Delhi District Court
State vs Manjit @Dul on 19 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Manjit @ Dul
FIR No : 173/2018
U/s : 279/337/482 IPC and 185 of Motor Vehicles Act
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020586182019
2. Date of commission of offence : 12.10.2018
3. Date of institution of the case : 20.11.2019
4. Name of the complainant : HC Sunil Yadav
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Manjit @ Dul
address S/o Azad Singh
R/o RZ-169, Roshan
Garden, Najafgarh,
Delhi
6. Offence complained of : 279/337/482 IPC and
185 of Motor Vehicles
Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 19.11.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Parvez Alam, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Manish Kadiyan, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally signed
ABHINAV by ABHINAV
FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 1 of 25
AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date: 2025.11.19
16:14:29 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.10.2018 at about 09:40 PM at Air Force Station, near Gate no.1, Delhi, accused was driving the offending car bearing registration no.DL-9CAG-0285 in drunken condition and in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and thereby hit complainant HC Sunil Yadav and caused simple hurt to him. Further, accused used false property mark of DL-9CAG-0285 as registration number of offending vehicle instead of registration no.
DL-1RTB-2616 and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/482 of IPC and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, for which FIR no.173/2018 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, notice under Sections 279/337/482 of IPC and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act was served upon the accused on 30.11.2021. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 2 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:14:42 +0530 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 HC Sunil PW-2 ASI Bal Kishan PW-3 SI Om Prakash PW-4 ASI Ram Niwas PW-5 Dr. J. Touthang PW-6 ASI Subhash DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Complaint Ex.PW1/B Photograph of offending vehicle Ex.PW1/C Photograph of offending vehicle Ex.PW2/A Rukka Ex.PW2/B Copy of FIR Ex.PW2/C Certificate u/S 65B of IEA qua FIR Ex.PW3/A Seizure memo qua fake number plate Ex.PW3/B Seizure memo qua offending DL and RC Ex.PW3/P1 Registration Certificate Ex.PW3/P2 Driving licence Ex.PW4/A Site plan Ex.PW4/B Arrest memo Ex.PW4/C Personal search memo Ex.PW4/D Seizure memo qua offending vehicle Ex.PW5/A MLC no.5453 dated 12.10.2018 Ex.PW5/B MLC no.5455 dated 13.10.2018 ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 DD no.19A dated 12.10.2018 Ex.A2 Entry in register no.19 Ex.A3 Mechanical inspection report of vehicle no.DL-9CAG-0285
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 3 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:14:52 +0530 PW1 HC Sunil deposed that he was employed in Delhi Police and posted at PTC Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi. During his service, he was posted at PCR van Dwarka Zone. He was incharge of the PCR, Crystal 74 on the day of incident and his duty hours were from 08:00 pm to 08:00am. On the day of incident, he had parked his vehicle at the main gate of Air Force Station, Dhansa. He did not remember the date and month but it was 2018. It was about 09:30- 10:00 pm, he was standing outside of the said vehicle at that time. At that time, a vehicle came from the village side of Dhansa and hit him. Due to the said accident, he sustained injuries in his parts of the body. The said vehicle was Wagon R and was trying to run towards the Issapur village. They took their vehicle and followed the Wagon R. At a distance of 200m, the said Wagon R hit the divider of the road and got stopped. In the said vehicle, there were four persons out of two ran away from there and he caught hold two of them. He called to another PCR van through mobile phone and he had also called at 100 number and through whom he had apprehended him. He could not identify the accused as after his calling, another PCR van came and he handed over the said person to the incharge of the said PCR van and went to RTRM hospital in his PCR van. Local police came from PS Jaffarpur Kalan but he did not remember the name of IO. After his medical examination, he was adviced to take bed rest. After seeing the complaint Ex.PW1/A, witness stated that the same does not bear his signatures. The witness correctly identified the photographs of the offending vehicle Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C as the front and back windshield of the said case had got broken in the accident. As PW1 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that the date of the incident Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 4 of 25 2025.11.19 16:14:58 +0530 was 12.10.2018. He did not remember the complete registration number of the offending vehicle, however, the last four digits of the registration number were 0285. The driver of the offending vehicle was driving the Wagnor car at a fast pace in a rash and negligent manner. When the said Wagnor car hit him, he fell on the bonnet of the said offending vehicle and sustained injuries. He denied the suggestion that the vehicle was being driven by accused Manjit while Sunil @ Monti was sitting on the passenger side seat. When he reached at the spot, the accused persons had rammed their vehicle in the divider. He saw that Manjit and Sunil were there in the car however, he could not say as to who among them was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident. His statements were recorded by the police at the hospital but he had not signed the same. He had shown the spot of incident to the IO who had prepared the site plan upon his instance. In the cross- examination, he stated that IO did not record statement of any public person/ eye-witness except ASI Subhash, driver of PCR van. One CCTV camera was installed at Main Gate, where the incident happened. He did not know if IO seized the said camera. At the time of accident, there were four persons sitting in offending vehicle and he stated the same to the IO during investigation. He never visited the spot after the incident regarding investigation in the present case.
5. PW2 ASI Bal Kishan deposed that on 13.10.2018 at about 02:00 AM, SI Ram Niwas had handed over him rukka Ex.PW2/A. He made endorsement on rukka. On the basis of rukka the present FIR was registered vide DD no.4A and he proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW2/B. He had also issued certificate under section 65B of Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 5 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:15:05 +0530 Evidence Act vide Ex.PW/C. Rukka and copy of FIR were handed over to Ct. Umeer for further proceedings.
6. PW3 SI Om Prakash deposed that on 20.05.2019, the present case was marked to him and during investigation, he seized the false no plate of the second vehicle make Maruti Wagon R bearing registration no. DL-1RTB-2616 Meruti Wagon R LXI. The said Maruti Wagon R was having false no plate ie. DL-9CAG-0285 which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A and DL and RC were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. RC and DL Ex.PW3/PI & Ex.PW3/P2. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, he prepared charge sheet against the accused and same was filed before concerned Court.
7. PW4 Retd. ASI Ram Niwas deposed that on 12.10.2018, he received DD no.19A. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI Rishipal reached at place of occurrence i.e. in front of Dhansa Air Force Station where they came to know that the injured was taken to RTRM hospital by PCR. He instructed ASI Rishipal to remain present at the place of occurrence and he went to RTRM hospital where he took the MLC of injured Sunil Kumar. He recorded the statement of Sunil Kumar. He prepared rukka on the basis of statement which was handed over to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared site plan at the instance of Sunil vide Ex.PW4/A. During investigation, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/B and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/C and thereafter he seized the vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D. He got medical examination of accused at RTRM hospital. He did not remember the examination of medical result of the accused but as per his Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 6 of 25 ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:15:10 +0530 knowledge he had not sustained any injury. He recorded the statement of witnesses and came to PS. After his transfer, the case file was deposited to MHC(R) PS JP Kalan. In the cross- examination, he stated that on the date of incident, he met Ct. Sunil Yadav at RTRM hospital at around 11:30 pm. Complainant told him that there were two persons inside the vehicle. Ct. Sunil discharged from the hospital at about 02:00 am.
8. PW5 Dr. Touthang deposed that on 12.10.2018, he was on duty when HC Sunil was brought by the PCR in an injured condition and he medically examined him vide MLC No. 5453 dated 12.10.2018 Ex.PW5/A. On 13.10.2018 at 12:12am he medically examined Manjit S/o Sh. Azad Singh who was brought for his medical examination by Ct. Umeer vide MLC No. 5455 dated 13.10.2018 Ex.PW5/B.
9. PW6 ASI Subhash deposed that on 12.09.2018, he was posted in the PCR unit and he was sitting in side the PCR Van in front of Airforce Dhansa. The Incharge of PCR van namely HC Sunil was standing outside the PCR and thereafter, one vehicle i.e Wagnor car bearing no.0285 (he did not remember the full registration number of the vehicle) coming from Dhansa side hit HC Sunil who was standing outside the PCR upon which HC Sunil sustained injuries and the said Wagno R fled away after hitting HC Sunil. Thereafter, he along with injured HC Sunil chased the said Wagnor in the PCR. They saw that the offending vehicle had hit the divider. The accused Manjit was sitting on the driver seat of the offending vehicle. Only accused Manjit was there in the said car at that time. They called for another PCR which took the injured HC Sunil to the hospital. Thereafter, they brought the accused Manjit to PS J.P. Kalan and handed over the accused to IO. Thereafter, he left the Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 7 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:15:16 +0530 PS. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the Court and offending vehicle through photographs. As PW6 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross- examination, wherein he stated that the date of incident was 12.10.2018 and not 12.09.2018. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at a fast pace in a rash and negligent manner. One other boy namely Sunil @ Monti was sitting on the passenger side seat of the offending vehicle at the time of the offence. In the cross-examination, he stated that at the time of the offence, the PCR Incharge HC Sunil was standing outside in front of the PCR. The PCR was parked outside the Airforce Station at that time. He was the driver on the said PCR.
HC Sunil fell on the bonnet of the offending vehicle/Wagno R car when it hit HC Sunil. The offending vehicle was not having any film or curtains on the windshield of the same at that point of time. There were 4 to 5 persons in the said Wagno R car when it hit HC Sunil however, when they reached at the spot where the said Wagnor car had hit the divider, only the accused Manjit was found there. The accused did not stop the offending vehicle after hitting HC Sunil and took of the offending vehicle without stopping the same. HC Sunil had sustained injuries on both his hands. His uniform was also torn. After the offending vehicle had hit HC Sunil and fled away, he took HC Sunil in my PCR. He had also called another PCR for taking HC Sunil to the hospital. He helped HC Sunil to get up and thereafter he sat in the PCR van. They caught the offending vehicle after chasing the same for about 150 to 200 meter. He was not able to see as to what damage was caused to the offending vehicle when it hit HC Sunil. When they reached at the spot where accused Manjit was sitting in the offending Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 8 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:15:21 +0530 vehicle. At that time, the PCR also came to the spot and it took HC Sunil to the hospital. He took the accused to the PS. IO did not record his statement at any point of time.
10. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining witnesses in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined; hence, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
11. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 26.07.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further stated that the vehicle in question was in his name and for the same reason the case was registered against him. He was never present at the spot. He was not drunk and he was called by the police to falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
13. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 9 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:15:26 +0530 prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
14. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle is not established and prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it . As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
15. The allegations levelled against accused are segregated into three parts:
The first set of allegations revolves around commission of offences under Section 279/337 IPC which proscribes punishment for driving of vehicle on a public way in such a rash or negligent manner and causing simple hurt to any person by such rash or negligent act. Second set of allegations against the accused revolves around commission of offence under Section 482 IPC which prescribes punishment for using fake number plate on vehicle. Third set of allegations against the accused revolves around commission of offence Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act which prescribes punishment for drunk driving.Digitally signed by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 10 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:15:32 +0530
16. Let us deal with the first set of allegations against the accused. The allegations pertaining to these offences are that on the given date, time and place, the accused was driving the offending vehicle i.e. Wagon-R bearing registration no. DL-9CAG-0285 in a rash and negligent manner which hit complainant / injured PW1 HC Sunil due to which he sustained simple injuries.
17. The position of law with respect to offence u/s 279 IPC is discussed in the case of case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133(2006) DLT 562, wherein it was held that;
"In Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under Section 279 or Section 304A, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved".
18. Further, what would constitute rash and negligent act has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of An- dra Pradesh decided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:-
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with reckless- ness and with indifference as to the consequences.
Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against in- jury 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."
19. Besides, the ingredients mentioned above, the identity of the accused as driver of the vehicle must also be established separately by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVFIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 11 of 25 ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:15:36 +0530 It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the Court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
20. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution was under the obligation to prove the following for establishing the case against the accused person:
a. Identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle.
b. That the alleged accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place which caused injuries to the complainant/injured.
RE: IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED;
21. The material witness to prove the identity of accused is only PW1 injured HC Sunil and PW6 ASI Subhash being the witnesses of the incident as examined by prosecution as other witnesses are not the witnesses of the incident but part of the investigation. It is the case of prosecution that PW1 and PW6 were doing duty at the PCR van stationed near main gate of Airforce Station, Dhansa when accused in his offending vehicle crashed into PW1 whereby he was injured. PW1 injured stated in his testimony that he was incharge of PCR Crystal 74 and he had parked his vehicle at main gate of Airforce Station, Dhansa and at about 09:30 pm while he was standing outside the PCR van, offending vehicle came from Dhansa side Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 12 of 25 ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:15:43 +0530 and hit him due to which he sustained injuries on his body parts. PW1 further stated that the said offending vehicle was Wagon R and after hitting him the said Wagon R tried to run towards Issapur Village whereafter they took their vehicle and followed Wagon R whereupon the said Wagon R crashed into divider of the road about 200 meters ahead whereafter four persons came out of the said Wagon R out of which two ran away and he caught hold two of them. PW1 further stated that he thereafter called another PCR van through his mobile phone and also made 100 number call. Interestingly, PW1 could not identify the accused stating that he had little time to see the apprehended person as he straightway handed over the said apprehended person to the incharge of PCR van which came there. Furthermore, PW1 stated that the statement of complainant Ex.PW1/A did not bear his signatures as PW1 failed to state the entire facts. Ld. APP sought permission to cross- examine him and injured PW1 stated in the cross-examination by Ld. APP that when the offending vehicle rammed their vehicle in the divider he saw accused Manjit and Sunil in the car, however, he could not say as to who was driving the vehicle. Thereafter, PW1 identified accused in the Court. PW1 in his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused admitted that there were four persons sitting in the offending vehicle and he stated the said fact to the IO during investigation.
22. Although PW1 did not utter a single word as to who was accompanying him when PCR stationed at main gate of Airforce Station, Dhansa. Prosecution examined PW6 who stated that on the date of incident, he alongwith incharge of PCR namely PW1 HC Sunil were standing outside their PCR van stationed at Airforce Station, Dhansa and thereafter, one Wagnor car came Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 13 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:15:48 +0530 there from Dhansa side, hitting HC Sunil who was standing outside PCR. PW6 further stated that upon hitting Sunil, the said Wagon R fled away, which was chased by them in their PCR van. Interestingly, PW6 stated that only accused Manjeet was there in the offending car when the said car hit the divider where upon he called another PCR which took injured to Sunil to hospital. Again, Ld. APP sought permission to cross-examine PW6 as he failed to support the prosecution case on the material facts and in the said cross-examination by Ld. APP, PW6 admitted that there was another boy namely Sunil sitting on the passenger side of the offending vehicle.
23. Ld. Defence counsel submits that the entire prosecution case is fraught with contradiction and inconsistencies and accused Manjeet has been falsely implicated in the present case as neither the accused was present at the spot nor he was drunk and he was falsely implicated in the present case.
24. Before proceeding to evaluate the testimony of PW1 alongwith other witness PW6, it is relevant to note as to how the criminal law was set into motion. As per IO PW4 Retd. SI Ram Niwas, he received DD no.90A, whereafter, he alongwith ASI Rishipal (dropped from the list of prosecution) reached at the spot i.e. Air Force Station, Dhansa, where they came to know that the injured had already been taken to RTRM hospital by PCR. PW4 further stated that he instructed ASI Rishipal to remain at the spot and he went to RTRM hospital where he recorded statement of Sunil Kumar and obtained his MLC. Interestingly, the IO PW4 stated upon being shown the statement of injured Sunil Ex.PW2/A that he mistakenly failed to take the signatures of injured/complainant HC Sunil. This fact assumes great significance as injured PW1 stated Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 14 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:15:54 +0530 in his testimony that the statement Ex.PW2/A did not bear his signatures (statement of injured has been wrongly mentioned differently in the deposition of two witnesses i.e. in testimony of PW1 as Ex.PW1/A while in the testimony of PW4 the said statement is recorded as Ex.PW2/A).
25. Furthermore, as per DD no.19A Ex. A1 which records PCR call being made on 12.10.2018 time 10:38 pm, whereby it was informed that ek Wagon R PCR van no.DL-1CP-7642 ko hit karke bhag gayi, IC van ko chot aayi hai . Apparently, occupant of PCR van stated while PCR was being made that offending vehicle had hit their PCR van whereby the Incharge of PCR van has sustained injuries. However, none of the occupant of the said PCR van that is PW1 and PW6 stated in their testimony that that their PCR van was being hit by offending vehicle. Whereas their own version is that PW1 was standing outside the PCR van and he was hit by offending vehicle. Be that as it may so, the said variation in the first PCR call being made assumes significance as the version qua the incident from the point of view of reporting the matter in juxtaposition from the fact that injured/PW1 himself stated something else in his testimony. Furthermore, seen from the fact that injured stated that his statement was recorded first time did not bear his signatures while IO reaching to the injured first time failed to obtain his signatures. All these anomalies assume great significance which shall be evaluated with other witnesses.
26. Furthermore, it is relevant to see as to which PCR van was stationed at Airforce Station Dhansa Road, however, perusal of the prosecution evidence reveals that no material was brought in the form of duty roster or DD entry highlighting the fact that PW1 alongwith PW6 were performing duty at PCR van stationed at Airforce Station, Dhansa road.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 15 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:15:59 +0530 At this stage, reference can be taken from the provision enshrined in 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, which is reproduced as under;
"Chapter 22 rule 49, Matters to be entered in Register no. II. The following matters shall amongst others, be entered:-
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
Note:- The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained.
27. Perusal of the above rule clearly suggests that the police officials are mandated to record their time of arrival and departure on duty at or from the police station. Further, it has been held in Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that;
"if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the Courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
28. In the instant case, it should be noted that the abovesaid rules have not been followed even by PW4 IO who had proceeded at the spot after receiving DD no.19A Ex.A1. Furthermore, no duty roster and details of PCR van clearly mentioning its registration number has been procured and tendered in prosecution evidence which would have clearly establish as to where the PCR van of PW1 was stationed.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2025.11.19 FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 16 of 25 16:16:04 +0530
29. At this stage, it is relevant to peruse the mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles i.e. offending Wagon R and PCR van of PW1. However, only the mechanical inspection of the offending car was done which is Ex.A3 which was done on 25.10.2018 i.e. thirteen days after the incident. Mechanical inspection report Ex.A3 reveals that the offending e-Wagon R had sustained the following damages:
(i) Fresh front wind shield damaged.
(ii) Fresh dent on engine bonnet near centre point.
(iii) Fresh left side front bumper came out.
(iv) Fresh front righ side tyre burst and rim bent.
(v) Fresh scratches on front right bumper.
(vi) Fresh highly scratches on front right wheel fender.
(vii) Fresh dent on front right wheel fender.
(viii) Fresh scratches on front right side headlight.
(ix) Fresh rear windshield broken/damaged.
30. Therefore, it is clear upon examining the damages sustained by the offending Wagon R that it was found heavily damaged from its front side with his windshield damaged and dent on bonnet from the center point and having front side tyre and rim bent. There were scratches on the right-side wheel fender and rear windshield being damaged. The said damages correspondence with the fact that it must have collided with some object be it with other vehicle or road side footpath or divider. However, there is neither photographs of the spot nor any public person joined when the said vehicle was found in damaged condition. Furthermore, when there is doubt whether offending vehicle had collided with the PCR van it would have been better if investigation qua said PCR van was also undertaken. However, neither detail of said PCR van has been procured in the form of any duty roster, registration number of PCR van nor any mechanical inspection of the said PCR was undertaken as it was initially reported that offending vehicle had Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 17 of 25 ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:16:11 +0530 crashed into PCR van when it was stationed at Airforce Station, Dhansa Road. The entire charge-sheet and IO examined are completely silent who could have stated and given explanation where the said PRC wa ever hit by offending vehicle or not.
31. Furthermore, it is relevant to pursue the MLC of both injured PW1 and accused, who apparently were taken to RTRM Hospital for medical examination. As per PW1, after he apprehended accused another PCR van came at the spot and took him to hospital whereas PW4 stated that during investigation he arrested the accused and took him to RTRM Hospital for medical examination. Interestingly, other occupants of the PCR which was stationed at Airforce Station Dhansa Road i.e. PW6 stated that they brought accused Manjeet to PS J. P. Kalan and handed over him to IO. As per arrest memo of accused Ex. PW4/B, he was arrested being shown from RTRM Hospital. Nevertheless, let us proceed to examine MLCs of both PW1 and accused. MLC of PW1 Ex.PW5/A which mentions that he was brought to the hospital by Ct. Vyom at 10:12 pm on 12.10.2018 whereas as per the MLC of accused Manjeet Ex.PW5/B, he was brought to hospital by Ct. Umeer at 12:12 am on 13.10.2018. As per MLC of injured, injured had sustained injuries on his middle finger of right hand while having bleed from multiple side. While the MLC of accused mentioned no fresh injuries but having blood alcohol contained of 90.1 mg. The fact which needs to be highlighted is that PW1 was taken to RTRM Hospital by the second PCR which went to the spot whereas as per PW6 who was accompanying PW1 who took accused Manjeet after being apprehended to PS J. P. Kalan. While the first IO PW4 completely silent as to how he came to know that accused was present as he had not uttered a single word in his Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 18 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:16:16 +0530 testimony regarding how and when he came to know about the accused of the present case.
32. The said contradiction and anomalies assume great significance as complainant has not admitted his signatures on the statement Ex.PW2/A which mentions accused by name while IO has also admitted in his testimony that he failed to obtain the signatures of injured when he recorded his statement. The fact that presence of other accused with accused Manjeet by arising in the testimony of PW1 established that there is no material and explanation forthcoming from the IO as to how he came to know that the present accused was present there.
33. In addition to the above, the investigation in the present matter appears to have been conducted in a callous and lackadaisical manner. First and foremost, the site plan seems to have been prepared by the IO in a very perfunctory manner, without disclosing the actual state of affairs as seen by him at the accidental spot. At this stage, the site plan Ex.PW1/A becomes relevant to be perused as prepared by PW4 ASI Ram niwas. Before proceedings to deal with the aspect of site plan it is relevant to highlight the case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State NCT Delhi 133 (2006) DLT 562 had laid down guidelines with regard to the investigation to be conducted in the offence of accident:
13.1. In most cases I find that the site plans are not produced. Even the site plan that is produced is of a very unsatisfactory nature. It is, therefore, imperative that the investigating officer should be provided with maps of the roads drawn to scale so that accurate site plans can be produced in evidence for the appreciation of Courts.
The exact point of impact as well as tyre skid marks and the point at which the vehicles come to rest after the collision should be demarcated clearly. The observations with regard to the length of the tyre skid marks of the vehicles involved in the impact go a long way in indicating the speeds at which the vehicles were traveling. This Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 19 of 25 2025.11.19 16:16:22 +0530 would enable the Courts to examine the evidence in a much more objective manner and the Courts would not be faced with vague and subjective expressions such as high speed".
13.2. The mechanical inspection reports that are prepared are also, I find, in a majority of cases, of a very superficial and cursory nature.
The inspection ought to be carried out by qualified personnel who are able to indicate in their reports the exact physical conditions of the vehicles. They should be able to point out with exactitude the damage suffered by the vehicles as a result of the impact. The mechanical inspection report should indicate all the telltale signs of the collision such as the paint of one vehicle rubbing off on the other. It should also indicate as to whether the vehicles were mechanically sound or not prior to the impact so as to enable the Court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the collision took place due to human rashness or negligence or mechanical failure beyond human control.
13.3. As a rule, photographs ought to be taken not only of the vehicles involved in the collision but also of the site and surrounding areas so that the exact topography can be easily discerned by Courts.
13.4. The prevalent weather conditions must be noted by the investigating officer. This would go to establish as to whether the road was slippery due to rain; whether there was poor visibility due to fog or mist etc. 13.5. Furthermore, the path of movement of the vehicles must be sought to be established in the course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt as in the present case.
13.6. The drivers of the vehicle involved must also be subjected to tests to reveal whether they had consumed any intoxicants.
13.7. Proper investigation of such accidents would go a long way in aiding the criminal justice system in convicting those who are guilty and acquitting those who are innocent. A shoddy investigation will only point in one direction and that is in the acquittal of all whether they are guilty or whether they are innocent. Because, no criminal Court would (and ought not to) convict any person merely on the basis of conjectures, assumptions, probabilities. All elements of subjectivity need to be eliminated and the investigation should be such that, when a charge sheet is filed, the Court is presented with a case which when taken objectively would lead to the inescapable conclusion that a conviction is maintainable.
19. The site plan so placed on record is neither scaled site plan nor is proved by the prosecution. Furthermore, no photographs of the surrounding sites has been taken and placed on record by IO. As such the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that alleged accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of accused."
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 20 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:16:28 +0530
34. Therefore, it is clear that the site plan is not prepared as per the guidelines and it is nowhere highlighting the complete state of affairs of the incident in question. As per the site plan Ex.PW4/A, point A is mentioned the place where the complainant was hit by offending vehicle while point B which is stated at some distance from point A to be the place near pole no.116 where the offending vehicle was found after its tyre got burst. Point A is mentioned road in front of Airforce Station Dhansa Road. Therefore, it is evident from the prosecution case itself that the complainant injured alongwith PCR van was present at road in front of gate of Airforce Station which is usually under CCTV surveillance.
However, there is no CCTV footage procured by the IO during investigation and as such no explanation is forthcoming from prosecution as to why such crucial electronic evidence when it was available was not seized, secured and produce in evidence. Such omission does not merely reflect a casual and shoddy investigation but also raises doubt regarding the fairness and credibility of prosecution case. In these circumstances, non-collection of CCTV footage raises serious doubt over the version of prosecution and seen when the omission and variation discussed in preceding paragraphs brings the entire case of prosecution in shadow of doubt.
35. Furthermore, the photographs on record are not of the spot but of the offending vehicle taken at the time of superdari proceedings. There is no reason forthcoming from IO as to why they even failed to take photographs of the spot when as per their own version other PCR had also came at the spot which took injured to the hospital neither photographs of the crashed PCR vehicle was taken nor photographs of the spot highlighting that the offending vehicle Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 21 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:16:33 +0530 crashed into the PCR were taken. Absence of all such material again just brings doubt over the entire prosecution case.
36. Therefore, upon pursuing the testimony of injured PW1 and PW6 along with the IO PW4, it is apparent that the investigation conducted by IO is absolutely shoddy. There is no material evidence on record to connect the offending vehicle in the present case with the accused and the only material connecting accused with offending vehicle is that fact that it is in the name of accused only. Consequently, in the absence of any further material or witnesses there is nothing which connects the accused with offending vehicle causing the present incident as considerable doubt has arisen in version brought forth by the prosecution as both PW1 and PW6 have admitted about the presence of other persons and there is nothing which points exclusively that offending vehicle was driven by accused only.
RE: ALLEGED ACCIDENT BEING THE RESULT OF RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING OF THE ACCUSED.
37. Although the identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle is not established remotely or conclusively to be the person who had caused the incident in question. Further, it cannot be gainsaid that despite identity of the driver of offending vehicle not proved, rashness and negligence to be proved by the prosecution must be of nature culpable or gross and not something merely based upon an error of judgment. In the present case, the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle is not established. Prosecution has the bounden duty to discharge the initial onus before it can shift on to the other party.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 22 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:16:38 +0530
38. The Second set of allegations against the accused revolves around commission of offence under Section 482 IPC which prescribes punishment for using fake number plate on vehicle. Section 482 IPC, provides for the punishment for using a false property mark, which provides for the following ingredients which are as follows:
i. There exists a "property mark" - a mark used to denote ownership or connection of movable property with a particular person.
ii. The property mark in question is "false" - it misrepresents the true owner, maker, origin, or connection. iii. The accused used this false property mark - e.g., affixed it to goods or dealt with goods bearing that mark. iv. The use was knowingly done - the accused knew, or had reason to believe, that the property mark was false. v. Once such knowing use of a false property mark is proved, the law presumes an intent to defraud, unless the accused rebuts this by showing absence of such intent.
39. It is the prosecution case that the offending vehicle was found with fake registration number. During the course of Investigation IO PW3 seized the original licence and RC from accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW 3/ B and RC being Ex.PW 3/P1. It is the case of the prosecution that seized RC from accused bears the original registration number of offending vehicle as DL-1 RT B-2616 with owner being accused Manjeet Singh s/o Ajit Singh only.
Here, it needs to be highlighted that the offending vehicle was seized on 13.10.2018 while the alleged false registration number was seized on 04.07.2019 which is almost 9 months from the date on which the offending vehicle was seized. Also, neither there is photograph of the spot showing the vehicle at the spot having the registration number DL-9CAG-0285 nor the photographs taken during the superdari proceeding Ex.PW1/B and Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 23 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 16:16:43 +0530 Ex.PW1/C shows the alleged false registration number being affixed on the offending vehicle.
40. A seizure of a forged registration number plate vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A nearly nine months after the vehicle itself had already been taken into custody vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D, in the absence of any cogent or plausible explanation from the investigating officer PW3 for such delayed recovery, casts a serious shadow of doubt over the prosecution version. The unexplained time-lag between the initial seizure of the vehicle and the alleged subsequent recovery of the forged number plate undermines the continuity and credibility of the chain of custody, and reasonably suggests the possibility of afterthought or fabrication. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must necessarily be accrued to the accused, as the prosecution has failed to establish a trustworthy and consistent narrative regarding the manner and timing of the alleged recovery.
41. Third set of allegations against the accused revolves around commission of offence Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act which prescribes punishment for drunk driving. It is the allegation against the accused that he was drunk at the time when the incident in question was committed by the accused while driving offending vehicle.
42. Here, it needs to mentioned that when the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was present at the spot of the incident and that the offending vehicle was involved in the incident and was seized from the spot, any further inquiry into whether the accused was under the influence of alcohol becomes redundant and infructuous. In the absence of clear and Digitally signed ABHINAV by ABHINAV Page 24 of 25 AHLAWAT FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul AHLAWAT Date: 2025.11.19 16:16:48 +0530 convincing evidence linking the accused and the offending vehicle to the incident involving the complainant, the question of compliance with provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act does not arise for consideration. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is accorded to the accused and he stands acquitted for the offence punishable Sections 185 of Motor Vehicles Act.
CONCLUSION
43. From the above discussion, and the surrounding circumstances in which the accident took place, as adduced on record, the identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle who was driving the vehicle rashly which caused the injuries to complainant is not established conclusively. Prosecution which was under the bounden duty to discharge the initial onus failed to establish the case against the accused. Several reasonable doubts have emerged in the narrative put forth by prosecution as analyzed hereinabove.
44. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence u/s 279/337/338 and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Manjit @ Dul is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 279/337/482 IPC and 185 of Motor Vehicles Act.
Announced in the open Court Digitally signed by ABHINAV on 19.11.2025 in the presence ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.19 of the accused. 16:16:53 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/19.11.2025 Note:- This judgment contains 25 pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed ABHINAV by ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date: 2025.11.19 16:16:59 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/19.11.2025 FIR No.173/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manjit @ Dul Page 25 of 25