Delhi District Court
State vs Shailesh @ Shailu on 14 October, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAURABH GOYAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. : Shailesh @ Shailu
FIR No : 384/2016
U/s : 279/304 A IPC & 3/181 MV Act
P.S. : PALAM VILLAGE
CNR NO. : DLSW020316642017
1. Criminal Case No. : 8498/2017
2. Date of commission of offence : 04.11.2016
3. Date of institution of the case : 10.11.2017
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused, parentage & Address : Shailesh @ Shailu S/o Sh.
Chandru Giri
6. Offense complained or proved : Section 279, 304 A IPC & 3/181
MV Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 14.10.2025
9. Final order : Convicted for offence U/s 279,
304 A IPC
10. Date of final order : 14.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The accused is facing trial for commission of offences U/S 279/304 A IPC and 3/181 MV Act. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 04.11.2016 at about 2:00 PM at Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Raj Nagar II, Palam, infront of Railway Line within the jurisdiction of PS Palam Village, Delhi, accused was driving Tractor No. HR-13E-2681 rashly and negligently in such a manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so ran over a child namely Akansha FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu 2 D/o Peer Mohd aged about 1½ to 2 years and caused her death not amounting to culpable homicide and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 279/304-A IPC. Further, accused was found driving above said vehicle without holding a Driving License and thereby committed an offence U/s 3/181 MV Act. The criminal law was set into motion and the investigation into the case began. During the course of investigation, the offending vehicle was seized along with it's documents, by the police and it's mechanical inspection was conducted, spot memo was prepared and MLC of the injured/deceased and PM report were obtained. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet for offences U/S 279/304A IPC and 3/181 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 alleged offences U/S 279/304 A IPC was framed on 06.12.2017 and served upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, vide order dt. 30.07.2025 separate charge u/s 3/181 MV Act was framed against the accused since, inadvertently earlier, the charge could not be framed u/s 3/181 MV Act against the accused. Accordingly, charge u/s 3/181 MV Act was framed against accused on 30.07.2025 to which he pleaded guilty and in view of guilty plea of accused, he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/-.
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined Nine prosecution witnesses which are as under.
4. PW-7 Sh. Peer Mohd. S/o Sh. Aamir R/O Village Sijeri, Dist. Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh is the complainant in this case and he deposed that he is residing at the above said address along with his family since his birth but for work purpose came to Delhi along with his wife and children. He did not remember the exact, time and year of the incident but the incident took place around 8 years ago. On the day of incident, he was working as labourer at one Construction site in Palam Village and his daughter Akansha aged about 1 ½ year was sleeping at the site only under a Neem tree. The FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu 3 accused Shailesh who was also working at the said construction site as driver of the tractor, also came there by driving the tractor and when he tried to reverse the said tractor he ran the said tractor over his sleeping daughter due to which she died on the spot. The accused was in intoxicated condition and was driving the tractor with trolley in rash and negligent manner. At the time of incident the Trolley was also having the load of around 50 sacks of cements. They took their daughter to Safdarjung hospital where she was declared as brought dead and her Postmortem was also conducted and after the postmortem, her dead body was handed over to them. Thereafter, his statement was recorded by police i.c. Ex. PW5/A. Site plan was also prepared by police at his instance. i.e. Ex. PW-5/C. The accused Shailesh was arrested in his presence vide memo Ex. PW5/F. Accused was correctly identified by witness in the court. The witness also correctly identified the offending tractor vide photographs Ex. PX1 (Colly).
5. PW- 6 Smt. Quresha W/o Sh. Peer Mohd. R/O Village Sijeri, Dist. Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh, was the mother of the victim and has deposed that she is residing at the above said address along with her family since her marriage but for work purpose came to Delhi along with her husband and children. She did not remember the exact, time and year of the incident. On the day of incident, she was working as labourer at one Construction site and her daughter Akansha aged about 1½ year was sleeping at the site only. The accused Shailesh who was also working at the said construction site as driver of the tractor, also came there by driving the tractor and when he tried to reverse the said tractor he ran over the said tractor over her sleeping daughter due to which she sustained injuries. At the time of incident, the accused was in intoxicated condition. They took their daughter to Safdarjung hospital where she was declared as brought dead and her Postmortem was also conducted and after the postmortem, her dead body was handed over to them. Thereafter, her statement was recorded by police. Accused was correctly identified by witness in the court. The witness also correctly identified the offending tractor vide photographs Ex. PX1 (Colly).
FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu 4
6. PW- 5 Retired SI Birender Singh S/o Sh. Matadin, R/o Village & P.O. Bharawas, Dist. Rewari, Haryana was the initial IO of this who deposed that on 04.11.2016 he was posted as ASI at PS Palam Village. On that day on receipt of DD NO. 19 A, he along with Ct. Subhash, went to Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Raj Nagar Part II, Palam near Railway Line where they found one Tractor along with trolley bearing NO. HR 13E 2681 (red Colour Mahindra) and accused Shailesh @ Sallu was also present there and also public persons were gathered there. They came to know that the injured has been shifted to unknown hospital by her parents. Thereafter, they took the accused along with tractor trolley to PS and also made search for eye witness at the spot but not found anyone. Lateron he came to know that the parents of the injured took her to Safdarjung Hospital as at around 6:00 PM, the parents of injured/deceased came to PS along with the dead body of their daughter. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Subhash, father of deceased along with the dead body again went to Safdarjung Hospital where the MLC of the deceased was prepared and the dead body was sent to mortuary. Thereafter, he recorded statement of father of the deceased Sh. Peer Mohd. i.e. Ex. PW5/A, he prepared tehrir Rukka Ex. PW5/B and sent Ct. Subhash for registration of FIR who got the present case FIR registered in the PS. In the meantime, he took the father of deceased to the spot of incident and prepared the site plan at his instance, Ex. PW5/C. He again made search of eye witness but no eye witness was found and thereafter, he along with the complainant/father of deceased returned back to the PS and Ct. Subhash handed over to him original tehrir and copy of FIR. In the police station, complainant identified the driver of the tractor/accused and also told that due to negligence of accused the said accident took place. Accused Shailesh @ Sallu and complainant Peer Mohd. were known to each other being working at the same site. He seized the tractor trolley vide memo Ex. PW5/D. He also seized the RC, Insurance and DL of the accused vide memo Ex. PW5/E. He arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW5/F and released him upon furnishing of bail bonds Ex. PW5/G. He deposited the case property in the Malkhana of PS Palam Village. He FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu 5 also recorded the statement of witnesses U/S 161 Cr.PC. After the Postmortem of the dead body, he handed over the dead body to the known/relatives. He also got conducted the mechanical inspection of Tractor Trolley. The photographs of tractor and trolley is Ex. PX1 (Colly 4 photos). As per the instructions of DCP concerned, he handed over the present case FIR to MACT Cell, Dwarka.
7. PW-8 Retired SI Om Prakash S/o Late Sh. Ram Kumar R/O Village Chandu, P.O Budera, Dist. Gurugram, Haryana, who filed chargesheet in the court has deposed that on 09.11.2016 he was posted at MACT Cell. Dwarka as SI. On that day, the investigation of the present case was handed over to him for further investigation. During investigation, he verified the RC. Driving License, Insurance etc of the offending vehicle from the concerned transport department. As the DL of the driver of the offending tractor was not suitable for driving the tractor trolley therefore, the Sections 3/181 MV Act were added by him. Thereafter, he collected the PM report of the deceased. He recorded statement of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. The tractor trolley was released upon Superdari vide orders of the court. Photographs of the offending vehicle are already exhibited Ex. PX1 are shown to witness to which he correctly identified the same. The accused was correctly identified by witness in the court. After completion of the investigation, he filed the chargesheet before this court.
8. PW-1 Sh. Shiv Nandan S/o Sh. Harcharan, Aged around 36 years R/o Dist. Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh -210427 has deposed that he was working as labourer. On 05.11.2016, he went to Mortuary Safdarjung Hospital along with his neighbour Sh. Peer Mohd. whereby he identified the dead body of one girl namely Akansha D/o Sh. Peer Mohd vide memo Ex. PW1/A.
9. PW-2 Dr. Vedant Kulshrestha Asst. Professor, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department, U P University of medical Sciences, Saifai Etawah, U. P. has deposed that on 05.11.2016, he was posted as Sr. Resident, department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. On that day he conducted PM report of deceased Akansha. My PM report is Ex. PW2/A. FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu 6
10. PW-3 Sh. Gajender Sharma S/o Late Sh. Trikha Ram Sharma, Aged around 45 years R/o Village Raiwala, Dehradun, Uttrakhand has deposed that he is residing at the aforesaid address since last 8-10 years. He is the owner of Tractor bearing NO. HR 13 E 2681, which he got released on superdari from the court vide superdarinama and the court order, indemnity bond and photographs are Ex. PW3/A (Colly).
11. PW- 4 Dr. Yogesh Gautam, Sr. Medical Officer, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi has deposed that on 04.11.2016 he was posted as Medical Officer, in Emergency Department, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Dr. Syed Iltija Hasnain had worked as Junior Resident in Department of Casualty in aforesaid hospital and he had seen him writing and signing the documents during the course of our working thus, he can identify the signatures and hand writing of doctor Dr. Syed Iltija Hasnain. The MLC bearing NO.297679/16 dated 04.11.2016 of patient namely Akansha i.e. Ex. PW4/A was prepared by Dr. Syed Iltija Hasnain and the same bears his signatures and stamp at points A and also bears his signatures as well as stamps at points B as Medical Officer.
12. PW- 9 HC Bhagirath No. 1341 PCR, West Zone, New Delhi has deposed that on 04.11.2016 he was posted as HC/DO at PS Palam Village. On that day, he recorded DD NO. 19 and DD NO. 33 A i.e. Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B respectively.
13. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, PE was closed on 08.05.2025. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded U/S 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") wherein the accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and stated that forged and fabricated documents have been produced by the prosecution during the trial and that he was falsely implicated in the case. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence despite giving him opportunities.
14. I have heard the arguments led by learned APP for the State and counsel for the accused and perused the case file carefully.
15. It is argued by learned APP for the State that accused was apprehended at the spot and there is no dispute qua his identity. It is further argued that from the perusal FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu 7 of evidence lead by the witnesses as well as documents thereof, it is clear that offending vehicle was driven by the accused in rash or negligent manner and as such accused is liable to be convicted.
16. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that prosecution has failed to establish that the rash or negligent driving of the accused lead to the accident. He also argued that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubts and accused is entitled to be acquitted for the offences he is charged for.
17. Before, discussing the testimonies of PWs, it would be prudent to discuss the legal position involved in the present case.
LAW INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE
18. Section 279 of the IPC provides for the offence of rash driving or riding on a public way. It reads as under:
"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."
19. On bare reading of the above provision, it becomes clear that there are primarily three essential ingredients which constitute offence of rash driving on a public way.
a. Person must be driving or riding on a public way;
b. He must be driving in a rash or negligent manner;
c. Likely to endanger human life or cause hurt or injury to any person.
20. Section 304A IPC provides for the offence of causing death by negligence. Death must have been caused by rash or negligent act which must not amount to culpable homicide. It reads as under:
FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu 8 "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 dine, or with both."
21. The doing of a rash or negligent act, which causes, death is the essence of section 304A. There is a slight distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. 'Rashness' conveys the idea of recklessness or doing an act without due consideration and 'negligence' connotes want of proper care. A rash act, therefore, implies an act done by a person with recklessness or indifference to its consequences. The doer, being conscious of the mischievous or illegal consequences, does the act knowing that his act may bring some undesirable or illegal results but without hoping or intending them to occur. A negligent act, on the other hand, refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient precautions or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or illegal consequences.
22. A perusal of the above discussed provisions makes it very clear that an act of rashness or negligence endangering the human life or personal safety is a common ingredient in both these offences. Now a question arises as to what would constitute a rash or negligent act. At this stage, reference may be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed in detail as to what constitute a rash or negligent act. It interalia held the following:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sens that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness 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 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."
FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu 9
23. Further, in the case of Braham Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 406, while discussing the legal position with respect to an offence u/s 279/304A IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interalia held the following:
"Obviously the foundation in accusations under Section 279 IPC is not negligence. Similarly in Section 304 A the stress is on causing death by negligence or rashness. Therefore, for bringing in application of either Section 279 or 304 A it must be established that there was an element of rashness or negligence. Even if the prosecution version is accepted in toto, there was no evidence led to show that any negligence was involved."
24. Therefore, indifference to the consequences of one's act or absence of reasonable care and precaution is the most important ingredient constituting rashness or negligence. It should be noted that intention of the person acting rash or negligent act is immaterial. What is important is that he has not taken due care or has done the said act with indifference to the consequences.
25. Further, it should be noted that there should be direct link between the act or rashness or negligence and hurt/grievous hurt/death, as the case may be, suffered by the victim. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abdul Subhan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562 has discussed the ingredients which need to be established by the prosecution for convicting an accused u/s 279/304 A IPC & 3/181 MV Act. The Hon'ble Court has interalia held the following:
"As 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 regards the offence punishable under section 304A IPC, it was observed that the point to be established is that the act of the accused was responsible for the death and that such act of the accused must have been rash and negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under section 279 or FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu 10 section 304A, the commission of a rash or negligent act has to be proved."
26. The above-mentioned judgments sufficiently enlightens us that for establishing accusations u/s 304A IPC, prosecution is firstly required to establish that the accused was rash or negligent while driving the vehicle and secondly the causa causans of death of deceased / or the proximate cause of death of deceased was the act of accused.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
27. As discussed in the preceding part of this judgment, the accused Shailesh @ Shailu has been charged for the offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC. After considering the materials available on record, following issues are involved in the present case which need to be examined in the backdrop of legal provisions.
i. Whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time and has caused the accident?
ii. Whether the accused had committed the accident while driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner?
iii. Whether there is a direct nexus between the rash / negligent act of the accused and injury/death caused?
FINDINGS
28. I shall be deciding the above mentioned points of determination by considering the materials available on record in the backdrop of settled legal position.
29. The accused Shailesh @ Shailu is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.11.2016 at about 2:00 PM at Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Raj Nagar II, Palam, near the railway line, within the jurisdiction of PS Palam Village, the accused was driving Tractor No. HR-13E-2681 in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and safety, and while FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu 11 reversing, ran over a minor girl Akanksha aged about 1½ years, causing her death on the spot. The accused was allegedly driving the vehicle without a valid driving license. After investigation, charges were framed under Sections 279/304A IPC and 3/181 MV Act. The accused pleaded guilty to Section 3/181 MV Act and was fined ₹500. He pleaded not guilty to Sections 279/304A IPC and claimed trial. During the evidence, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Key witnesses are PW-5 (ASI Birender Singh - IO), PW-6 (mother of deceased), PW-7 (father and complainant), PW-8 (SI Om Prakash - second IO), and medical witnesses (PW-2 and PW-4).
30. PW-7, the father of deceased, categorically deposed that the accused, who worked as a tractor driver at the same construction site, reversed the tractor rashly over his sleeping daughter, causing her death on the spot. He also stated that the accused was intoxicated and that the trolley attached to the tractor carried approximately 50 cement sacks. PW-6 (mother) corroborated this version fully. Both these witnesses duly identified the accused during the trial. They have alleged that the accused was in an intoxicated condition however, no evidence to prove the same has come on record during the trial. Both these witnesses have correctly identified the offending Tractor vide photographs Ex. PX1 (colly). During the cross examination, a story has been propounded by the accused that the victim was sleeping at some distance from the boundary wall of the building. But there are no further questions put to both these witnesses as to what impact it had upon the death of the victim. During the arguments it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that it was not the tractor but the alleged wall which had collapsed and fell on the victim due to which the victim had expired. However, there is no evidence placed on the record by the accused and not only the eye witness PW 6 and PW 7 but also the IO has not deposed anything about the fall of wall upon the victim. The said defence of the accused remained unsubstantiated and therefore can not be relied upon by this court. The testimony of parents of the victim ie. PW-6 and PW-7 and that of IO/PW-5 have FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu 12 remained coherent and there are no discrepancies in their testimony which would overthrow the case of the prosecution or at least creates some shadow of doubt.
31. The mechanical inspection report, photographs of the tractor (Ex. PX1 Colly), and postmortem report (Ex. PW2/A) corroborate the occurrence and nature of injuries, establishing that death was caused due to crush injuries consistent with being run over by a heavy vehicle. Further, cause of death as mentioned in Ex. PW2/A is "death is due to cranio-cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to head. All injuries are antemortem in nature and could be possible in the manner as alleged". Thus, the nature of injuries as corroborated by the Post Moterm report Ex. PW2/A clearly show that the incident had happened due to the victim being run over by the tractor driven by the accused.
32. PW-5 (IO) and PW-8 (subsequent IO) have established the formal investigation of the case and have proved the seizure Ex. PW-5/D, site plan Ex. PW-5/C, mechanical inspection, and arrest memos Ex. PW-5/F. No contradiction was elicited in their cross-examination.
33. The depositions of PW-6 and PW-7, being eye witnesses and parents of the deceased, are natural, trustworthy, and inspire confidence. Their presence at the spot is natural as both were working at the same construction site. Their testimony is consistent on material particulars and remained unshaken during cross-examination. There is nothing on record as to why the parents of the victim would implicate the accused falsely and will let go of the real culprit.
34. The defence failed to bring any material contradictions or motives for false implication. The accused was known to the complainant, and his presence at the site is admitted. The photographs and site plan corroborate the version that the child was crushed while sleeping near the work area.
FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu 13
35. The postmortem report (Ex. PW2/A) clearly attributes death to crush injuries, establishing direct causation between the negligent act of the accused and the death of the victim.
36. The testimony of PW-5 (IO) and PW-8 (subsequent IO) further strengthens the prosecution case regarding prompt registration of FIR, seizure of vehicle, and site inspection. No material contradiction appears in their testimony.
37. The accused admitted guilt under Section 3/181 MV Act, thus conceding that he was driving without a valid license, which is a significant circumstance showing disregard for traffic law and supporting inference of negligence.
38. The allegation that the accused was intoxicated further aggravates the degree of negligence. Even though no medical test was conducted to confirm intoxication, the consistent testimony of both eyewitnesses that he appeared intoxicated lends additional credibility.
39. Applying these principles, the prosecution has duly established that act of the accused in reversing a loaded tractor in a crowded worksite without ensuring that the way was clear, has resulted in death of a child Akansha which constitutes gross negligence. The identity of the accused as the driver of the offending tractor is established beyond reasonable doubt. The death of the victim was a direct result of the rash and negligent act of the accused. The accused had no valid driving license at the time, which is a clear violation of law and aggravates negligence. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent, natural, and corroborated by medical and documentary evidence. Hence, the prosecution has successfully proved its case under Sections 279 and 304A IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Shailesh @ Sallu is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. He has already pleaded guilty under Section 3/181 MV Act and paid the imposed fine.
FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu 14
40. In view of the above discussions and findings, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has established that the accused had caused the accident of the victim and it was the act of the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused while driving the offending vehicle which led to the death of the vicitm. Accordingly, the accused Shailesh @ Shailu, is convicted of the commission of offences U/s 279 & 304 A IPC.
41. Let he be heard on point of sentence on some other day.
Announced in the open court on Digitally signed by
this day i.e. 14th October, 2025
SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.10.14
16:04:41 +0530
(Saurabh Goyal)
JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 14 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.10.14 16:04:44 +0530 (Saurabh Goyal) JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi FIR NO. 384/2016 St. Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu