Delhi District Court
State vs Billu on 25 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS.SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-06, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
Session Case No.382/2021
FIR No. 117/2018
PS Tilak Marg
CNR No. DLND01-009159/2021
State
Vs
Billu
S/o Sh. Rahil Hasan
R/o H. No. 146, Village Makhiyali,
PS - Nai Mandi, Muzzafar Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh - 251001
Date of Institution 30.09.2021
Date of committal 16.12.2021
Date of Charge 22.03.2022
Charge framed under section U/s 3/181, 39/192 & 119/177 of Motor
Vehicle Act and Section
394/186/353/279/308 IPC.
Date of reserving Judgment 22.04.2026
Date of Decision 25.04.2026
Final Judgment Accused Billu is convicted for the
offences under Section 186/353/279/
308/394 IPC and Section 3/181/, 39/192
and 119/177 of Motor Vehicle Act.
SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 1 of 26
FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case :
1. Accused Billu has been facing trial for the charge punishable under Section 3/181, 39/192 & 119/177 of Motor Vehicle Act and Section 394/186/353/279/308 IPC as on 07.09.2018 between 12:40 p.m. to 1:40 p.m. at Mathura Road, Purana Qila Road, T-Point, New Delhi, was found driving car bearing registration No. HR55AD-2117 on wrong side of the carriage way and jumped red light traffic signal and when Complainant ASI Rajender Singh on duty asked you to produce driving license and documents of the vehicle, he failed to produce the same and when the aforesaid vehicle was impounded, he suddenly started the ignition of the said vehicle and fled from the spot and also dragged the aforesaid complainant and deliberately hit Ct. Vishram and dragged him for a distance of about half kilometer and threw him on the divider of Bhairo Road by hitting against another vehicle.
Investigation conducted and statement of injured:
2. On 07.09.2018, on receipt of DD No. 16A, SI Sunil Kumar along with Ct. Ajay went to the spot i.e. Mathura Road, Bhairo Road T-Point where they met ZO ASI Rajender Singh, who informed him that the driver of car bearing registration No. HR-55AD-2117 tried to kill him and Ct. Vishram and Ct. Vishram has been shifted to RML Hospital and offending vehicle has been impounded at TMC-5, Bhairon Road-Ring Road Red Lihgt. IO also met one injured Rajan of scooty rider, who told him that his scooty bearing No. DL-11SF-2374 was damaged by taxi car bearing registration No. HR-55AD-2117 by hitting from backside. Leaving Ct. Ajay at the spot, IO went to RML Hospital and collected the MLC of Ct. Ajay. His statement could not be recorded since he was traumatized.SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 2 of 26
FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg 2.1 Since, it was raining, complainant was brought to the police station
where he gave a written complaint stating that he was posted as ZO Traffic Circle Tilak Marg and on 07.09.2018, he along with Ct. Vishram, Ct. Aman and Ct. Harish were on duty at Chitta Purana Qila Road, T-Point, Mathura Road (TMC-3) and at about 1:40 p.m., one Taxi Car bearing registration No. HR-55AD-2117 was coming from Purana Qila Side on Wrong Carriageway and crossing T-Point Red Light. The said Taxi Car was stopped by Ct. Vishram and driver of the said Taxi Car was asked for Driving License and documents of the car on which driver failed to show the said documents. Complainant further stated that driver disclosed his name as Billu, a resident of Muzzafarnagar and complainant informed the driver of the car that in the absence of valid documents of the vehicle, his car is being impounded under Section 207 of MV Act. Accordingly, he issued challan to the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and driver of the offending vehicle appended his signatures on the challan. He further stated that driver of the offending vehicle told him that some articles are left in his car and sought permission to get the same and sat on the driving seat and started the car. He tried to stop him but he did not stop and dragged him and hit Ct. Vishram on which Ct. Vishram fell on the bonnet of the car. Driver of the car went towards Bhairo Road, Ring Road. He immediately informed to next point through Wireless Set and run after the car. After about half kilometer, Ct. Vishram was found near Gate No. 2, Pragati Maidan and TMC-5 staff informed him over Wireless Set that the offending vehicle has been stopped at Bhairo Marg, T-Point and driver of the offending vehicle run away after locking the car. He further stated that Ct. Vishram was shifted to RML Hospital by PCR.
2.2 During investigation, uniform of the complainant, original challan of the offending vehicle wherein the signatures of the accused were appended were seized by the IO. Statement of victim/Eye witness Sh. Rajan was also SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 3 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg recorded wherein he stated that he is a Class-IV Employee in MCD and at about 1:00 p.m., he was returning from Vikas Minar after delivery of Dak and reached near Petrol Pump Matka Peer, one White Colour Taxi Car having No. 2117 came on a high speed and hit him from behind on which he fell on the ground in some distance. He saw that one Traffic Police ZO was also running after the car. ZO also came to him and asked about his wellness and thereafter followed the car in a TSR. Victim denied for his medical since injuries were not serious. 2.3 During further investigation, statements of eye-witnesses and police officials were recorded. On 16.10.2018, accused Billu surrendered before the Court and he was sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 186/353/332/308/394 IPC against accused Billu before the concerned Court.
Charge:
3. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 3/181, 39/192 & 119/177 of Motor Vehicle Act and Section 394/186/353/279/308 IPC was framed against the accused Billu by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 22.03.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
THE TRIAL Prosecution evidence:
4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined 12 witnesses at all i.e. PW-1 SI (Retd.) Rajender Singh (Complainant); PW-2 Ct. Vishram (Injured/Victim); PW-3 Sh. Arvinder Singh (Mechanical expert); PW-4 Sh. Galib Hasan (Lessee of offending vehicle);
PW-5 Sh. Rajan (Eye Witness); PW-6 HC Gurcharan Singh (Witness of investigation); PW-7 SI (Retd.) Satyapal Singh (Witness of investigation); PW-8 SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 4 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg Dr. Namita Chopra (Doctor proved MLC of injured); PW-9 Ct. Ajay Kumar (Witness of Investigation); PW-10 Sh. Ram Naresj (AR of Owner of offending vehicle); PW-11 ACP (Retd.) Krishan Murari (Witness of investigation) and PW-12 Inspector Sunil Kumar (Investigating Officer). The relevant portion of their testimonies are discussed under the succeeding paragraphs.
5. PW-1 Retd. SI Rajender Singh/complainant deposed that on 07.09.2018, he was posted as ASI/Zonal Officer at Tilak Marg Traffic Circle and on that day, he was on duty from 08:00 AM at Purana Qila Road (TMC-3), T-Point, Mathura Road along with Ct. Vishram, Ct. Aman & Ct. Harish. At about 12:40 PM, one taxi bearing registration No. HR-55-AD2117 came from wrong side after jumping the red light from Purana Qila Road towards Mathura Road. After getting the said car stopped, Ct. Vishram also reached there and narrated him the facts as to why, he stopped the said car. The driver of the said car was asked to produce the documents of his car after narrating the facts but the driver of the said car refused to produce any documents including his driving license. The driver was apprised that in case he failed to produce the documents of the car, his car will be impounded. At about 12:50 PM, driver was issued challan and his car was impounded and signatures of the driver were obtained by him on the challan and he was served with the original copy of said challan. He directed Ct. Vishram to deposit the car in the PIT but at the request of the driver that he has to take out some articles/goods from the car, he handed over him the keys of the car. The driver, without taking out any articles/goods, drove his car speedily. He tried to stop the car but the driver pushed him, as a result, he fell down and his uniform was also torn. The driver of the car also hit Ct. Vishram from the car, due to which, Ct. Vishram fell upon the bonnet of the car and caught hold both the wipers from his hands. The driver of the said car drove the car in a zig- zag manner and took the same towards Bhairo Road from Mathura Road. He further deposed that he informed to TMC-05 (situated near to Bhairo Mandir, T-
SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 5 of 26FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg Point) through wireless set and TMC-05 immediately stopped the light and jammed the traffic. Thereafter, he took lift from an auto and chased the said car and when he reached in front of Gate No. 2 of Pragati Maidan, he saw Ct. Vishram lying on the divider in injured condition. He made a call to PCR and the PCR Van came there and took Ct. Vishram to RML Hospital. After that, he went in search of the above said car and when he reached near Bhairo Road near TMC-05 Point, he saw the above said car in damaged condition and at that time staff from TMC-05 was also present there. The said car was found in locked condition and the driver had fled away from the spot leaving the said car behind. Thereafter, IO/SI Sunil Kumar from PS Tilak Marg reached the spot, to whom he narrated the entire facts of the incident. The IO recorded his statement Ex. PW-1/A and he handed over the copy of the challan to the IO, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-1/B, and the copy of the challan Mark PW-1/P-1. He further deposed that he handed over his torn uniform to the IO, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-1/C. The IO also seized the offending car vide memo Ex.PW-1/D. Ct. Vishram also returned from the hospital after treatment and his torn uniform was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW-1/E. He (PW-1) identified the accused present in the court as the driver of the aforesaid car. He has identified his uniform i.e. one blue colour pant (torn from the right-side pocket and the left knee) and one white colour shirt (torn from the back of the left shoulder) having his name plate as Rajender Singh ASI, which was worn by him at the time of the incident. The said uniform is Ex. P-1 (colly). 5.1 Witness correctly identified the accused and the case property i.e. his uniform as Ex.P1 (Colly,) uniform of Ct. Vishram i.e. one blue colour pant (torn and burnt on both knees) and one white colour shirt of traffic police (torn from the right arm) as Ex. P-2 (colly) and four original traffic challans pertaining to vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55AD-2117 dated 07.09.2018 including the challan for impounding the vehicle, challan in the name of the SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 6 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg owner and challan in the name of the driver/accused, which were issued by him as Ex. P-3 (colly).
5.2 During cross examination, witness stated that on his asking, accused refused to produce all documents ie. RC, Insurance, Pollution, Permit, Fitness etc. While answering to a specific question that since the spot of incident is a busy spot with heavy traffic, instead of sending wireless message to stop the vehicle, why the police staff made physical efforts to stop the said vehicle, witness answered that Ct. Vishram was already standing in front of the said vehicle to stop other vehicles that may be required to be detained if they jumped red light traffic signal. The accused Billu suddenly started the said vehicle in a rash manner tried to flee from the spot and in this process, he hit Ct. Vishram. He further stated that during the incident, he also sustained simple injury on his left shoulder and knee and due to which his uniform was also torn and the same was handed over to the IO.
6. PW-2 Ct. Vishram/injured has deposed that on 07.09.2018, he was posted at Tilak Marg Traffic Circle and was on duty at TMC Point-3, Red Light, Old Qila Road, Mathura Road T-Point and at about 12:40 PM, one taxi bearing registration No. HR-55AD-2117 came from the wrong carriageway after jumping the red light of T-Point towards Mathura Road. He signaled the driver of the said vehicle to stop the vehicle as he had violated the traffic rules, and asked him to produce the vehicle documents as well as his driving license. However, the driver refused to produce the same. At that time, ZO/ASI Rajender Singh was also present and informed the driver that in case of failure to produce the documents, the vehicle would be impounded. Thereafter, ZO/ASI Rajender Singh issued a traffic challan under Section 207 of the MV Act and the driver signed the challan. He further deposed that the driver requested permission to take out some valuables from the car, which was allowed, however, the driver suddenly sat in the car and attempted to flee. He further deposed that while SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 7 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg driving away, the driver struck against him due to which he fell onto the bonnet of the car and held the wipers with both hands. The driver continued to drive the vehicle up to Gate No. 2, Pragati Maidan, Bhairon Road. During the said course, the vehicle also hit a scooter. Eventually, after the car collided twice with a Fortuner vehicle from behind, he fell down on the side of the road. ZO/ASI Rajender Singh reached there and made him sit on the divider. A PCR Van arrived and took him to RML Hospital. He further deposed that as he was not in a condition to give a statement on that day, his statement was recorded later by SI Sunil Kumar at the police station. His uniform had been torn during the incident and his name plate had gone missing. The IO seized his uniform (pant and shirt) and converted the same into a sealed pullanda vide memo Ex.PW-1/E. Witness correctly identified the accused and case properties as well. 6.1 During cross examination, witness stated that he initially gave signal by raising hand to the accused to stop his car and at that time, he stopped his car. He further stated that after telling him about the violation of traffic, he asked the driver to show his driving license and at that time, he was not carrying his DL as well as other documents of the car. He further stated that at that time, ASI Rajender Singh was also present there and he issued the challan of the vehicle and his car was impounded. He further stated that the keys were not handed over to ZO ASI Rajender in his presence, however, on the pretext of taking out his daily use articles from the car, the accused sat inside the car and without telling them, he started the car and moved away from there. He denied the suggestion that the accused had shown all the documents including DL to him as well as ZO or that accused did not come from wrong side or that accused had not caused any injury to any police official.
7. PW-3 Sh. Arvinder Singh, a Mechanical Expert from Vikram Automobiles deposed that on 07.09.2018, he was called by SI Sunil Kumar at PS Tilak Marg to inspect a TVS Jupiter Scooty bearing registration No. SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 8 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg DL-11SF-2374. Upon inspection, he found fresh damages including bending of the left side brake lever, scratches on the left side body parts, a broken left rear footrest and bending of the rear body guard (jaal). He prepared a detailed mechanical inspection report and proved the same as Ex. PW-3/A.
8. PW-4 Sh. Galib Hasan, Lessee of offending vehicle deposed that on 10.09.2018 and 13.09.2018, he was served with notices under Section 133 of MV Act (Ex.PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B respectively) by IO SI Sunil Kumar. He has further deposed that on 14.09.2018, he submitted his reply (Ex.PW-4/C) to the IO. As per his reply, the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55AD-2117 (Swift Dzire) had been taken by him on rent from OLA Cabs in February 2018 and was given to accused Billu and one Usman Ali for driving on a day-night basis. Accused Billu used to drive the vehicle during the day while Usman Ali used to drive it during the night. Witness correctly identified accused Billu. 8.1 During the cross examination, witness stated that on the day of incident, accused Billu was driving his car.
9. PW-5 Sh. Rajan/Eye witness of the incident deposed that on a date in November 2018, while returning to his office at Lajpat Nagar after delivering official Dak at DDA office, he reached near Matka Peer Petrol Pump, Pragati Maidan at about 01:00 pm when a white Swift taxi struck his scooter from behind, causing him to fall. The driver fled from the spot. He further deposed that he was helped by petrol pump workers and later, he came to know from the public persons that a police official had also been hanging from the bonnet of the said car and had fallen after being hit. He further deposed that he had not seen the face of the driver as the vehicle had struck him from behind. He further deposed that he sustained injuries but did not get himself medically examined. He identified the photographs of his scooter bearing registration No. DL-11SF-2374 as Ex. PW-5/A (colly).
10. PW-6 HC Gurcharan Singh deposed that on 07.09.2018, he was SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 9 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg posted as Constable at Tilak Marg Traffic Circle and was deployed at TMC-5, Bhairon Marg, Ring Road Red Light under the supervision of ZO/ASI Satpal. At about 01:00 pm, ASI Satpal received a wireless message from TMC-3 that a car had struck traffic officials and that one constable was hanging from the bonnet while the car was heading towards their point. The traffic signal was immediately switched off by ASI Satpal and traffic from Bhairon Marg was stopped. He further deposed that he saw a car bearing registration No. HR-55AD-2117 approaching at high speed and on seeing the traffic jam, the driver abandoned the vehicle after locking it and fled away. The vehicle was subsequently lifted through a crane and stationed at TMC-5. The IO seized the vehicle vide memo Ex. PW-1/D.
11. PW-7 Retd. SI Satyapal Singh deposed that on 07.09.2018, he was posted as ASI at Tilak Marg Traffic Circle and was deployed as ZO at TMC-5, Bhairon Marg, Ring Road Red Light along with Ct. Gurcharan Singh. At about 01:00 pm, he received a wireless message from TMC-3 that a car had struck traffic officials and that one constable was hanging from the bonnet while the vehicle was proceeding towards their point. He immediately stopped the traffic and switched off the signal. He then saw the car bearing registration No. HR-55AD-2117 approaching at high speed. On noticing the traffic jam, the driver abandoned the vehicle after locking it and fled away. The vehicle was subsequently lifted by a crane and stationed at the traffic booth. The IO seized the said car vide memo Ex. PW-1/D. Witness correctly identified the vehicle through its photographs Ex. PW-5/A (colly).
12. PW-8 Dr. Namita Chopra appeared on behalf of Dr. Vurineet Kaur, who examined the injured Ct. Vishram and proved the MLC No. E/209811 dated 07.09.2018 of injured Ct. Vishram as Ex.PW8/A.
13. PW-9 Ct. Ajay Kumar deposed that on 07.09.2018, he was posted at PS Tilak Marg and was on emergency duty along with SI Sunil Kumar and on SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 10 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg receiving DD No. 16A regarding an accident involving an Ola taxi and a Traffic Constable, they proceeded to the spot at T-Point, Mathura Road to Bhairon Road,where they met ZO ASI Rajender Singh, who informed them that the Ola driver had hit Ct. Vishram and fled away with the car towards Ring Road. Thereafter, they reached there and found locked, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55AD-2117. He further deposed that after leaving him there, IO went to hospital and after sometime when the IO returned, they returned to PS Tilak Marg as it was raining. The said Ola Car was also brought to PS through crane. ZO ASI Rajender gave a written complaint to the IO and the IO prepared rukka on it and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. After getting the FIR registered, he handed over the same along with original rukka to the IO in the PS itself. The IO seized the offending vehicle vide memo Ex.PW-1/D, uniforms of ASI Rajender Singh and Ct. Vishram vide memos Ex.PW-1/C and Ex.PW-1/E respectively, original traffic challans vide memo Ex. PW-1/B. PW-9 identified the case property i.e. the uniforms of ZO ASI Rajinder and Ct. Vishram as well as 03 original challans of offending vehicle dated 07.09.2018, as Ex. P-1 (colly), Ex. P-2 (colly) and Ex. P-3 (colly) respectively. He has also identified the six photographs of the Ola Taxi bearing registration No. HR55AD2117 (Swift Dzire of White Colour) vehicle bearing registration, Ex. PW-9/P-1 (colly), which were seized by the IO.
14. PW-10 Sh. Ram Naresh (AR of OLA Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd., appeared on behalf of Ms. Anupam Singh, Nodal Officer) deposed that on 10.09.2018, in response to notice issued from Inspector Sunil Kumar PS Tilak Marg, New Delhi, Ms. Anupam Singh, Nodal Officer had submitted the reply dated 10.09.2018 in response to CAB bearing registration no. HR-55-AD-2117. As per records, the said CAB was originally owned by OLA Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and by virtue of said ownership, the company had leased out the said CAB to one Galib Hassan R/o 576, Basola Patti Near Masjid, Parsonda, SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 11 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg Sahibabad, Ghaziaba, Uttar Pradesh on 13.07.2018 vide a lease agreement. The said reply along with requisite records in response to the said letter of the IO is Ex.PW-10/A (Collectively) bearing signature of Ms. Anupam Singh.
15. PW-11 ACP (Retd.) Sh. Krishan Murari deposed that in January, 2020, he was working as ACP, New Delhi District, New Delhi and at that time, request for providing complaint under Section 195 CrPC was moved by the concerned IO. The request for providing complaint under Section 195 CrPC along with case file/relevant documents was received in his office. He perused the request and the case file/relevant documents annexed with the said request. On 18.01.2021, after going through the record, he had given complaint under Section 195 CrPC, Ex. PW-11/A. The complaint under Section 195 CrPC and annexed documents with the request were handed over to the IO.
16. PW-12 IO/Inspector Sunil Kumar deposed that on 07.09.2018 at about 1:38 pm, when he was posted as SI at PS Tilak Marg, he received DD No. 16A (Ex. A4), He alongwith Ct. Ajay went to spot i.e. T-point Mathura Road, Bhairon Road and met complainant ASI Rajender Singh. ASI Rajender Singh has informed that Taxi/Cab No. HR-55AD-2117 had hit him and dragged him and accused/cab driver also hit Ct. Vishram, due to which Ct. Vishram got stuck on the bonnet of the cab and accused drove the vehicle towards outer ring road Bhairon Marg, T point with Ct. Vishram on its bonnet. The eye witness i.e. one MCD official also met him at the spot and informed that the accused/cab driver had hit on his scooty from the backside and due to which he had sustained injury. The eye witness had stated that the cab was a white colour Swift and last digits of its registration number were 2117 and he had seen one Delhi Police official stuck on the bonnet. Since, the eye witness was an MCD official and he had to leave for his official work, he took his photographs and also of his scooty and thereafter the eye witness left the spot. Witness proved the photographs of scooty and MCD official as Ex.PH-1 colly (total 9 photographs). He further SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 12 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg deposed that the PCR caller was also present at the spot and met him and informed that injured/Ct. Vishram was taken by the PCR to the hospital. He left Ct. Ajay at the spot and went to RML hospital and received MLC of injured Ct.Vishram (Ex.PW8/A). Ct. Vishram was admitted in the hospital. He met Ct.Vishram, who at that time was under trauma due to the incident, was not in condition to give his statement. He further deposed that he returned to the spot and again met ASI Rajender and they returned to PS where ASI Rajender gave his complaint Ex. PW1/A, on which he made endorsement and prepared rukka (Ex. PW12/A) and gave the same to the Duty Officer for registration of FIR. He took photographs Ex.PH-2 (three photographs) of injured/ASI Rajender. He further deposed that he alongwith complainant/ASI Rajender went to Tilak Marg Circle 3 point (TMC-3) Purana Qila Road, Mathura Road where ASI Rajender changed his clothes and handed over his torn clothes to him which were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW1/C. He also seized challan which ASI Rajender had prepared against Cab Driver vide memo Ex. PW1/B and copy of challan as Ex.PW1/P1. He further deposed that the eye witness/MCD official Rajan Kumar had also given his complaint/statement in writing (Ex. PW12/B). He also recorded the statement of eye witness/MCD official and the PCR caller. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI Rajender went to TMC-5 Bhairon Road, Outer Ring Road and prepared site plan Ex. PW12/C. The cab bearing No. HR 55AD 2117 which was at TMC-5, Bhairon Road, was seized by him vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He also recorded statement of Ct. Gurucharan and ASI Satpal, the traffic staff at TMC-5 and sent the cab of accused to PS. He further deposed that he went to RML hospital and recorded statement of injured Ct. Vishram and seized his uniform vide memo Ex. PW1/E. He gave notice under Section 133 MV Act to Ola Fleet Technology Pvt. Ltd. and the Ola gave reply (that the vehicle was leased out to one Galib Hasan) alongwith copy of relevant documents (Ex.PW10/A). Thereafter, he sent notice under Section 133 MV Act SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 13 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg to Galib Hasan vide Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B and Galib Hasan gave his reply/statement Ex.PW4/C stating that at the time of alleged incident, the vehicle was driven by accused Billu. He further deposed that that on 16.10.2018, accused Billu had surrendered before the Court and vide application Ex.PW-12/D, he had sought permission of the Court to interrogate and later arrested him arrest memo Ex.PW12/E and personally searched him vide memo Ex.PW12/F. Accused refused to sign on the interrogation report. After completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet. Witness correctly identified the accused and photographs of the Cab Ex.PW9/P1 (Colly.) 16.1 During cross examination, witness stated that he got information about the incident through PCR call and when he reached at the spot, ASI Rajender was the only traffic staff present there. While answering to a specific question that when he reached at the spot, did ASI Rajender inform that he had taken the keys of the cab from the accused and later he again gave the keys back to the accused so that the accused could take out the documents from the vehicle, witness answered that "Mujhe ASI Rajender ne bataya tha ki accused ne usko gaadi ki chabhi de di thi aur usne cab ko impound kar liya tha lekin accused ne kaha uska saman cab mein rakha hai aur wo apna samaan cab se lena chahta hai toh ASI Rajender ne accused ko chabhi wapis ki apna samaan nikaal le lekin accused ne gaadi start karke bhaagne ki koshish ki jisme ASI Rajender ghayal ho gaye aur accused Ct. Vishram ko bonnet par lekar chala gaya . The FIR was registered on the complaint of ASI Rajender. Witness further stated that he was informed that vehicle of accused Billu was impounded under Section 207 of MV Act. ASI Rajender had also informed him that cab driver Billu had committed the offence with them. He further stated that when he reached hospital, he met Ct. Vishram who was bed ridden and he was traumatized. ASI Rajender had not undergone his medical examination as he stated that he has received bruises and he had not suffered internal injuries. ASI Rajender SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 14 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg informed me that at the spot, other traffic staff was also deputed but at the time of the incident, other traffic staff was not there except him and Ct.Vishram. When he reached at the spot, at that time also, the other traffic staff was not present there except ASI Rajender. The distance between TMC-3 and TMC-5 is approximately one km. There is not much traffic during day time. He further stated that Rajan had received bruises on his elbow and other parts of the body but he refused for his medical examination and due to his urgent work, he left on his scooty. He further stated that during investigation, Ct. Vishram informed him that when he was stuck on the bonnet, cab driver had forcefully hit Fortuner car after which Ct. Vishram had fallen on the divider. He had tried to trace the said Fortuner car but same could not be found. He further stated that ASI Satpal and Ct. Gurucharan had switched off the traffic signal at the T point on Bhairon Road and outer ring road and due to the fact that traffic signal was switched off, there was traffic jam and the accused stopped the vehicle. The accused fled away after locking the vehicle. He further stated that when he reached at the spot, ASI Rajender was having wireless set. After arrest of the accused, he could not verify whether the accused was involved in any other criminal case. He did not ask ASI Rajender and Ct. Vishram as to why they tried to stop the vehicle by physically involving themselves when ASI Rajender was having wireless set which he could have used initially itself to get the vehicle stopped on the road.
17. On 25.04.2024, statement of accused under Section 294 Cr. PC was recorded wherein he did dispute the genuineness and admitted registration of FIR bearing No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg, endorsement on rukka, certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and GD No. 16A dated 07.09.2018 proved as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4 respectively, without admitting their contents. Accordingly, related witnesses to said documents were dropped by the prosecution.
SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 15 of 26FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg
18. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 15.12.2025 on the submissions of Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined.
Statement of the accused U/s 351 BNSS:
19. In the statement under Section 351 of BNSS, accused Billu had denied all the allegations put to him in his statement and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He took the plea that he was having requisite documents, however, police officials/complainant demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- and also abused him. Accused examined himself in his defence.
Defence evidence
20. Accused examined himself as DW-1 and deposed that on 07.09.2018 at about 12:00-12:30 pm, he was driving Ola Car No. HR-55-
AD-2117. Near Purana Qila, the police officials asked him to stop his car and on their directions, he stopped the car and they stated that he was coming from wrong side and have to pay the fine (challan). He further deposed that when they asked to deboard from the car, he told them that he was not on the wrong side, why would he pay the challan. The police officials threatened him to seize his vehicle and demanded Rs.10,000/- in failure of paying the challan and took the keys of his car. He further deposed that the police official demanded Rs.10,000/- to settle the matter. He showed his inability to pay Rs.10,000/- and they used abusive language and threatened him to face the legal consequences. He was ready to show the documents related to the car but the police officers were inclined to trouble him. He was afraid. He further deposed that they pressurized him to call someone and arrange money. Thereafter, he called the owner of the Ola Cab as he was only the driver but he did not pick his call. The SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 16 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg said police officials forcefully obtained his signatures on the challan issued to him. He further deposed that as the police officials were threatening him continuously, he left from the spot after giving assurance to them to provide the money. He did not return to the spot as he failed to arrange the money. The police officials falsely implicated him in the present case. 20.1 During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that on 07.09.2018 at around 12:40 to 1:40 pm at Mathura Road, Purana Qila, T-point to Ring Road (Behro Road), he was driving his car on a wrong side on the carriageway. He also denied the suggestion that he jumped the Red Light signal (Vol. It was Yellow light at that time). While answering to a specific question that had he produced the documents i.e. Driving licence and documents related to the vehicle, while asking by the police official, he answered No. (Vol. The police official did not ask me to show the documents, however I was willing to show). He also denied the suggestion that he fled from the spot along with the aforementioned vehicle and deliberately hit Ct. Vishram who was also on duty at Traffic Circle, Tilak Marg and dragged him for a distance of about half a kilometer and threw him on the divider of Bhairo Road by hitting dangerously against an another vehicle make Fortuner. He denied the suggestion that he was illegally obtained the possession of the said car/vehicle or that he obstructed the complainant in discharging their official duties and dragged him intentionally or that he violated the traffic rules and thereby police officials posted at traffic circle stopped him and fined him for the said offence or to escape from the legal consequences, he fled from the spot by hitting the police official.
Final arguments :
21. Final arguments were tendered on behalf of the State as well as defence. The entire material available on record has been carefully perused by the Court.SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 17 of 26
FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg
22. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused for all the offences charged with beyond reasonable doubt in view of the ocular, medical and documentary evidence proved on record.
23. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under which the charge has been framed on the following ground :
i. That it is the case of prosecution that on the day of occurrence PW-5 Rajan also sustained the injury and his scooty was also got damage due to the collusion of the said vehicle, however this fact did not find any mention in the FIR, hence it led strenuous inference that the FIR was after thought and not lodged in the same manner as the incident occurred.
ii. That, the fact that complainant (PW-1) sustained the injury and he was dragged by the accused did not any corroboration as there is no medical report to support this fact.
iii. That, it is the fact in the FIR that PW-2 const. Vishram was hit by the accused with his vehicle and dragged around Km, but his medical report reveals very simple injury in his finger and left hand. iv. That, the prosecution itself has not led any cogent evidence to prove the section 186, 353, 394, 279 and 308. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case led round 12 witnesses, but the case of prosecution hangs around only 3 material witnesses PW-1 Rajender Singh, PW-2 Constable Vishram, PW-5 Rajan & PW-12 Sunil Kumar (IO), apart from this all witnesses are formal in nature. v. That, the overall testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses does not establish the case under the sections 186, 353, 394, 279 and 308 SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 18 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg of IPC as there is no any obstruction to the public servant causing by the accused. The accused bonafide stopped the case on the instruction of the PW-2, he showed his valid D.L. and vehicle's documents, but the PW-1 and PW-2 denied to accept them, he was beaten brutally, thereafter a concocted story in term of prosecution case was developed against them. He was asked the bribe, when he denied, he was falsely implicated in this case.
vi. That, the unrebutted case of prosecution establishes that there is no such type of obstruction and criminal force caused by the accused while discharging a duty by public servant.
vii. That, the unrebutted case of the prosecution does not fullfill the ingredient of section 394 of IPC, there is not possibility of the robbery, in the FIR the PW-1 has categorically stated that accused asked him to take out his personal article from vehicle, whereas during the cross examination the PW-1 stated that he handed over the keys of the vehicle to the accused. Hence in both circumstances, it is not establishing the key of the vehicle was forcibly snatched from the PW-1 and any other police officer.
viii. That, as prosecution case becomes self-contradictory on the point Driving License of the accused as he had valid D.L. as stated by the PW-4 Galib Hasan.
ix. That, the prosecution witnesses PW-6 Gurcharan Singh and PW-7 S.I. Satyapal Singh could not establish the identity of the accused. In their testimonies, they have categorically stated that when they stopped the vehicle, they couldn't see the accused person while driving and running away.
x. That, the investigation in his case is done being partially, since both
SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 19 of 26
FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg
the witnesses PW-1 complainant and PW-2 injured are police personnel being under influence of their department, the IO unilaterally relied on the story of the PW-1 and PW-2, he did not try to collect the private witnesses and evidences establishing the reality of the case. The investigating is done unfairly, it is pertinent to mention here the place of occurrence is completely covered under the CCTV camera, however, the CCTV footage was not recovered to unearth the truth of the case.
23.1 It has been further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that it is crystal clear that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the accused, none of the witnesses have duly supported the prosecution version, and there are material and glaring contradictions in their testimonies. Further, the evidences relied upon seems not to be corroborative and the investigation is full of flaws which only doubts the credibility of the prosecution case. There is nothing on record which may prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has been falsely implicated in the instant case and he has no involvement in any of the alleged incident. From the commencement till the conclusion of the investigation, the investigating agency has acted maladroitly for reasons best known to them. However, despite every possible effort, the prosecution has failed miserably to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has already lost six years of his life to prove that he is innocent and has been a victim of malicious prosecution Appreciation of law & evidence :
24. It is a fundamental doctrine of criminal law that the onus to prove its case lies on the prosecution. Thus, in a criminal trial, the onus to prove the commission of offence by the accused is always upon the prosecution and the SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 20 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg same never shifts upon the accused. The prosecution has to establish before the Court that the accused had committed the offence beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nanjundappa and Anr.
V. State of Karnataka, AIR, 2022 SC 2374, has reiterated its view taken in the judgment titled as S.L.Goswami V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Crl.L.J.511 SC that :
'......the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage, does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases, where defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false, that burden upon the prosecution does not become any less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if, the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution'.
26. Reverting to the present matter, the prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimony of PW-1(Complainant/ASI Rajender Singh) and PW-2 (Injured/Ct.
Vishram), both of them are not only eye witnesses but also victims of the SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 21 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg incident. Their presence at the place of occurrence is natural and stands duly established.
27. It is well settled that ocular evidence is considered as the best form of evidence in a criminal trial, given that it is duly corroborated by other evidences and there is no reason to doubt it. It is settled law that testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal than any other witness, in as much as, he sustains injuries in the incident. As such, there is an inbuilt assurance regarding his presence at the scene of the crime and it is unlikely that he will allow the real culprit to go scot free and would falsely implicate any other person. In the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2010) 10 SCC 259] , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:
'Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built−in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. 'Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness."
28. Further, in the case reported as Jarnail Singh & others v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, also it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that testimony of an injured witness will have a special evidentiary status. It was held as under:
'.....the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 22 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.'
29. In the instant case, PW-2 Ct. Vishram is an injured witness and as per settled law, his testimony carries greater evidentiary weight. Nothing material has emerged in his cross examination to discredit his version and his testimony remains consistent, cogent and inspires confidence of the Court.
30. PW-1 Complainant/ASI Rajender Singh has corroborated the version of PW-2 on all material particulars including the driving of car by accused on wrong side; jumping the red light; failure to produce documents; attempt to flee after impounding the vehicle; hitting and dragging the police officials.
31. The version of PW-1 and PW-2 further stands corroborated by PW-6 and PW-7, who deposed about the wireless message and subsequent interception. The version of PW-1 and PW-2 is also well corroborated by PW-9 & PW-12, who proved the investigation and seizure of torn uniform and challan documents.
32. The ocular evidence of PW-2 Ct. Vishram is well corroborated by medical evidence in form of his MLC proved as PW-8/A wherein injury has been mentioned as Laceration in Index finger on right hand and swelling in Dorsum in left hand, since, it is deposed that he had caught hold of the wipers of the offending car while he was being dragged by the accused. Even the MLC finds mention the alleged history of hit by car and the said MLC is of the same day of incident at 2:20 p.m. of a Government Hospital i.e. Dr. RML Hospital.
33. The defence taken up by the accused is of false implication due to alleged SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 23 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg demand of bribe, however, no complaint was ever made to any authority regarding the same and no independent evidence has been led to substantiate the said allegation, hence, the plea appears to be an afterthought.
34. Further, the accused himself admitted during cross examination as DW-1 that he did not produce documents when asked and this lends support to the prosecution version regarding initial traffic violation by the accused. Hence, has committed for the offences under Section 3/181, 39/192 and 119/177 of Motor Vehicles Act (Regarding non-production of valid driving licence, RC of vehicle and not obeying traffic signal).
35. Even the conduct of the accused in fleeing from the spot after impounding, dragging a police official on the bonnet of the car for a considerable distance and causing injury, clearly establishes knowledge and intention attracting the ingredients of Section 308 IPC.
36. With regard to the offence under Section 394 IPC, Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that there is no evidence of theft or robbery accompanying the alleged the act, therefore, the ingredients of the said Section are not fulfilled. However, for better appreciation, the relevant provision of law for attracting Section 394 are reproduced herein below:
"Section 394 - Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"Section 390 - Robbery In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery -- Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 24 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint."
"Section 378 - Theft Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
37. In the present matter, it has been categorically deposed by PW-1 that the vehicle of the accused was impounded vide Challan Ex. P-3 (colly) and hence, the custody of the offending car of the accused was with the complainant/PW-1. However, the accused on pretext of taking some articles from the said car, got the keys from PW-1 and fled away with the car without his consent and moved the said car out of the possession of PW-1 and while committing theft of the said car, the accused caused hurt to PW-1 and PW-2. Therefore, ingredients of Section 394 IPC are fulfilled.
38. Even, it has been proved on record that while carrying PW-2 on the bonnet of the offending vehicle, the accused drove the car in a zig-zag, rash and negligent manner and attracted Section 279 IPC.
39. The accused even obstructed the traffic personnel in discharge of their duties and also used criminal force against them while doing so. Hence, he has also committed offence under Section 186/353 IPC.
Conclusion/findings :
40. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for all the offences for which he has been charged. Accordingly, accused Billu is held SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 25 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 186/353/279/308/394 IPC and Section 3/181/, 39/192 and 119/177 of Motor Vehicle Act. He be heard separately on the point of Sentence.
41. Copy of this Judgment be given to accused free of cost against receipt.
Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI
BARNALA
BARNALA TANDON
TANDON Date: 2026.04.25
17:35:12 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON)
COURT ON: 25.04.2026 ASJ-06, New Delhi District
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
It is certified that this Judgment contains 26 pages and each page bears my signatures. SHEFALI by Digitally signed SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date: 2026.04.25 17:35:14 +0530 (SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON) ASJ-05, New Delhi District Patiala House Court, New Delhi SC No. 382/2021 State v. Billu Page 26 of 26 FIR No. 117/2018 PS - Tilak Marg