Delhi District Court
State vs . Charanjeet on 16 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE03 : (SOUTH EAST) DELHI
STATE Vs. Charanjeet
FIR No: 46/11
P. S. Jaitpur
Date of Institution of Case : 15.04.2013
Date on which case reserved : 16.10.2015
for Judgment
Date of Judgment : 16.11.2015
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence : 15.04.2013 b) Offence complained of : U/s 279/338 IPC & 134/177 MV Act. c) Name of complainant : Ranjay Kumar Pathak d) Name of accused, : Charanjeet his parentage and residence S/o Manjeet Singh R/o N81, Hari Ngar Ext. Jaitpur, New Delhi. e) Plea of accused : Not guilty f) Final order : Acquitted FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet PS Jaitpur Page no. 1 of 14 Counsels for the Parties: Sh. Arun Kumar Singh, Ld. APP for the State.
Shri V. K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
The case of prosecution in brief is that on 24.08.2011 at about
02.00 am at Agra Canal Road, Near Madanpur Khadar Pulia, accused was driving Indigo car bearing No. DL3CAC 7994 on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others. It is also alleged that while driving in aforesaid manner, accused Charanjeet hit against a TSR bearing no. DL1RK 2725 and caused grievous injuries to complainant Ranjay. It is further alleged that after causing the accident, accused did not take any step for medical treatment of the injured. Injured Ranjay Kumar Pathak made a complaint regarding the incident. Accordingly, FIR No. 46 of 2011 was registered u/s 279/337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as 'IPC') at PS Jaitpur.
2. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet for offence U/s u/s 279/338 IPC and 137/177 MV Act was filed against accused Charanjeet. Cognizance of the offence was taken. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused. After hearing the parties, FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet PS Jaitpur Page no. 2 of 14 notice for the offence U/s 279/338 IPC and 137/177 MV Act was served to accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined four witnesses to prove its case.
4. PW1 Ranjay Kumar Pathak is the complainant/injured in this case. He has deposed that on that day, at about 9.00 am, he was changing stepney of TSR bearing no. 2725 on Agra Canal Road, Meethapur. While he was changing his stepney one car bearing no. DL 3CAC 7994, Tata Indigo came at the spot and ran over his feet. Vehicle was coming from the side of Meethapur and was going towards Kalindi Kunj. He asked driver to stop the vehicle but the driver fled away with the vehicle. He called PCR and police came to the spot. Police took him for treatment. He narrated the entire incident to the police. His complaint is Ex.PW1/A. The police had seized the vehicle and had shown to him. He, after seeing the vehicle, had identified the vehicle. He had not seen the driver at the spot and he had only seen the registration no. of the offending vehicle.
5. PW2 Ct. Sheikh Riyaz is the witness who had joined proceedings with IO during investigation.
6. PW3 T. U. Siddiqui is the mechanical inspector who had FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet PS Jaitpur Page no. 3 of 14 conducted mechanical inspection of the vehicles. The reports are Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B.
7. PW4 SI Rajiv Ranjan is the IO of the case who conducted the investigation and prepared the charge sheet. He has deposed that on 24.02.2011, he had received DD no. 10A regarding accident. He alongwith Ct. Seikh Riyaz went to the spot i.e. in between the Lohia Pool and Madanpur Khadar pulia on Agra Canal Road. When they reached, they found one TSR bearing registration no. DL1RK 2725 in accident condition. He also came to know that injured had gone to hospital. After receiving DD no. 33B regarding MLC, he left Ct. Seikh Riyaz at the spot and went to Trauma Center AIIMS. He collected MLC of injured Ranjay Kumar Pathak and inquired injured Ranjay. He recorded statement of injured which is Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter, he returned to the spot and prepared rukka vide Ex.PW4/B and handed over to Ct. Seikh Riyaz for registration of FIR.
8. He has further deposed that after registration of FIR, he seized TSR vide Ex.PW2/D. He deposited TSR into malkhana. Mechanical inspection of TSR was also got conducted. After sometime, injured Ranjay with his brother came to PS Jaitpur. He alongwith them and Ct. Seikh Riyaz went to the spot where he FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet PS Jaitpur Page no. 4 of 14 prepared site plan Ex.PW4/C. He searched for offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 3CAC 7994 make TATA Indigo, orange colour but it could not be traced. One day, complainant informed him that he had seen the offending vehicle near Meethapur Chowk and he again started the investigation. He came to know that the owner of offending vehicle was resident of Hari Nagar Extension Jaitpur and he reached the residence of registered owner. He served notice u/s 133 MV Act to the owner of offending vehicle vide memo Ex.PW4/D. The owner stated that the vehicle was driving by his son namely Charanjeet Singh.
9. IO has further stated that on 26.11.2011, owner namely Manjeet Singh alongwith his son and offending vehicle came to the PS. He interrogated accused Charanjeet Singh who disclosed that accident was caused by him. He arrested accused Charanjeet Singh vide memo Ex.PW2/A. Personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/B. He also seized offending vehicle TATA Indigo bearing registration no. DL3CAC 7994 vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/E. He seized DL of accused vide memo Ex.PW2/F. He also seized RC of vehicle vide memo Ex.PW2/G. Mechanical inspection of offending vehicle was also got conducted. Accused was released on bail.
FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet PS Jaitpur Page no. 5 of 14
10. During trial, accused submitted that he does not dispute registration of FIR by duty officer, register no. 19 of MHCM, MLC prepared by doctor and superdari of offending vehicle. In view of the submission, examination of duty officer, MHCM, Dr. Neelam and superdar Manjeet Singh was dispensed with vide order dated 03.08.2015. PE was closed vide order dated 03.08.2015.
11. After PE, accused was examined u/s 281 CrPC and his statement was recorded separately wherein accused has denied all incriminating evidence put to him. Accused has stated that he was not driving said vehicle on that day and no accident was caused by his vehicle. Accused has examined himself as DW2 and Sh. Attar Sngh as DW1. DE was closed vide order dated 09.09.2015. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
12. I have heard final arguments and perused the record very carefully.
13. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also argued on behalf of State that the testimony of prosecution witnesses leaves no doubt that the accused had committed the offences with which he has been charged.
14. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet PS Jaitpur Page no. 6 of 14 the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to identify the accused and there is no material placed by the prosecution to prove that accused had caused the accident. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner. It is argued that benefit of doubt may be given to accused and he may be acquitted of the charges alleged.
15. I have considered the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel and perused the entire material on record.
16. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the story of prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused
17. The allegation against accused is that he was driving Tata Indigo in rash and negligent manner and due to his negligent driving, the accident took place and complainant sustained injuries.
18. Now, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accident took place due to rash or negligent driving by the FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet PS Jaitpur Page no. 7 of 14 accused and that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident.
19. The alleged eye witness examined by the prosecution is PW1/injured Ranjay Kumar Pathak. Perusal of testimony of injured Ranjay Kumar Pathak would show that he had not completely supported the case of prosecution. Complainant Ranjay Kumar Pathak, during deposition before the Court, has stated that he had not seen the driver at the spot. During cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 Ranjay Kumar Pathak has categorically stated that the accused had not caused accident.
20. Furthermore, there are contradictions in the testimony of complainant and IO. IO/SI Rajiv Ranjan during examination has stated that on one day, complainant saw the vehicle at Meethapur and informed him about the vehicle. Thereafter, he traced the owner and served notice. On the contrary, complainant Ranjay Kumar Pathak has stated that IO had seized the vehicle and had shown to him which he had identified. The complainant has nowhere stated that he had seen the vehicle at Meethapur and identified it and thereafter, he had informed the IO about the same. There is contradiction in the testimony of complainant and IO over the seizure of vehicle.
FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet PS Jaitpur Page no. 8 of 14
21. The complaint on which the FIR has been registered is Ex.PW1/A. Perusal of the complaint would show that injured had disclosed the vehicle no. as DL3CAC 7994. The IO during investigation has served notice to the registered owner of the vehicle on 29.10.2011. The alleged accident took place in February 2011. The IO had failed to give any explanation as to why he had served notice u/s 133 MV Act only on 29.10.2011 i.e. almost after 8 months of the incident. Delay in tracing the registered owner and seizure of offending vehicle is not explained by the IO or the prosecution.
22. Further, the complainant in his complaint to police has alleged that the Indigo car which caused the accident was of orange colour. However the photographs of the vehicle of the accused Mark P3 to P8 would show that the vehicle is not of orange colour but of light golden/cream colour.
23. It is the case of prosecution that the injured vehicle was hit by the accused's vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The site plan is Ex.PW4/C. As per the site plan, the vehicle of accused was coming from behind of the TSR of complainant. However, the site plan would show that the TSR was hit on its front right side by the offending vehicle. It is difficult to believe as to how the vehicle of accused has hit the TSR in its front right side when the vehicle of FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet PS Jaitpur Page no. 9 of 14 accused is coming from behind the TSR.
24. Had it been the case that vehicle of accused had hit the TSR of injured, there would be maximum damage to the TSR on its rear side and also there would be maximum damage to the offending vehicle on its front side. However, mechanical inspection of the TSR of injured would show that the left side body is scratched and hood of the cloth is partly torn. There is no damage on the rear side. Further, there is no damage at all in the vehicle of accused. PW3 T. U. Siddiqui/mechanical inspector has stated that he did not find any fresh damage on vehicle TATA indigo bearing no. DL3CAC 7994. The mechanical inspection reports of the vehicles does not support the case of prosecution that offending vehicle had hit on the rear side of the TSR from its front.
25. The accused had taken defence that he had not caused any accident and that he was out of Delhi on the day of accident.
26. DW1 Attar Singh has deposed that Charanjeet Singh has been running a taxi service business. He hired Charanjeet Singh to go Govind Garh, Rajasthan. On 23.08.2011, he alongwith Charanjeet Singh left Delhi around 05.00 am and reached Govind Garh, Rajasthan around 05.00 pm in Tata Indigo Car (tourist/commercial) on the same day. Charanjeet Singh drived the FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet PS Jaitpur Page no. 10 of 14 car. He stayed alongwith him at the residence of his inlaws. They returned Delhi on 26.08.2011.
27. Accused has also examined himself in defence as DW2. DW2/accused has deposed that on 23.08.2011, he alongwith Sardar Attar Singh, had gone to Alwar, Rajasthan, Govidgarh in vehicle No. DL 1YC 2799. They reached Govindgarh at about 05.00 pm and returned on 26.08.2011. After about one year in the year 2012, he received a call from police official that there was an accident in respect to vehicle No. 7994 and the call was received from SI Ranjan. The vehicle number 7994 is in stationary condition since 2009 and nobody is driving it since then. He informed the police official that he is not involved in any accident. He also informed that he was residing at Jaitpur and his vehicle was always parked at Jaitpur. It was only rarely that he used vehicle No. 7994 to go to hotel at Sarita Vihar from his residence and returned from hotel to his residence at Jaitpur. The police informed that there was a reward on vehicle and they were looking for the vehicle for the last more than one year due to accident case. The police officials called him many times but he did not go to police station as he had not caused any accident. The police took the number of his father as he was the registered owner of the vehicle and the police pressurized his father FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet PS Jaitpur Page no. 11 of 14 and they forced him to sign on some documents. His father asked him to go to PS next day and stated that the police would let him go after making some inquiry and would check his driving licence. On the next day, he went to PS and the police officials seized his driving licence and obtained his signatures on various documents. The police had falsely implicated him in the said accident case. He had not caused any accident.
28. The defence witnesses during their deposition have stated that accused was out of Delhi to Govindgarh on 23.08.2011. The defence witnesses have not stated anything about the date of accident .i.e. 23.02.2011. There is no material placed by the accused to show that he was out of station on 23.02.2011 and was not in Delhi on the date of accident.
29. Nevertheless, it is settled that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and it can not rely upon the weak defence of the accused.
30. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused was driving the vehicle at excessive speed or that he was coming from the wrong side or he was driving vehicle in a zigzag manner. The facts produced by the prosecution are insufficient to establish an offence of negligent driving or in a FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet PS Jaitpur Page no. 12 of 14 manner which having regard to all the circumstances of the case was dangerous to the public.
31. In the present case, the complainant has also not clearly stated in what manner the Indigo car was being driven. The complainant has rather stated that the accused has not caused the accident.
32. It is well known in criminal cases that it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. A mere allegation of the prosecution that accident took place due to fault of accused would not suffice to prove rashness or negligence. In the present case, apart from the allegation that accused was at fault, there is nothing to indicate that the accused acted in a manner which could be regarded as rash or negligent. Therefore, in the absence of material facts, it cannot be said that the accused is guilty of a rash or negligent act. There is nothing on record to establish that the accused drove the vehicle rashly or negligently.
33. In view of the discussion hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts that accused was driving the Tata Indigo Car in FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet PS Jaitpur Page no. 13 of 14 rash or negligent manner or that the accident took place due to his negligence or that the accused had hit the TSR of victim. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to accused and he is acquitted of charges for offence punishable under section 279/338 IPC and 134/177 MV Act.
Pronounced in the open Court (Neha)
today on 16th November, 2015 MM03 (South East)
Saket, New Delhi
FIR NO.46 of 2011 State Vs Charanjeet
PS Jaitpur Page no. 14 of 14