Delhi District Court
State vs Jatinder Singh on 20 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05 SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
State Vs. : Jatinder Singh RISHABH
KAPOOR
KAPOOR
Date:
2025.12.20
14:59:41
+0530
FIR No : 436/2011
U/s : 279/304A IPC and Section 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Case No. : 14684/19 2. Date of commission of offence : 31.12.2011 3. Date of institution of the case : 06.06.2012 4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : Jatinder Singh s/o Sh.
Ravil Singh
6. Offense complained or n proved : U/s 279/304A IPC and section 146/196 MV Act.
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 10.12.2025
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 20.12.2025
1. The accused Jatinder Singh is facing trial for offences u/s 279/304A IPC and Section 146/196 MV Act. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 31.12.2011 at around 1:45 PM at Ganda Nala near Machli Chowk, Vikas Puri, Delhi, the accused was found driving motorcycle bearing no. DL-1SP-8407 in a high speed and rash or negligent manner and while driving the aforesaid vehicle in rash or negligent manner, the accused lost the control over the motorcycle due to which it fell in the nala StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 1 and victim Master Mandeep Singh who was also riding on the said motorcycle succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The criminal law was set into motion and the FIR was registered. Thereafter, the investigation into the case began and during the course of investigation, the post mortem of dead body of deceased was conducted and the mechanical inspection of the offending motorcycle was also done. The accused failed to produce the insurance policy of the motorcycle in question, due to which the charge for offense u/s 196 MV Act was also added in the case FIR. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet for offences u/s 279/304A IPC and Section 146/196 MV Act was submitted for trial of accused.
2. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offences was taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court and on the basis of material available on record, notice of accusation for offences u/s 279/304A IPC and Section 146/196 MV Act was framed and served upon accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all.
4. Thereafter, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused. The accused did not lead evidence in his defense. In the statement u/s 313 Cr. PC accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated by the police and that the incident did not take place due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle by him and rather he had jumped into the nala for rescuing the victim StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 2 when he fell down in the nala but he was falsely implicated by police in the present case.
5. Ld. Addl. PP for State has contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts with the help of coherent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the alleged offences.
6. Per contra, Ld. LADC for accused has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the police. It has also been argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that the alleged incident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle by the accused. It has been contended that there exist serious doubts in the prosecution story and hence, accused is liable to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
7. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the prose- cution and defense and have also gone through the case record carefully.
8. Prior to delving into the merits of the contentions ad- vanced on behalf of parties, let us briefly discuss the testi- monies of the material prosecution witnesses.
(i). PW-1 Tejas is cited as an alleged eye witness to the inci-
dent. He deposed that he does not remember about the date, month and year of the incident but it was during winter time when his uncle Jatinder Singh called on his mother's phone and told him to come down stairs as he would be giving him ride StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 3 and teaching how to ride the motorcycle. He further deposed that thereafter, the accused Jatinder Singh took him and his brother on motorcycle ride and he was sitting on the front, whereas his brother was sitting behind the accused on the mo- torcycle. He further deposed that the accused took them to Hastsal road where he increased the speed of the motorcycle and he was also told by them to slow down but he did not do so as he was under the influence of alcohol. He further deposed that at that time, there was a fog at the spot and accused lost the control over the motorcycle due to which it got struck in the broken wall of nala and he along with accused fell down in the nala, whereas his brother fell down on the stones. He further deposed that he came out from the nala and raised an alarm and his brother along with the accused were taken out from the nala by public persons. He further deposed that his parents also came to the spot and took him and his brother to hospital. He further deposed that accused was also treated at the hospital and his statement was recorded by the IO. Thereafter, he was encountered with the questions in the nature of cross examina- tion by Ld. APP for the State and he could not state that the date of incident was 30.12.2011. He admitted that on the date of incident he and his elder brother Mandeep Singh and his mother were waiting for his father to come to the house and at about 12:30 AM, his father came to house with the accused. He admitted that he and his brother told the accused to give them a ride on motorcycle, to which his father told him that it was late in the night. He admitted that there was heavy fog on the road at that time and his father told them to come and sleep but the ac- cused insisted of giving ride to him and his brother and took them towards Fish Market, Hastsal road. He admitted that ac-
StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 4 cused lost his control on the turn. He admitted that his brother had fallen on stone in the nala. During his cross examination, he stated that he did not make statement dated 02.04.2012 be- fore the IO. He stated that his statement was never recorded at police station. He stated that there was fog on the night of inci- dent and the visibility was very low and nothing was visible even at the distance of 10-12 feet. He stated that his brother had also driven motorcycle for some time on the day of incident and that the broken wall of nala was not visible. He stated that the breaks of the motorcycle were working properly. He denied that the motorcycle was driven by his brother Mandeep Singh or that the same had fallen into nala when his brother was driving the motorcycle or that accused had jumped into nala to save him and his brother.
(ii). PW-2 Retired ASI Dablu Oran is a formal witness who proved the FIR and endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW 2/A and Ex. PW 2/B respectively
(iii). PW-3 Charanjeet Singh is the father of deceased victim Mandeep Singh. He deposed that on 30.12.2011, accused came to his office at about 8:30 PM and thereafter, he along with accused went to a party where they both consumed alcohol. He further deposed that at about 12:30 AM, after attending party when he and accused reached to his house, his sons Mandeep Singh and Prabhtej Singh @ Tejas asked accused to give them a joy ride. He further deposed that the accused took them on his motorcycle and after 20 minutes when his sons did not return, he went towards the road and in the meantime, someone informed him that his sons had met with an accident. He further deposed that thereafter, he reached the nala at Hastsal, Vikas Puri where he found the StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 5 public persons gathered there and his son Tejas was standing there along with the public persons while his son Mandeep and accused were taken out from nala by the public persons. He further deposed that he took his sons to Seghal Nursing Home, Paschim Vihar and doctors referred his son Mandeep Singh to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh where he unfortunately died on 02.01.2012. He identified his signatures on seizure memo of the driving license of accused which is Ex. PW 3/A. During his cross examination, he stated that the statement of his son Tejas was recorded at home and not at police station. He admitted that there was fog at the time of incident and the visibility was very low. He stated that due to the low visibility only the objects at a distance of 10-12 feet could be seen. He could not state as to whether the motorcycle was being driven by his son Mandeep at the time of incident.
(iv). PW-4 ASI Kartar Singh deposed that on 31.12.2011 at around 1:30 AM, while he along with Ct. Yogesh was on picket duty at Machi Chowk Ganda Nala, Vikas Puri, he heard noise from the side of ganda nala and when they rushed towards there, they found one person along with two children lying inside the nala and the motorcycle was also lying in the nala. He further deposed that there was huge fog at that time and the said persons were taken out from the ganda nala. He further deposed that the public persons also gathered at the spot and someone called at the house of victims upon which their relatives came to the spot and shifted them to hospital. He further deposed that after some time one ASI along with Ct. Sunil Kumar reached the spot and the facts were apprised to them. He further deposed that the motorcycle was taken out from the ganda nala and thereafter, site plan was prepared. He StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 6 identified accused as the person who was lying in the nala along with the injured children. He also identified the motorcycle bearing no. DL-1SP-8407 in photographs Ex P1 and Ex. P2. During his cross examination, he admitted that there was huge fog on the night of 31.12.2011 and the visibility was of around 5 to 10 feet. He stated that the call at 100 number was made by him. He could not state as to who had made the call to the relatives of the injured children. He stated that his signatures were taken by the IO on site plan. He could not state whether any other person signed the site plan or not.
(v). PW-5 Ct Yogesh Malik is the another police official who reached the spot after hearing the noise of the collision of the motorcycle with the wall of nala and he also deposed on the same lines as that of PW-4 ASI Kartar Singh, therefore, his entire testimony is not being reproduced to avoid repetition.
(vi). PW-6 HC Sunil deposed that on 31.12.2011, in pursuance of the receipt of information vide DD no. 7A , he along with ASI Prahlad went to the spot of incident i.e. Ganda Nala near Machli Chowk, Vikas Puri, Delhi and there they met HC Kartar Singh and Ct. Yogesh. He further deposed that both HC Kartar Singh and Ct. Yogesh informed that one person along with two kids had fallen in the ganda nala and they were shifted to hospital. He further deposed that after that, motorcycle was pulled out from the ganda nala and on receipt of DD no. 8A from Sehgal Hospital, he along with ASI Prahlad went there. He further deposed that ASI Prahlad collected the MLC of injured Mandeep Singh who was referred to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and thereafter, he along with ASI Prahlad went there where it was found that the injured Mandeep Singh was in ICU, whereas accused was discharged after the treatment. He StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 7 further deposed that thereafter he along with ASI Prahlad returned to the PS where tehrir was prepared on DD no. 7A and the FIR was registered. He further deposed that during investigation, ASI Prahlad prepared site plan Ex. PW 6/A and seized the motorcycle vide memo Ex. PW 6/B. He further deposed that on 03.01.2012, it was informed to ASI Prahlad that the victim Mandeep has unfortunately died and his body was shifted to Mortuary of DDU Hospital, upon which he went there and got done post-mortem of dead body of victim. He identified the photographs of the spot Ex. P3 (colly.) and the photographs of the alleged offending motorcycle as E. P1 and Ex. P2.
(vii). PW-7 SI Prahlad Swaroop was the IO in the present case. He explained about the proceedings of investigation conducted by him and his testimony is same as that of PW-6 HC Sunil, hence, same is not being reproduced to avoid repetition. During his cross examination, he stated that on reaching the spot he found that the weather was smoky. He further stated that he along with HC Kartar Singh and Ct. Yogesh pulled out the motorcycle and injured persons from the nala. He stated that the depth of nala was around 8 to 10 feet. He stated to have remained present at the spot for around 45 minutes and that the injured persons were shifted to the hospital by their family members. He stated that injured persons were not fit and completely conscious when they were taken out from the nala. He stated that the details of the ambulance which took the injured persons to hospital was not noted by him nor the statement of ambulance of driver was recorded.
(viii). PW-8 Retired ASI/Tech Devender Kumar deposed that on 06.01.2012,he had conducted mechanical inspection of StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 8 motorcycle make Passion bearing no. DL-1SP-8407 on the request of IO/ASI Prahlad of PS Vikas Puri and prepared his report which is Ex. PW 8/A.
(ix). PW-9 HC Prahlad was the MHC(M) who deposed that as per Entry no. 2206 dated 31.12.2011 Ex. PW 9/A, the case property was deposited in Malkhana by ASI Prahlad.
9. The accused has admitted the factum recording of DD no. 7A dated 31.12.2011, DD no. 8A dated 31.12.2011, DD no. 9A dated 31.12.2011, DD no. 32A dated 02.01.2012, MLC no. B 495/11 of Mandeep Singh, Death Summary of Mandeep Singh and Post-Mortem report of Mandeep Singh vide his statement u/s 294 Cr. PC and pursuant thereto, the formal witness with respect to the above-mentioned documents were dropped from the list of witnesses.
10. Having discussed the evidences on record, now let us advert ourselves to the merits of the present case. The accused has been indicted for offences u/s 279/304A IPC and Section 146/196 MV Act. The allegations with respect to offences u/s 279/304A IPC are to the extent that on 31.12.2011 at around 1:45 PM at Ganda Nala near Machli Chowk, Vikas Puri, Delhi accused was driving motorcycle bearing no. DL-1SP-8407 in a high speed and rash or negligent manner and while driving the aforesaid vehicle, he lost the control over the same, due to which it fell down in the nala and caused the death of victim Mandeep Singh as he was also riding on the said motorcycle. The allegations are also to the extent that the accused has committed u/s 146/196MV Act as he was driving the aforesaid motorcycle without having a valid insurance.
StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 9
11. The position of law with respect to offence u/s 279 IPC is being discussed hereinafter;
It is a settled law that Section 279 IPC punishes the act of a person driving or riding a vehicle on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. In the case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133(2006) DLT 562, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while discussing about the ingredients of section 279 has observed:-
"In Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under Section 279 or Section 304A, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved".
Further, what would constitute rash and negligent act has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh de- cided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:-
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty 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 reckless- ness 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 StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 10 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."
12. Besides this, it has also been upheld in various decisions that evidence of high speed simpliciter, is not ipso facto proof of rashness or negligence.
In the case of Rajiv Netra Panigrahi Vs. State of Orrisa decided on 20.07.1990, Hon'ble Orrisa High Court observed the following:-
"It is no doubt true, as contended on behalf of the peti- tioner and as supported by authorities, that high speed in driv- ing of a vehicle does not by itself amount to rash and negligent driving. If the accused driver was driving the vehicle on the highway and had negotiated the distance safely, it could not have been said that he was driving rashly or negligently be- cause of the high speed."
In the case of Kishore Chand Joshi Vs. State decided on 12.11.2018 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed:-
"17. A witness can depose as to the manner of driving or speed at which the vehicle was being driven but not render an opinion on "rash and negligence". High speed by itself may not in each case be sufficient to hold that a driver is rash or negli- gent. Speed alone is not the criterion for deciding the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan (Supra), also observed that: "The aforesaid observations of the Supreme StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 11 Court make it more than clear that a mere allegation of high speed would not tantamount to rashness or negligence. In the present case also, I find that apart from the allegation that the truck was being driven at a very high speed there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner acted in a manner which could be re- garded as rash or negligent."
Further in Abdul Subhan (Supra), the decision of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish 1998 SCC (CRI) 1508 was also dis- cussed in which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-
"3. Both the trial court and the appellate court held the re- spondent guilty for offences under Section 337, 338 and 304A IPC after recording a finding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed". No specific finding has been recorded either by the trial court or by the first appellate court to the effect that the respondent was driving the truck either negligently or rashly. After holding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed", both the courts pressed into aid the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor to hold the respondent guilty.
4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness"
by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what is meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything es- sential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 12 innocence in favor of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitor".
13. Apart from the ingredients mentioned above, the identity of the accused as driver of the vehicle must also be established separately by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused.
14. Whereas, in order to hold a person liable for offence u/s 304A IPC, the prosecution is also duty bound to establish that the death of victim was a resultant consequence of the acts of rash or negligence of accused.
15. In the present case, it is note-worthy to point out the fact that in order to establish the guilt of accused for alleged of- fences, prosecution is primarily relying upon the testimony of PW-1 Tejas who is cited as alleged witness to the said incident. The accused has disputed the fact that the vehicle in question was being driven by him at the time of incident and rather the defense of accused revolves around the fact that the alleged of- fending motorcycle was being driven by victim Mandeep Singh at the time of incident and after the incident, when the accused was searching the victim, he encountered that the motorcycle was lying in the nala, to which he went inside the nala to save the victim but he was rather falsely implicated in the present case. Apparently, the careful perusal of the testimony of PW-1 would reflect that he has given the detailed account of the inci-
StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 13 dent stating that he and his brother i.e. victim Mandeep insisted the accused to give them a joy ride to which the accused was agreed and took them for the joy ride on his motorcycle, during which the incident took place.
16. There is no reason to cast any doubt on the testimony of PW-1 with respect to the fact that the vehicle in question was being driven by accused at the time of incident. The version of PW -1 qua the fact that the motorcycle was being driven by the accused at the time of incident also finds support from the testi- mony of PW-3 Charanjeet Singh (father of PW-1 and victim Mandeep Singh). Therefore, in the considered view of this Court the assertions made by accused to the extent that the motorcycle in question was not being driven by him at the time of incident appears to be misplaced and same are rejected. Ac- cordingly, it stands proved by the prosecution that the alleged offending motorcycle was being driven by the accused at the time of incident. Having said so, now what remains to be seen is that whether there existed a rash or negligent act on the part of accused which led to the incident in question? and if yes, whether the death of victim Mandeep Singh was direct conse- quence of the said rash or negligent act of accused? The care- ful perusal of testimony of PW-1 goes on to reveal that during the course of his deposition, he has simply stated that the ac- cused was driving the motorcycle in a very rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. Pertinently, PW-1 could not ex- plain the manner in which the accused was driving the vehicle so as to impute a rash or negligent act of driving on his part. PW-1 has failed to explain as to in what manner the vehicle was being driven by the accused so as to constitute any rash or negligent on his part. This witness even could not explain the StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 14 approximate speed of the vehicle during the time of incident so as to ascertain whether same was actually driven in a rash or negligent manner or not. PW-1 as well as PW-2, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 have also conceded to the fact that the place where the alleged incident had taken place was surrounded with the dense fog due to which the visibility was very low.
17. Further, PW-1 has also clearly admitted to the fact that the wall of the nala in which the motorcycle fell down, was lying in a broken state and due to low visibility, same was not visible. By overall appreciation and analysis of deposition given by PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7, it can be inferred that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that there existed and act of rash or negligent driving of vehicle on the part of ac- cused due to which the incident took place. Further, it also emerges from the record and evidences led by the prosecution that the possibility of the accident of having been taken place due to the contributory negligence on the part of victim Man- deep Singh or due to the low visibility conditions on account of dense fog and the unpredictable state of the wall of nala, can- not be completely ruled out. Therefore, it can be safely con- cluded that the testimony of PW-1 as well as the other material witnesses examined by prosecution are of no avail for estab- lishing the necessary ingredients for holding the accused liable for offence u/s 279 IPC. The testimony of PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 also suggests that at the time when the al- leged incident took place, several persons were passing from the spot. It has also been conceded by the above-named wit- nesses that the accused and victim along with his brother (PW-
1) were rescued from the nala by some public persons and even the family of victim was informed about the incident by StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 15 some public persons who were present there. The said public persons who were present at the spot as well as the person who had informed the family of the victim about the incident might be the probable eye witnesses to the occurrence but they were never associated with the investigation of the case for the reasons unexplained. IO examined as PW-7 has failed to ren- der any reasonable justification as to why he did not make any efforts to associate any independent public persons in the in- vestigation of the case. These facts also cast serious doubts on the impartiality of the investigation of the case and the benefit of the same deserves to be given to the accused. Therefore, the charges for offences u/s 279/304A IPC leveled against accused appears to be completely unfounded and the accused deserves to be acquitted for the said offences.
18. In so far as liability of accused with respect to offence u/s 146/196 MV Act is concerned, as the discussion made in the preceding part of this judgment would reflect that the prosecu- tion has successfully established the fact that the alleged of- fending motorcycle no. DL-1SP-8407 was being driven by ac- cused at the time of incident, therefore, now, what remains to be seen is that whether that accused was having valid insur- ance policy at the time of driving the motorcycle in question or not? The careful perusal of the record would reflect that section 146/196 MV Act was subsequently added in the present case during the course of investigation, when the accused allegedly failed to produce the valid policy of vehicle in question at the time of incident. It is pertinent to state that no evidences have been led by prosecution showing that the motorcycle in ques- tion was not having the valid insurance policy as on the date of incident. Pertinently, IO examined as PW-7 has not uttered a StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 16 single word during the course of his deposition that on verifica- tion of documents of the motorcycle, it was found that insurance policy of the same stood lapsed as on the date of incident. Like- wise, there is no report received from the concerned insurance company suggesting that the motorcycle in question was unin- sured as on the date of incident. It is to be appreciated here that one document in the nature of the copy of vehicle particulars has been placed on record by the prosecution but apparently, the said document has not been proved in accordance with law as the IO (PW-7) has not deposed anything with respect to such document nor any other witnesses for proving the same have been examined in the present case. Therefore, the said copy of vehicle particulars of motorcycle in question cannot be relied upon in proof of the fact that the vehicle in question was uninsured at the time of the incident. Therefore, the second limb of facts which was required to establish liability of accused for the offence u/s 146/196 MV Act (i.e. the driving of the alleged offending motorcycle by the accused without holding the valid insurance policy), for same has not been established by the prosecution and due to said reason, the accused cannot be held liable for offence u/s 146/196MV Act and thus he deserves to be acquitted for said offence.
19. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place, the accused was driving the vehicle no. DL-1SP-8407 in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or public safety or others, therefore, accused de- serves to be acquitted for offence u/s 279 IPC. The prosecution has also failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 17 on the given, date, time and place, the accused lost control over the motorcycle due to which it struck against the wall of the nala on account of which victim Mandeep Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained by him due to the incident in question, there- fore, the accused also deserves to be acquitted for offence u/s 304A IPC. The prosecution has also failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place, the motorcycle in question was being driven by the accused without holding a valid insurance policy, therefore, the accused also deserves to be acquitted for the offence u/s 146/196 MV Act. The accused Jatinder Singh is accordingly acquitted for offences with which he has been charged.
Announced in the open Court on 20.12.2025.
(Rishabh Kapoor) MM-05 South West District Dwarka Courts, Delhi StateVs:Jatinder Singh FIR No 436/11 U/s: 279/304A IPC and S 146/196 MV Act. P.S. Vikas Puri 18