitted that he appeared in the police station and his licence was seized, however, he denied giving any disclosure statement to police. He stated that he did not refuse to participate in TIP. He claimed that he was shown to the witness outside the Court but the witness stated that he is not the alleged driver. He stated that he does not remember the vehicle number of Smt. Rajesh Sorout but he remained driver with her. He stated that there was confusion as to which vehicle of hers was involved.
5. DEFENCE EVIDENCE SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 12 of 21 5.1 No defence evidence was led by the accused.
6. ARGUMENTS 6.1 Ld. Additional PP for the State has submitted that the complainant has deposed against the accused and has identified him as the offending driver. His testimony is supported by the other police personnel present on duty i.e. HC Pratipal. The nature of injury has been proved through MLC record exhibited by the prosecution. Further, the registration number of offending vehicle was mentioned in the very first PCR call, details of which were recorded at PS Pul Prahladpur. The notice was served on the owner of the vehicle and the name of accused was mentioned as the driver in the reply of owner. Further, accused refused to participate in TIP and same shows the guilty conduct of accused. There was no motive with any of the police official to depose against the accused. Accordingly, the case of prosecution has been duly proved against the accused and he shall be convicted for all the offences charged against him. 6.2 On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has submitted that the owner of the alleged vehicle has turned hostile to the case of prosecution and has denied giving reply of the IO naming the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. There is no public witness to support the allegations of prosecution despite the fact that incident occurred in day time and on a busy road. There is no CCTV camera footage regarding the incident despite the claim that incident occurred near a busy traffic intersection. Further, there is no injury on the SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 13 of 21 legs/lower body of the complainant and the alleged injury is only on the hand/shoulder of the complainant. In case the accused had hit the car against the complainant he must have received injuries on the legs/lower body part also. Same shows that such injuries were received by falling on the ground and not on being hit by a car. He has further argued that though two police officials were present at the spot and PW-4 had a motorcycle parked at the spot but admittedly there was no chase of the alleged vehicle/accused. He has argued that it is impossible that a police official is hit by a car but the police does not even chase such person. He has further argued that as per cross-examination of PW-4, he was at a distance of 50 meters from red light and therefore, it was not possible for PW-4 to be able to see the driver of the car from such distance. Accordingly, the case of prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts and accused is entitled to be acquitted.
7. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 7.1 I have considered the arguments of the parties and have perused the record.
7.2 The relevant provisions applicable in present case are reproduced herewith:-
Section 186 IPC provides "whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 14 of 21 both".
Section 353 IPC provides "Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both"
Section 333 IPC provides "Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".
7.3 Thus, after considering the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties, following points for determination arise: -
i). Whether the complainant received the injuries on being hit by the offending car in alleged manner?
ii). Whether the accused was the driver of the alleged offending car at the given time and place ?SC No. 90/2017
FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 15 of 21
iii). Whether the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences charged against him ?
8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF LAW 8.1 The main witness of the case is the complainant/injured PW-4 HC Sanjay. He has deposed that after jumping the red light the car driver initially slowed down the car but thereafter increased the speed and deliberately hit him with the car and ran away. Thus, he has implied that he suffered head-on collision with the car. However, as argued by Ld. Defence Counsel, in case a person is hit by a car (specially a sedan which is low height car) the person will be hit firstly on the lower part of the body. However, admittedly, no injury was suffered by the complainant on the lower part of his body. Further, when a stationary person is hit by a speeding car, specially a low height Sedan, in head- on collision, the person will be swept off his feet and he will fall on the bonnet of the car and thereafter hit against the wind screen of the car. In the process the car may also receive some dents/damage. However, the manner in which PW-4 was hit by the speeding car has not been described in detail by any of the witnesses. Moreover, the said car was never seized by the police and was never subjected to any mechanical inspection. This is so despite the fact that the details of the owner were traced by police within 12 days of the incident vide Ex.PW9/P5 i.e. alleged notice to registering authority and even the owner was allegedly served notice on 25.05.2014 vide Ex.PW1/A. SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 16 of 21 Further, as per the MLC of the injured Ex.PW5/P1 there was minor puncture wound over left wrist of the injured. However, it does not appear probable that a person on being hit by a sedan will suffer a punctured wound as such wounds are caused by a pointed object. Moreover, the injured has deposed that he suffered grievous injury on his right shoulder/arm. As per the discharge summary Ex.PW5/P2, dislocation of right shoulder was observed in the x-ray. If the injured was hit by the car on his side then the impact shall be on the either side of the body including his lower body part/legs. However, as mentioned earlier, there is no corresponding injury on lower part of the body. Further, PW-5 Dr. Feeha has admitted in her cross-examination that it is possible that if a person falls from height by himself, he can sustain this kind of injury. It is to be noted that even PW-6 Pratipal has deposed that the car hit Ct. Sanjay and due to impact, Ct. Sanjay fell down on the road and sustained injuries on his shoulder and hand. Therefore, PW-6 has mentioned about the fall but PW-4 is conspicuously silent about such fall. Thus, it appears probable that said injuries were caused when the Constable had tried to stop the moving car from its side using his right hand and got hit on his shoulder and then fell on his left side on the road. Admittedly, no barricades had been set up and therefore, the policemen were not standing in front or back of such barricades. Hence, the circumstances correspond to the conduct of a police official risking his safety while stopping a running vehicle instead of the vehicle itself slamming against the police official. Here, it may also be noted that if a person jumps a traffic light and thereupon, he SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 17 of 21 is signaled by traffic police to stop the vehicle, the primary tendency of such driver may be to avoid being caught due to fear of being fined for such violation. In such situation, the driver may speed up to escape the traffic police but in normal circumstances such driver will not deliberately hit any police official with the intention of causing injury to him. Therefore, in the given circumstances, it is doubtful whether complainant has deposed truthfully regarding the manner in which he got injured.
8.2 As far as the accused being the driver of the alleged offending vehicle is concerned, the prosecution has relied on the testimony of PW-4 Ct. Sanjay and PW-6 HC Pratipal for the same. However, it is to be noted that in the complaint PW-4 Ct. Sanjay has referred the person as "the driver" of the vehicle without even mentioning whether the driver was male or female or his age or facial or other physical features. Even otherwise, the trajectory of the vehicle was that of taking a right turn and proceeding onward to Karni Singh Shooting Range Road. As per the site plan Ex.PW9/P3 also, the point A i.e. the spot of incident was just at the turn. Further, as per the witness, the driver of the vehicle sped away after briefly slowing down the car. Therefore, from the said circumstances, it does not appear probable that the injured would have clearly seen the driver sitting inside a moving car during such transaction, for his future identification.
It may be noted that in the site plan neither the precise location of HC Pratipal nor of Ct. Sanjay is shown. Though HC Pratipal has claimed SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 18 of 21 himself to be present at the spot, however, no DD entry or other duty roster has been filed to show his duty at the alleged spot. It may be noted that PW-6 HC Pratipal has deposed that he noted down the registration number of the car and conveyed the said incident on 100 number. After sometime of the incident, PCR van came and took Ct. Sanjay with them. SI Sanjay and Ct. Rajeev from PS Pul Prahladpur came on the spot and they made enquiry from him and thereafter they left from the spot for the hospital. However, as per PW-9 IO Insp. Satish Chandra when they reached at the spot nobody was found there and after sometime, HC Pritpal came there. Therefore, as per IO the HC Pritpal was conspicuous by his absence from the spot of occurrence. Admittedly, PW-6 HC Pratipal neither accompanied the injured to the hospital nor chased the offending car. Thus, it is not even fully established that PW-6 HC Pratipal was present at the spot at the time of alleged incident.
Further, it may be noted that the owner of the vehicle i.e. PW-1 Ms. Rajesh Sorout has denied that she had produced any driver to the police. Though she admitted her signatures on the notice under section 133 MV Act vide Ex.PW1/A but she denied the reply itself. Besides such reply, there is no independent proof that the accused was the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. Even the reply bears signature of the owner at four points which is unusual for a brief reply of four lines. Further, the incident occurred on 07.05.2014 and the alleged notice was served on 25.05.2014 but admittedly the accused did not join the investigation for the next one and a half year. As per the SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 19 of 21 IO, the accused joined the investigation on 06.11.2015. However, in case the owner of the vehicle had furnished the name of the driver with undertaking to produce him but she failed to do so for such prolonged period, nothing stopped the IO from proceeding further to issue a fresh notice/reminder to the owner or obtain warrants or other process against such named driver. Therefore, there was a strange silence in the investigation of the case for one and a half year. As per IO on 10.07.2015 he along with Ct. Sanjay went to the house of registered owner of the vehicle and all the family members of the registered owner were shown to Ct. Sanjay but none of them was found to be driver of offending vehicle at the time of incident. However, such investigation is surprising, specially if the IO had already obtained the reply of the owner regarding the details of the driver of the vehicle. Thus, conduct of IO does not correspond to the alleged sequence of investigation because instead of taking steps to ensure the presence of such named driver, he went for a kind of test identification parade of the family members of the registered owner. This shows that IO was unsure about the driver till such point of time. Further, even said step was taken after more than 14 months after the incident despite having the name of the driver soon after the incident, through alleged "reply" of owner. Therefore, the investigation is doubtful regarding the said aspect. Moreover, during investigation, the alleged 'identification' of accused as driver was done by the complainant after one and half year of the incident. Considering the momentary duration of incident and limited opportunity to see the face of driver, such SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 20 of 21 delayed identification is of very weak probative value.
9. CONCLUSION 9.1 In view of above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove any of the points for determination against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused Sushil Kumar is acquitted from all the offences charged against him.
(Announced in the Open Court on 10th January, 2025) Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN SANGWAN SANGWAN Date: 2025.01.10 14:59:31 +0530 (SACHIN SANGWAN) Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-01, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/10.01.2025 SC No. 90/2017 FIR No. 174/2014 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page no. 21 of 21