Delhi District Court
State vs . Arvinder Singh on 3 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NORTH WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
State Vs. ARVINDER SINGH
FIR No. 640/08
P.S. Saraswati Vihar
Case No. 538162/2016
(a) Date of offence 10.10.2008
b) Complainant Sh. Rajender Partap Sehgal,
S/o Sh. Jagan Nath Sehgal,
R/o 40, Sidharth Apartment, Delhi.
(c) Accused Arvinder Singh @ Lovely,
S/o Sh. Gopal Singh,
R/o 1419/97, Tri Nagar, Delhi.
(d) Offence Under Sections 279/338 IPC
(e) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(f) Final Order Acquitted
(g) Date of institution 16.02.2009
(h) Date when 03.12.2019
judgment was
reserved
(i) Date of judgment 03.12.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The accused has faced trial for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC with the allegations that on 10.10.2008 at 09:05 p.m., on the road from Punjabi Bagh to Azadpur near CNG Pump, C.Case No. 538162/16 State Vs. Arvinder Singh Page No. 1 of 9 Shakurpur, Delhi, he drove motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and personal safety of others and while driving so, he caused grievous hurt to the complainant Sh. Rajender Pratap Sehgal.
INVESTIGATION:-
2. During investigation, the offending motorcycle, RC of the offending motorcycle and photocopy of insurance were seized and the offending vehicle was mechanically inspected. MLC of injured was collected. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
CHARGE:-
3. After hearing the parties, the notice u/s 279/338 IPC was framed qua the accused on 16.04.2009 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:-
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven prosecution witnesses.
5. PW1 Sh. Rajender Pratap Sehgal is the injured. He deposed that on 10.10.2000 at about 9.15 p.m., he was C.Case No. 538162/16 State Vs. Arvinder Singh Page No. 2 of 9 coming after seeing the movie at Samrat Palace and was coming from the side of Samrat going towards Punjabi Bagh, Delhi and was crossing the road at Zebra crossing at CNG pump, Shakurpur and going towards Shakurpur and in the meantime, a motorcycle whose number he did not remember came from the side of Punjabi Bagh driven by the accused Arvinder Singh. He stated that the motorcycle was being driven in a very fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner which struck against him while he was crossing the road due to which he and the motorcyclist fell down. He stated that someone called the police and PCR van came at the spot and took him as well as the accused to Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi. He proved his statement recorded by the IO as Ex.PW1/A. During cross-examination, he stated that he was crossing the road through zebra crossing.
6. PW-2 HC Rajender Singh is the duty officer. He proved the computer generated copy of FIR as Ex.PW2/B and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW2/C.
7. PW-3 Retd. ASI (Tech.) Devender Kumar had conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle i.e. pulsar motorcycle bearing No. DL 4S AF 5851 at P.S. Sraswati Vihar.
C.Case No. 538162/16 State Vs. Arvinder Singh Page No. 3 of 9 As per report, no fresh damage was found on the said vehicle and it was fit for road test. He proved his detailed inspection report as Ex.PW3/A.
8. PW4 Sh. Gopal Singh is the registered owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL 4S AF 5851. He got released the aforesaid vehicle vide superdarinama Ex.PW4/A.
9. PW5 Dr. Manideepa Goswami is the Medical Officer from Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. He had examined examined the injured Rajender Pratap and proved his MLC as Ex.PW5/A. He also deposed on behalf of Dr. Manoj Arya, SR. (Ortho) and Dr. Rachita Gupta, SR, Radiology. He proved the MLC of the patient prepared by Dr. Manoj Arya as Ex.PW5/A and the X-ray report of the said patient prepared by Dr. Rachita as Ex.PW5/B.
10. PW6 Ct. (HC) Devender had accompanied the IO SI Jagbir Singh during investigation. He proved the proceedings conducted by the IO in his presence.
11. PW7 Retd. SI Jagbir Singh is the investigating officer of C.Case No. 538162/16 State Vs. Arvinder Singh Page No. 4 of 9 the case. Besides, the other documents proved by the prosecution witnesses, he proved the rukka as Ex.PW7/A; site plan as Ex.PW7/B; the arrest and personal search memos of the accused as Ex.PW7/C; the seizure memo of the offending vehicle as Ex.PW7/D and the seizure memo of RC and photocopy of insurance of the offending vehicle as Ex.PW7/E; his request for getting the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle done as Ex.PW7/F; the seizure memo of the driving licence of accused as Ex.PW7/G. He also correctly identified the accused in the Court and correctly identified the case property i.e. the motorcyle as Ex.P1.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:-
12. The accused Arvinder Singh in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C stated that he did not cause any accident. He stated that the complainant was crossing the road in a most negligent manner due to which he fell on his motorcycle and sustained injuries.
13. The accused examined himself in his defence evidence as DW1. He deposed that on 10.10.2008 at about 9.05 p.m, he was coming on his motorcycle No. DL 4S AF 5851 from the side road Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti which were merging below the Britannia Chowk Flyover. He stated that one black colour car C.Case No. 538162/16 State Vs. Arvinder Singh Page No. 5 of 9 hit Mr. Rajinder Pratp Sehgal/complaint which was coming at a high speed from the flyover and the complainant fell over him due to which he also fell down and suffered injuries. He further deposed that there was no zebra crossing at that place and the road was around 100 feet wide. He deposed that the complainant was crossing the road from a wrong point from where railing was broken. The zebra crossing was far ahead. He deposed that theaccused had taken plce on account of fall of the complainant, who was trying to cross the road while running and was hit by a car coming down the flyover and in turn, he fell on his motorcycle. The police took him and the complainant to Mahavir Hospital. He pleaded his innocence and stated that large number of people had witnessed the incident.
The accused produced Sh. Ved Praksh Chawla in his defence, who was examined as DW2. He deposed that the complainant was running to cross the road at the rear end of flyover on the ring road. The accused was not at fault and the accident occurred on account of the fault of the complainant/injured, who was running to cross the road and also the fault of the car driver, who was driving the car at a fast speed. The injured was not crossing the road from zebra crossing.
C.Case No. 538162/16 State Vs. Arvinder Singh Page No. 6 of 9 INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE OF RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING SECTION 279/304-A IPC:
14. For proving the offence under Sections 279/338 IPC for causing injury by rash or negligent driving, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
I) Identity of the offending vehicle; and
ii) Identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle; and
iii) The vehicle was being driven negligently by failure to exercise a reasonable and proper precaution; or
iv) The vehicle was being driven rashly with the knowledge that it may cause injury but without intention to cause injury or knowledge that it will probably be caused; and
v) The direct nexus between the injury/death of the person and the rash or negligent act of the accused.
COURT'S OBSERVATIONS:-
15. Now, I will examine the facts of the prosecution case to see whether the given facts fit in the framework of the aforesaid ingredients.
There are material contradictions in the testimony of only eye-witness/injured i.e. PW1. In his statement i.e. Ex.PW-1/A, he has stated that he was crossing the road through zebra crossing whereas PW7 IO SI Jagbir Singh C.Case No. 538162/16 State Vs. Arvinder Singh Page No. 7 of 9 has deposed that there was no red light, blinkers or zebra crossing at the spot. As per site plan Ex.PW7/B, the injured is stated to have crossed the road at point A but there is no zebra crossing depicted in the site plan. Moreover, the IO has also stated that there was no zebra crossing at the spot. PW1 i.e. injured deposed that he was crossing he ring road which is around 100 ft. wide and the culpability of the accused cannot be established in the absence of any rashness on his part. Even though PW1 has denied that he was not crossing the road from broken railing but the same is belied in the testimony of PW7 who has categorically stated that there was no zebra crossing at the spot and contributing negligence of the injured in which the driver has no part will absolve the accused. Morever, DW-2, who was examined as defence witness deposed that the accident occurred on account of the fault of the complainant/injured, who was running to cross the road and also the fault of the car driver, who was driving the car at a fast speed. The injured was not crossing the road from zebra crossing. The said testimony of DW2 has not been shaken by the Ld. APP during cross-examination.
C.Case No. 538162/16 State Vs. Arvinder Singh Page No. 8 of 9 CONCLUSION:-
16. For the reasons mentioned above, the accused Arvinder Singh @ Lovely is acquitted for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC.
17. Judgment be uploaded on the server.
Announced in the open court on 3rd December, 2019 (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
C.Case No. 538162/16 State Vs. Arvinder Singh Page No. 9 of 9