Delhi District Court
State vs Devendu Singal on 13 August, 2021
State v. Devendu Singal
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV MEHTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NORTH) 05,
ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Devendu Singal
FIR No. 515/05
PS Bawana
U/s. 279/338/304A IPC
JUDGMENT
1 Serial No. of the case : 5290002/16
2 Date of commission : 09.12.2005
3 Date of institution of the case : 13.12.2008
4 Name of complainant : Sh. Pawan Kumar
5 Name of accused : Devendu Singal S/o Sh.
Ramesh, R/o H. No. C1,
Duggal Colony, Devli Road,
Khanpur, Delhi.
6 State represented by : Sh. Deepak Saini, Ld. APP
7 Offence complained of : U/s. 279/338/304A IPC
8 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
9 Arguments heard on : 31.07.2021
Digitally
10 Final order : Convicted signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV MEHTA
11 Date of judgment : 13.08.2021 MEHTA Date:
2021.08.15
16:23:23
+0530
FIR No. 515/05 PS Bawana 1 of 13
State v. Devendu Singal
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 09.12.2005 at unknown time at Barwala, Begumpur Road, the accused was driving a car bearing no. DL 9CM 3227 in a rash and negligence manner and while driving in such a manner inflicted grievous injuries to Pawan Kumar and caused death of one Vishal. Thereafter, an FIR got registered against accused for offence U/s. 279/338/304A IPC.
NOTICE
2. Prima facie case of commission of offences under Section 279/338/304A IPC was made out against accused and notice was framed upon the accused on 25.11.2010 wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION
3. The prosecution has examined 13 witness.
PROSECUTION WITNESS
PW1 SI Prem Singh Duty officer
PW2 Pawan Dabas Eye witness
PW3 Rambir Singh Father of deceased
FIR No. 515/05 PS Bawana 2 of 13
State v. Devendu Singal
PW4 Balraj Singh Passerby / villagers of
injured persons
PW5 Dr. R. B. Singh Proved MLC
PW6 Satish Passerby / villagers of
injured persons
PW7 Krishan Kumar Proved Superdarinama
of motorcycle
PW8 Dr. Upender Kishore Prepared postmortem
report
PW9 Kanwar Singh Proved Superdarinama
of tractor
PW10 AsI Suresh Kumar Assisted the IO
PW11 Retd. SI Karan Singh IO of the case
PW12 Retd. Ct. Japan Singh Assisted the IO
PW13 Retd. ASI/ Tech Proved mechanical
Devender Kumar inspection report
4. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents: Exhibited by Contents Exhibits PW1 DD No. 21A, Copy of PW1/A, PW1/B and FIR and endorsement PW1/C on rukka PW2 Site plan of place of PW2/A occurrence PW3 Identification memo PW3/A of dead body Seizure memo PW3/B FIR No. 515/05 PS Bawana 3 of 13 State v. Devendu Singal PW5 MLC No. 1463 PW5/A PW7 Superdarinam PW7/A PW8 Postmortem report PW8/A PW9 Notice u/s 133 M. V. PW9/A Act Superdarinama of PW9/B tractor Photographs P1 to P4 PW10 Arrest memo PW10/A PW11 Personal search PW11/A memo PW12 Seizure memos of PW12/A and PW12/B motorcycle and tractor Arrest memo of PW12/C accused Jaivir Seizure memo DL of PW12/D accused PW13 Mechanical PW13/A, PW13/B and inspection reports PW13/C
5. PW1 SI Prem Singh proved DD No. 21A as Ex. PW1/A, FIR as Ex. PW1/B and also proved endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW1/C.
6. PW2 Pawan Dabas deposed that on 09.12.2005 at about 05.00 pm, he alongwith his cousin Vishal was going towards to the FIR No. 515/05 PS Bawana 4 of 13 State v. Devendu Singal fields of his grandfather to deliver him tea on motorcycle bearing no. DL 8SW 3032 and as they reached at Begumpur, Barwala Road, one Wagon R car bearing no. DL 9CM 3227 was coming from back side which was driven by accused and one Vijay also seated with accused and accused was driving the vehicle at a very high speed and hit against one motorcycle from the back side and after the collision, he and his cousin fell down and were unconscious and were taken to hospital and when he regained consciousness, he came to know that his brother Vishal had died and his right leg was severely injured and had to be amputated by the doctor and thereafter, IO recorded his statement and IO prepared the site plan of place of occurrence as Ex. PW2/A and he also identified the vehicle Wagon R as Ex. P1.
7. PW3 Rambir Singh proved identification memo of dead body as Ex. PW3/A. PW5 Dr. R. B. Singh proved MLC No. 1463 dated 09.12.2005 as Ex. PW5/A. PW7 krishan Kumar proved superdarinama of motorcycle as Ex. PW7/A and PW8 Dr. Upender Kishore proved postmortem no. 990/05 as Ex. PW8/A.
8. PW9 Kanwar Singh proved notice u/s 133 M. V. Act as Ex.
PW9/A and superdarinama of tractor as Ex. PW9/B. PW10 ASI Suresh Kumar proved arrest memo as Ex. PW10/A and PW11 FIR No. 515/05 PS Bawana 5 of 13 State v. Devendu Singal Retd. SI Saran Singh proved personal search memo as Ex. PW11/A.
9. PW12 Retd. Ct. Japan Singh proved seizure memo of DL 8SW 3032 as Ex. PW12/A, tractor vide memo Ex. PW12/B and also arrested the accused Jaiveer vide arrest memo Ex. PW12/C and proved the seizure memo of DL of accused vide memo Ex. PW12/D.
10. PW13 Retd. ASI/ Tech. Devender Kumar proved mechanical inspection report of tractor as Ex. PW13/A and motorcycle no. DL 8SW 3032 as Ex. PW13/B and also proved mechanical inspection report of Wagon R car no. DL 9CM 3227 as Ex. PW13/C.
11. Thereafter, PE was closed on 18.03.2021.
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
12. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 18.03.2021 separately and he opted not to lead defence evidence and the matter was listed for final arguments.
FIR No. 515/05 PS Bawana 6 of 13
State v. Devendu Singal
FINAL ARGUMENTS
13. The Ld. APP for the State has argued that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are consistent and corroborate each other and the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.
The Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has argued that there are serious inconsistencies in the deposition of prosecution witnesses and therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and he should be acquitted in the present case.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
14. Section 279 IPC states as Rash driving or riding on a public way Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any 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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 338 IPC states as causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others : Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safely of FIR No. 515/05 PS Bawana 7 of 13 State v. Devendu Singal others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 304A IPC states as under: Causing death by negligence Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both"
In order to convict the accused u/s 304A IPC, the prosecution must be able to establish:
a) There must be death of the person in question.
b) The accused must have caused such death.
c) That such act of the accused was rash and negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide.
COURT OBSERVATIONS:
15. After going through the material on record including the testimony of prosecution witnesses, this court makes the following observations:
(a) PW2 Pawan is the eye witness and is the main witness of the prosecution who deposed that on 09.12.2005 at about 05.00 pm, FIR No. 515/05 PS Bawana 8 of 13 State v. Devendu Singal he alongwith his cousin Vishal was going towards to the fields of his grandfather to deliver tea to him on motorcycle bearing no. DL 8SW 3032 and as they reached at Begumpur, Barwala Road, one Wagon R car bearing no. DL 9CM 3227 which was being driven by the accused came from the back side at a very high speed and hit against their motorcycle and after the collision, he and his cousin fell down and he became unconscious.
(b) PW2 identified the accused Devendu Singal in the court and stated that the accident occurred due to rash driving on part of the accused. The testimony of PW2 Pawan Dabas is on the same lines as the statement given by him to the police u/s 161 Cr.PC.
(c) The testimony of PW2 Pawan Dabas is further corroborated by his MLC and postmortem report of deceased Vishal placed on record by the prosecution.
(d) The MLC of injured Pawan Dabas dated 09.12.2005 shows crush injuries on the foot and leg and is opined as grievous in nature by the doctor concerned. Also the PM report of the deceased of deceased Vishal dated 10.12.2005 shows the cause of death as cerebral damage as a result of antimortem injuries to the head which is possibly as a result of road traffic accident.
FIR No. 515/05 PS Bawana 9 of 13 State v. Devendu Singal
(e) The mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle dated 14.12.2005 shows the following damages as under:
(i) Front wheel damage.
(ii) Right side body scratch.
(iii) right side brake pedal.
(iv) Headlight and both indicators damages.
(v) Wheel ring bent.
(f) The counsel for the accused has argued that there is some confusion regarding the vehicle involved in the commission of offence as initially one tractor was seized by the IO w.r.t offence in question. Also the Ld. Defence counsel argued that the deceased Vishal was driving the motorcycle and he was minor on the date of commission of offence and was not carrying a valid DL.
The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that the accused was not present at the spot at the time of incident and he was instead attending the ring ceremony function of his brotherinlaw, the photographs and CD of which are placed on record by the accused.
(g) The Ld. APP for the State has admitted that there was some confusion initially and his grandfather Ved Singh had wrongly told the IO that a tractor was involved and IO had wrongly seized the tractor from the spot but when the injured Pawan Dabas FIR No. 515/05 PS Bawana 10 of 13 State v. Devendu Singal regained consciousness, he disclosed the true facts and thereafter, driver of offending vehicle i.e. Wagon R car bearing no. DL 9CM 3227 namely Devendu Singal was arrested.
Furthermore, Ld. APP for the State has argued that Ld. MACT Court vide order dated 17.01.2013 directed the insurance company of the abovesaid Wagon R to compensate the injured and deceased's family in the sum of Rs.3.65 lacs and so the involvement of the Wagon R car is prima facie made out.
(h) This court has observed that PW2 Pawan Dabas has in his testimony as well as in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC clearly specified the vehicle number and has clearly explained the negligent / rash driving of the accused and the testimony of PW2 Pawan Dabas (injured) is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and his testimony is supported by other materials on record .
(i) Also in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC and also during his cross examination in the court, PW2 Pawan Dabas has clearly stated that the driver of tractor was wrongly arrested by the police on the misunderstanding of his grandfather Ved Singh and infact the accident was caused by accused Devendu Singal.
(j) In the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC of accused, the accused FIR No. 515/05 PS Bawana 11 of 13 State v. Devendu Singal Devendu Singal has taken the defence that the deceased Vishal was on the motorcycle and he was trying to overtake his car and the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased Vishal. Also the accused has stated in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that he was not driving the vehicle at a fast speed and no accident was caused by him.
(k) Perusal of the abovesaid statement of the accused shows that he has nowhere taken the defence that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident. Infact the accused is admitting his presence at the spot, his only defence being that he was not driving at a fast speed and the deceased in his motorcycle was trying to overtake his car which led to the accident.
The defence taken by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, is inconsistent with his submission that he was attending the ring ceremony of brother in law at the time of incident.
(l) Also the defence taken by the accused that deceased Vishal was driving the motorcycle despite being a minor does not exonerate him for his own acts of negligence and rashness and just because the deceased was driving without a valid DL does not absolve the accused from his criminal liability under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
FIR No. 515/05 PS Bawana 12 of 13 State v. Devendu Singal
(m) After going through the material on record including the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and MLCs, PM report and other material placed on record by the prosecution, this court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the negligence on the part of the accused Devendu Singal and has proved that such negligence led to the accident which led to death of deceased Vishal and resulted inflicting injuries on the person of injured Pawan Dabas and so this court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused Devendu Singal for the offences charged against him beyond doubt.
16. For the reasons mentioned above, this court convicts the accused Devendu Singal for offences u/s 279/338/304A IPC.
17. Let he be heard on quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open (VAIBHAV MEHTA)
court on 13.08.2021 MM5 (North), Rohini Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 515/05 PS Bawana 13 of 13