Delhi District Court
State vs Naushad Ahmad on 16 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS -05 SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
RISHABH KAPOOR
State Vs. : Naushad Ahmad KAPOOR Date:
2026.01.16
FIR No : 117/2013 16:20:25
+0630
U/s : 279/337/338 and 304A IPC
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Case No. : 6597/2019 2. Date of commission of offence : 07.04.2013 3. Date of institution of the case : 03.09.2013 4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : Naushad Ahmad s/o Sh. Sarfuddin Ahmad
6. Offense complained or n proved : U/s 279, 304A, 337 and 338 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 19.12.2025
9. Final order : Convicted
10. Date of final order : 16.01.2026
1. The accused Naushad Ahmad is facing trial for offences u/s 279,304A,337,338 IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 07.04.2013 pursuant to receipt of information vide DD no. 9A, when the team of police went to the spot at Vikas Puri Crossing Red Light, Delhi, one Mahindra Champion bearing no. DL-1LQ-4919 was lying in the accidental condition. The police were informed State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 1 that the injured persons were already taken to DDU Hospital and at DDU Hospital, it transpired that one of the injured victim who was later identified as Hasim Khan unfortunately succumbed to injuries suffered by him and the other victims namely, Majid, Saddam, Sehjad, Ajmal and Imran were also not found at the hospital. Thereafter, the police team of ASI Dhanraj and Ct. Jaiveer went back to the spot and there they met victims Ajmal and Imran. The occurrence of incident was disclosed by afore-named two victims and on the basis of their narration, the criminal law was set into motion vide registration of the case FIR. It was narrated by both above-named witnesses that on 06.04.2013, they along with their associates Hasim Khan, Saddam and Sehjad hired the allegedly offending Mahindra Champion for transporting the watermelons from Azadpur Mandi and after loading the watermelons so purchased by them, they also sat above the said loaded watermelons in the Mahindra Champion which was driven by accused Naushad Ahmad. Allegedly, on 07.04.2013 at 2:30 AM, the accused started driving the vehicle at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner and despite being asked by the victims to control the speed of the vehicle, the accused failed to do so due to which the vehicle turtled at the spot i.e. place near Vikas Puri Red Light crossing Najafgarh Road, Delhi and the injuries were caused to all the victims including one Majid who was sitting with the accused at the driver's seat and even victim Hasim Khan unfortunately died due to the said injuries sustained by him. During the course of investigation, notice u/s 133 MV Act was served upon the Khursid Alam who was the registered owner of the alleged offending vehicle and he produced the documents of the vehicle as well as the accused Naushad Ahmad stating that the vehicle was being driven by the accused at the time of incident. The post-mortem of dead body of deceased victim Hasim Khan was also conducted. The mechanical inspection of the vehicle was also conducted and the final opinion with respect to the injuries suffered by the injured persons namely, Sehjad, Saddam, Ajmal and Imran was also obtained. The injuries sustained by victim Saddam were opined to be grievous in nature and the injuries suffered by victim Sehjad, Ajmal and Imran were opined as simple in nature. After completion of investigation, the charge- sheet for offences u/s 279,304A,337,338 IPC was submitted for trial of accused.
State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 2
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 offences u/s 279,304A,337,338 IPC was framed and served upon accused Naushad Ahmad. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all.
4. Thereafter, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused. The accused did not lead evidence in his defense.
5. Ld. Sub. APP for State has contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts with the help of coherent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the alleged offences.
6. Per contra, Ld. Defense Counsel has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the police. It has also been argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have not established either the identity of the accused as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle nor same has proved the commission of any rash or negligent driving by the accused. It has been contended that there exist serious doubts in the prosecution story and accused is liable to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
7. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the prosecution and defense and have also gone through the case record carefully.
8. Prior to delving into the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of par- ties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses.
State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 3
(i). PW-1 Imran is one of the injured victim, who deposed that he used to sell the watermelons along with his friend Hasim Khan, Saddam and Ajmal and on 06.04.2013, he and his afore-named friends called one Mahindra Champion bearing no. DL-1LQ-4919 at around 8:00 PM and they sat in the said vehicle and along with the driver, one other person was also present there. He further deposed that the driver disclosed his name as Naushad Ahmad and the person sitting beside him disclosed his name as Majid and after some time, they reached Azadpur Mandi where they purchased watermelons and loaded the same in the aforesaid vehicle. He further deposed that the entire vehicle was loaded with the watermelons due to which there was no space was left to sit in the same. He further deposed that he along with his friend Hasim, Saddam and Ajmal sat over the watermelons and Majid also told the driver to keep the vehicle slow as same was loaded with watermelons. He further deposed that he along with his friends also requested the driver to drive the vehicle safely as he and his friends were sitting above the water melons but accused who was driving the said vehicle kept driving the same in a high speed and in rash and negligent manner. He further deposed that at about 2:30 AM on 07.04.2013, when they reached near Red Light of Vikas Puri crossing, due to the reason that vehicle was driven by the accused in rash or negligent manner, he could not control the same and it got dis-balanced and turtled upside down. He further deposed that he and his friends came under the vehicle and after some time, police reached at the spot. He further deposed that he and his friends were taken out from underneath the vehicle by the police and some public persons and his friends Saddam and Hasim suffered serious injuries. He further deposed that he and his friends were shifted to DDU Hospital where Hasim Khan was declared dead and accused Naushad Ahmad along with Majid ran away from there. He further deposed that the incident took place as the vehicle was driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner. He identified accused Naushad as a driver of the alleged offending vehicle. He also identified the vehicle in photographs Ex. P1 (Colly.)
(ii). PW-2 Ajmal is the other injured victim, who also deposed on the same lines as that of PW-1 Imran. He also categorically deposed that the incident took place due State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 4 to rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-1LQ-4919 by accused. He identified the accused as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. He also identified the vehicle no. DL-1LQ-4919 in photographs Ex. P1 (Colly.)
(iii). PW-3 HC Jaibir Singh deposed that on 07.04.2013 he received DD no. 9A regarding the road accident at Vikas Puri red light crossing and pursuant thereto, he reached the spot where the vehicle no. DL-1LQ-4919 was found in accidental condition. He further deposed that in the meantime ASI Dhanraj received DD no. 10A regarding the admission of injured persons in DDU Hospital and thereafter, he went there, leaving him at the spot. He further deposed that after some time, ASI Dhanraj came back to the spot, prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. He further deposed that during investigation ASI Dhanraj seized the vehicle Mahindra Champion no. DL-1LQ-4919 vide memo Ex. PW 3/A
(iv). PW-4 Khurshid Alam was the registered owner of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1LQ-4919 stating that he had received notice u/s 133 MV Act Ex. PW 4/1 to which he gave a reply stating that on 07.04.2013 at around 2:30 AM the vehicle was being driven by accused Naushad Ahmad.
(v). PW-5 Taufiq was the witnesses to the dead body of deceased Hasim Khan and has identified his signatures on dead body identification vide Ex. A12.
(vi). PW-6 SI Dhanraj was the IO in the present case. He explained about the proceedings of investigation conducted by him in the present case. Through him, the rukka was exhibited as Ex. PW 6/A, site plan as Ex. PW 6/B, statement of Tehseem Khan qua the identification of dead body of victim Hasim Khan as Ex. PW 6/C, request for conducting post-mortem of deceased as Ex. PW 6/D, request for conducting mechanical inspection of alleged offending vehicle as Ex. PW 6/E, arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW 6/F, personal search memo as Ex. PW 6/X, disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW 6/G, seizure memo of copy of insurance, fitness and RC of alleged offending vehicle as Ex. PW 6/H and driving license of accused as Ex. PW 6/I. He also stated that the accused refused to subject himself for his judicial TIP proceedings. During his cross examination, he stated that the photographs of the spot were not taken by him due to heavy traffic flow. He stated that statements of the public persons could not be recorded as they State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 5 refused to join the investigation.
(vii). PW-7 Ct. Hem Singh deposed that on 28.05.2023, IO/ASI Dhanraj asked him to verify the license of accused to which he went to licensing authority J. P. Nagar Amroha UP and after verification of the driving license of accused, he collected the report from the said licensing authority.
(viii). PW-8 Akhtar Khan deposed that he had identified dead body of his uncle at DDU hospital in year 2009 but the name of his uncle was not Hasim Khan. He denied that on 07.04.2013, he had identified dead body of his relative Hasim Khan at DDU Hospital.
(ix). PW-9 Babuddin deposed that in year 2013, he had identified dead body of his cousin Saddam at DDU Hospital and inquiry was made by police in that regard.
9. The accused has admitted has admitted the documents in the nature of DD no. 9A (Ex. A1), DD no. 10A (Ex. A2), DD no. 11A (Ex. A3), DD no.13A (Ex. A4), FIR (Ex. A5), Mechanical inspection report (Ex. A6), PMR of deceased victim Hasim Khan (Ex.A7), MLC no. 8433/13 (Ex. A8), MLC no. 8481/13 (Ex. A9), MLC no. 8482/13 (Ex. A10), MLC no. 8575/13 (Ex. A11), Dead body identification memos of deceased Hasim Khan (Ex. A12 and Ex. A 13 respectively), MLC no. 8592/13 (Ex. A14) and MLC no.8434/13 (Ex. A-15) vide his statement u/s 294 Cr. PC and pursuant thereto, the formal witnesses with respect to the above-mentioned documents were dropped from the list of witnesses.
This the entire evidence led by the prosecution.
10. 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
11. 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 State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 6 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."
12. 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 which are as under:-
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
13. 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:
"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."
14. 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.
15. 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 all these offences. Now a question arises as to what would constitute a State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 7 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 and inter-alia 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 sense 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."
16. 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 us 279/304A IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter-alia 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."
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.
17. 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. The Hon'ble Court has inter-alia held the following:
State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 8 "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 section 304A, the commission of a rash or negligent act has to be proved."
18. The above-mentioned judgments sufficiently enlighten us that for establishing accusations u/s 304A IPC, prosecution is not only required to establish that the accused was rash or negligent while driving the vehicle, but it is additionally incumbent on prosecution to establish that the causa-causans of death of deceased /or the proximate cause of death of deceased was the act of accused.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
19. As discussed in the preceding part of this judgment, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable u/s 279, 304A, 337 and 338 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 presumption of rash and negligent driving could be raised against the accused Naushad Ahmad in the present case by invoking the doctrine of res- ipsa loquitur?
ii. If yes, whether the accused has been successfully rebutted the said presumption?
iii. Even otherwise, whether the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of accused Naushad Ahmad beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/s 279, 304A, 337 and 338 IPC.
FINDINGS
20. I shall be deciding the above-mentioned points of determination by considering State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 9 the materials available on record in the backdrop of settled legal position. For the sake of convenience, I shall be giving my findings to each point of determination separately.
i. Whether presumption of rash and negligent driving can be raised?
21. The doctrine of res-ipsa loquitur which literally means "things speak for themselves" is mostly applicable in the civil cases of negligence wherein a presumption is drawn against the wrongdoer that he has not taken due and proper care or he has done certain acts rashly. While discussing about the applicability of this doctrine in the realm of criminal offences, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Kapur vs.State of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 285 has inter-alia held the following:
In light of the above, now we have to examine it negligence in the case of an accident can be gathered from the attendant circumstances. We have already held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is equally applicable to the cases of accident and not merely to the civil jurisprudence. Thus, these principles can equally be extended to criminal cases provided the attendant circumstances and basic facts are proved. It may also be noticed that either the accident must be proved by proper and cogent evidence or it should be an admitted fact before this principle can be applied. This doctrine comes to aid at a subsequent stage where it is not clear as to how and due to whose negligence the accident occurred. The factum of accident having been established. The Court with the aid of proper evidence may take assistance of the attendant circumstances and apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The mere fact of occurrence of an accident does not necessarily imply that it must be owed to someone's negligence. In cases where negligence is the primary cause, it may not always be that direct evidence to prove it exists. In such cases. the circumstantial evidence may be adduced to prove negligence. Circumstantial evidence consists of facts that necessarily point to negligence as a logical conclusion rather than providing an outright demonstration thereof. Elements of this doctrine may be stated as:
The event would not have occurred but for someone's The evidence on record rules out the possibility that actions of the victim or some third party could be the reason behind the event.
Accused was negligent and owed a duty of care towards the victim"
22. Further, in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manpreet Singh HLJ 2008 (HP) 538, while discussing the applicability of this doctrine in a case of State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 10 criminal negligence, the Hon'ble Court has inter-alia held the following:
"Legally, in a case of rash and negligent act, if the prosecution is able to prove the essential ingredients of the offence, the onus to disprove it shifts upon the respondent to show that he had taken due care and caution to avoid the accident. It is an admitted fact that the said Shri Daya Ram has died in the accident caused by the respondent but still it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that it was the rash and negligent act of driving to conclude the rash and negligent driving of the respondent. In other words. It must be proved that the rash or negligent act of the accused was causa causans and not causa sin qua non (cause of the proximate cause). There must be some nexus between the death of a person with rash or negligent act of the accused."
23. However, in the case of Syad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka 1979 Cri LJ 1374 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will not stricto senso apply to a criminal case. It will be imperative on the prosecution to first prove certain circumstances before applying the said doctrine. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
"29. Such simplified and pragmatic application of the notion of res ipsa loquitur, as a part of the general mode of inferring a fact in issue from another circumstantial fact is subject to all the principles. the satisfaction of which is essential before an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone. These are:
Firstly, all the circumstances. including the objective circumstances constituting the accident, from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, must be firmly established. Secondly, those circumstances must be of a determinative tendency pointing unerringly towards the quilt of the accused. Thirdly, the circumstances should make a chain so complete that they cannot reasonably raise any other hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt. That is to say, they should be incompatible with his innocence and inferentially exclude all reasonable doubt about his quilt."
24. In the case of S.L. Goswami vs. State of M.P 1972 CRI.L.J.511 (SC), the Apex Court held that the onus to prove the ingredients of the offence always lies on the prosecution. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
"5.... In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 11 not become any less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests on the prosecution.
25. This ratio was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanjundappa vs. State of Karnataka Cr. A 900 of 2017 dated 17 May 2022 recently in the case of wherein it was held that for bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim.
26. Therefore, analysis of the aforementioned judgments makes it very clear that the doctrine of res-ipsa loquitur is automatically not applicable in a criminal case in its strict sense. However, it is applicable when the prosecution successfully proves the essential ingredients of the offence, the accident must not have occurred but for someone's negligence or rashness and evidence on record rules out the possibility that actions of the victim or some third party could be the reason behind the accident.
27. In the instant case, in order to prove the essential ingredients of alleged offences, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of PW-1 and PW- 2 who are the victims and also the eye-witnesses of the present case. They were the star witnesses as they were stated to be traveling in the same Mahindra Champion which was driven by accused at the time of incident. They were also the friends of the deceased Hasim Khan. In their testimony, PW-1 and PW-2 had given a detailed account and the manner in which the incident had taken place. They had categorically stated that at the time of incident, the Mahindra Champion was being driven by accused at a high speed and in rash or negligent manner. More specifically, they have coherently narrated that the alleged offending vehicle Mahindra Champion was loaded with the watermelons and they along with deceased victim Hasim Khan and injured Saddam and Sehjad were sitting above State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 12 the said watermelons when the accused started driving the vehicle at a high speed and in rash or negligent manner. They have also narrated that they as well as one person namely Majid who was sitting along with the accused at the driver seat also requested the accused several times for driving the Mahindra Champion in a proper manner but the accused failed to pay any heed to the same and due to his high speed driving in rash or negligent manner, the Mahindra Champion lost its balance and toppled down. The factum of accident has also been proved by the testimonies of police officials.
28. In order to prove the other ingredients of the offences u/s 304A,337, 338 IPC i.e. nexus between the negligence of accused and death of the deceased Hasim Khan as well as the injuries suffered by the victims, Saddam, Sehjad, Ajmal and Imran the prosecution has again relied upon the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 in addition to the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6.
29. PW-3 is the police official who reached the spot along with IO ASI Dhanraj (PW-6) after receiving the news of accident. The said witness in his testimony had categorically stated that when he reached the spot, Mahindra Champion no. DL- 1LQ 4919 was lying in an accidental condition and in the meantime, PW-6 received the information regarding the victims at DDU Hospital, upon which he left for the said hospital, leaving PW-3 at the spot. PW-6 in his testimony has narrated that when he reached the hospital, it was transpired that one of the victim who was later identified as Hasim Khan was brought dead at the hospital and the other victims including PW-1 and PW-2 were not found at the hospital and thus he returned to the spot. PW-6 has further narrated that at the spot, PW-1 and PW-2 arrived and narrated him the entire incident. The testimony of PW-4, who is the registered owner of the offending Mahindra Champion also establishes the necessary nexus between the accident in question and the resultant death of victim Hasim Khan as well as the resultant injuries suffered by victims Saddam, Sehjad, Ajmal and Imran as this witness also stated that at the time of the incident, the vehicle in question was in the possession of the accused. The death of victim Hasim Khan due to State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 13 incident could also be corroborated from the MLC 8592/13 vide Ex. A-14 and post- mortem report no. 423/13 as Ex.A-7 which reported multiple abrasions all over the body of victim along with various injuries on vital parts of the body of victim.
30. Further, the fact that the grievous injuries were suffered by victim Saddam due to the incident in question from the record of MLC no. 8433/13 which is Ex. A-8 and that the simple injuries were suffered by victim Sehjad, Ajmal and Imran could be corroborated from the record of MLC no. 8434/13 Ex. A-15, MLC no. 8481/13 Ex. A- 9 and MLC no. 8482/13 Ex. A-10, the authenticity of which has not been disputed by the accused during the course of trial. Also, perusal of the material available on record would completely rule out the role of any third party or even contributory negligence of the victims. The fact that the crowd of public persons may have been present at the spot is not sufficient to attribute any sort of contributory negligence to the victims.
31. The perusal of testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 would clearly show that the death of the victim Hasim Khan, the grievous injuries to victim Saddam and simple injuries to victims, Sehjad, Ajmal and Imran had ensued when the Mahindra Champion driven by the accused lost its balance and toppled down due to its high speed. The death of the victim Hasim Khan and the injuries suffered by other victims due to accident could also be corroborated from the testimonies of police.
32. Hence, in view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the essential ingredients of the accident. It has also successfully proved that accident must not have occurred but for someone's negligence or rashness. Also, evidence on record rules out the possibility that actions of the victims or some third party could be the reason behind the accident. Therefore, a presumption of rash and negligent driving on the part of accused could be raised in the present case.
33. When the presumption regarding negligence is raised against the accused State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 14 and onus to rebut the same shifts to the accused, the standard of proof which is required from the accused is not the same which is required from the prosecution to prove its case. It is imperative for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, however, it is not required from the accused to prove its defense beyond reasonable doubts. The defense can rebut the presumption on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
34. In the instant case, accused has taken the defense that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as he had neither permitted the victims to travel on the vehicle which was already loaded with the watermelons and rather the victims themselves jumped over the loaded vehicle and had thrown the watermelons on the windshield after eating the same, due to which his vision was blocked and the incident took place.
ii. Whether the accused has successfully rebutted the said presumption?
35. It should be noted that the accused had not taken any steps to prove his defense. No evidence was led by him in support of his claim. In fact, when his statement was recorded us 313 Cr.P.C, he had simply denied the allegations and stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case. The version of accused that he was falsely implicated by the police or that the incident took place due to contributory negligence of the victims has not been established by the accused through any evidences whatsoever. No suggestion was put to the eye-witness to rebut the factum of rashness and negligence on the part of accused.
36. Hence, in the absence of any materials on record, I am of the considered view that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption of rashness and negligence raised against him in the instant case.
iii. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (without relying on the presumption of rashness or State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 15 negligence)?
37. Although, presumption of rashness and negligence has been raised against the accused in the present case and he has failed to rebut the said presumption, however, in this part of the judgment, I shall be examining as to whether the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of accused even otherwise (without relying on the presumption) beyond reasonable doubt.
38. In the instant case, as discussed in the preceding part of this judgment, in order to prove the factum of accident and rash and negligent driving by the accused, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of PW-1 and PW- 2, who are the victims and eye-witnesses of the present case. They were the star witnesses as they were traveling in the same Mahindra Champion along with other victims including deceased Hasim Khan at the time when the incident had taken place. In their testimony, PW-1 and PW-2 had given a detailed account and the manner in which the accident had taken place. They had categorically stated that the accident had taken place when the accused was driving the Mahindra Champion at a high speed and in rash or negligent manner despite the fact that same was loaded with the water melons and they both along with other victims were sitting above the same. More specifically, PW-1 and PW-2 have also narrated that despite requests made by them to the accused for driving the Mahindra Champion in a proper manner, no heed was paid by the accused and he rather continued driving the vehicle at a high speed and in rash or negligent manner leading to the same to turtle down after being dis balanced. They have identified the accused in the Court and also identified the offending vehicle. These witnesses were not cross examined by the defense and even no suggestions were put to the witnesses by Ld. Defense Counsel for repelling the case of prosecution. Hence, no material contradictions could be seen in their testimony.
39. Perusal of the testimony of eye-witnesses would clearly show that the accident had taken place by the offending Mahindra Champion which was being State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 16 driven by the accused. The said Mahindra Champion was being driven at a high speed and in negligent manner. While high speed simplictor would not always necessarily amount to rash and negligent driving, however, in the instant case, it should be noted that all the material PWs including PW-1 and PW-2 have coherently maintained their stands by stating that the offending vehicle was driven at a fast speed and negligent manner by the accused. The facts that at the time of accident, the accused while driving his Mahindra Champion was loaded with the watermelons as well as the passengers at a high speed, lost its balance and toppled down is also sufficient to attribute the rash and negligent act on the part of accused. The accused being a professional driver had the duty to take additional care while driving the vehicle loaded with the goods as well as the passengers. Driving a vehicle at high speed in such situation without taking due precaution to avert the incident like the one which has arisen in the present case, will amount to rash and negligent driving.
40. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 could also be corroborated from the testimony PW-3 and PW-6. PW-3 was the police official who had reached at the spot along with IO/PW-6 after receiving the information about the accident. PW-6 in his testimony had stated that he went to the hospital where he found victim Hasim Khan as brought dead to the hospital after incident and while the other victims had already left the hospital. He also narrated that when he reached back to the spot, he met PW-1 and PW-2, who gave detailed account of the incident. It should be noted that PW-6 was extensively cross examined by the Ld. Defense Counsel but nothing discrediting his version could be elicited from his testimony. It is pertinent to mention that PW-6 had not seen the accused driving the offending Mahindra Champion at the spot. Hence, his testimony would be relevant only to the extent of proving the factum of accident and death of the victim Hasim Khan and injuries suffered by other victims due to accident.
41. Importantly, PW-6 was also IO of the present case and as stated earlier, he was cross-examined by the Ld. Defense Counsel where no material contradictions State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 17 could be observed. He had specifically denied the suggestions that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case.
42. The testimony of PW-3 would also be relevant to the extent proving the factum of accident, presence and subsequent seizure of offending vehicle at the spot. The testimony of PW-4 would also be relevant to prove that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle.
43. Perusal of the testimonies of the police officials would show that while their testimonies would be relevant to establish the basic ingredients of the offences involved and presence of the offending vehicle at the spot, however, the same would not be relevant to extent of proving the presence of the accused at the spot. None of them had seen the accused at the spot when they reached there.
44. The identity of the accused Naushad Ahmad as the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of incident was established by the testimony of eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-2.
45. Further, in order to prove the nexus between the negligence of accused, death of victim Hasim Khan and injuries suffered by other victims, the prosecution has again relied upon the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 in addition to the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6.
46. The perusal of the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 would clearly show that the death of the victim Hasim Khan was caused when he came beneath the Mahindra Champion after the incident. Similarly, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 would clearly show that the grievous injuries were sustained by victim Saddam and simple injuries were sustained by both PW-1 and PW-2 as well as victim Sehjad when they also came beneath the alleged offending Mahindra Champion as the same turtled down by losing its balance. The death of the victim Hasim Khan and injuries by other victims due to accident could also be corroborated from the testimony of PW-
State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 18 6 who had reached at the spot after receiving the news of accident. The said witness in his testimony had categorically deposed that the detailed account of the incident was made by PW-1 and PW-2 when they came to the spot and subsequently, PW-4 being the registered owner of the vehicle produced the accused to him as the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident pursuant to notice u/s 133 MV Act served upon him. The said fact further gains strength from the fact that the accused has subjected himself to the judicial TIP proceedings, due to which an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him.
47. Further, the accused has not disputed the authenticity of the MLCs of the victims or observations made therein. Similarly, the accused has also admitted the PMR of the victim Hasim Khan and the conclusions stated therein qua the cause of death of the victim. Perusal of the said MLCs and PMR would clearly show that multiple abrasions were present all over the body of victim Hasim Khan and likewise, the said MLCs also bear the findings qua causing of simple injuries to victims Imran, Sehjad, Ajmal and grievous injuries to victim Saddam. Also, it can be seen that there were many injuries on the vital organs of the body of deceased victim Hasim Khan.
48. Further, the post-mortem report of victim Hasim Khan would also show that injuries on the vital body parts of the deceased were found at the time of post- mortem of the body. More specifically, as per the PMR, the victim Hasim Khan had sustained the injuries on his vital body parts including head, head, chest and abdomen and the multiple abrasions were found on his forearms, elbow, feet etc. The cause of death of the victim Hasim Khan is stated to be head injury suffered during road traffic accident. The aforesaid findings in the PMR of deceased victim Hasim clearly suggests the death of the victim had taken place due to severe injuries sustained on his vital body organs and that he had already succumbed to his injuries before being brought to the hospital.
State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 19
49. During the final arguments, Ld. Defense Counsel had contended that the testimony of eye-witnesses suffered from material contradictions, and, therefore, same could not be relied upon. He has contended that the accused was not driving the alleged offending in rash or negligent manner at the time of incident and that he was falsely implicated by the police.
50. It should be noted that this argument made by Ld. Defense Counsel is not supported with any cogent and convincing material and evidences on record.
51. Also, it was contended that no public witnesses who were present at the spot were examined by the police during the course of investigation. I would agree that the public persons who might be present at the spot should have been examined by the police during the course of investigation and should have been made witnesses. Further, non-examination of the public witnesses would not discard the entire case of prosecution which was otherwise proved on record on the basis of testimonies of eye-witness and duly corroborated from the testimonies of police officials and medical reports.
52. When the incriminating materials were put up before the accused at the stage of recording of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused had merely made a bald denial and stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case. No other defense was taken by the accused. In fact, he did not even lead defense evidence in support of his defense.
53. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and findings, this Court is the of the considered view that prosecution has successfully proved all ingredients of offences punishable u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC in the present case. It has also successfully proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts for having committed the offences u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC without relying upon the presumption of rashness on the part of accused. Hence, accused Naushad State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 20 Ahmad is hereby convicted for the offences punishable u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC.
54. Let convict be heard on quantum of sentence separately.
55. Let copy of this judgment be also given to convict free of cost.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 16.01.2026.
(Rishabh Kapoor) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 (South-West)/Dwarka/17.01.2026 State Vs. Naushad Ahmad FIR No : 117/2013 U/s: 279/337/338 and 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 21