Delhi District Court
In Re: State vs Jasbir Singh on 4 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
In Re: STATE VERSUS JASBIR SINGH
F.I.R. No: 194/09
U/s 279/338 IPC
P.S. Sarita Vihar
Date of Institution of Case : 24.01.2011
Judgment Reserved for : 04.01.2014
Date of Judgment : 04.01.2014
JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 470/2/11
(b) The date of commission of offence : 08.07.2009
(c)The name of complainant : Rajesh Khanna s/o Sh. Satpal
Khanna
(d) The name, parentage, of accused : Jasbir Singh s/o Sh. Charan
Singh, R/o House no. B70A,
Bhalsava Dairy, Guru Nanak
Dev Colony, New Delhi.
Present Address : As above
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 279/338 IPC
FIR No. 194/09 State Vs. Jasbir Singh 1/6
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Acquitted
(h) The date of such order : 04.01.2014
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2009 at about 11.30 p.m. at in front of Vishal Mega mart, Mathura Road, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Sarita Vihar, accused Jasbir Singh was found driving a truck bearing no. PB13R5727 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so he hit against a motorcycle bearing no. DL4SAX2205 which resulted in grievous injuries upon motorcyclist namely Rajesh Khanna and thus thereby the accused committed offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC.
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court and in compliance of Section 207 accused was supplied the documents. Thereafter vide orders dated 02.04.2012 notice u/s 279/338 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. So far prosecution failed to examine any witness in this case.
FIR No. 194/09 State Vs. Jasbir Singh 2/6
6. Today matter was listed for PE however, no PW was present apart from IO HC Prem Chand. Record reveals that complainant/injured Rajesh Khanna is not traceable for the last more than 1 and ½ years. Today also, summons as were issued against him have been received back with the report that he is not residing at the said address/is not traceable. Apart from the report on summons separate statement of IO has been recorded in this regard. I have also gone through report on the summons dated 28.05.2013, 18.03.2013, 18.07.2012 etc. The summons were duly forwarded by the DCP/SHO/IO concerned.
7. Hence, despite numerous opportunities, prosecution failed to examine the complainant/injured/eye witness. Prosecution was granted ample opportunity to produce the said witness however, prosecution failed to bring him on record.
8. As per the prosecution story, it was Rajesh Khanna who was allegedly injured on 08.07.2009 on account of rash and negligent driving by accused Jasbir Singh. Hence, the deposition of complainant/injured Rajesh Khanna was sine qua non for establishing the charges against the accused as he could have proved how and under what circumstances, accident dated 08.07.2009 occurred, who was driving the vehicle involved at the time of accident, because of whose fault the accident occurred i.e. whether due to rash and negligent driving of the accused as alleged by the prosecution or otherwise.
FIR No. 194/09 State Vs. Jasbir Singh 3/6 He was the star/material witnesses of the prosecution case and in his absence the prosecution shall not be able to prove the alleged accident or the identity of the accused leave apart rash and negligent driving. His absence thus proved fatal and sounded death knell for the prosecution case as admittedly there is no other eye witness of the accident. Reliance can be placed upon "State of Rajasthan v. Joita (Rajasthan) 2002 Cri.L.J. 3514 and Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana, (P&H) 2000 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 571, K. Nageshwara Rao v. State of A.P. 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 588, Niranjan Singh v. State (Delhi Adminstration) (Delhi) 1997 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 320and Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala, (SC) 2007(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 605
9. Prosecution proposed to examine 10 witnesses in all who proposed to be examined are formal/official witnesses who came into the picture only after the alleged accident had occurred and information in this regard was received by them.
10. Accordingly continuation of trial in the present matter which is already 4 years old shall be an exercise in futility as in all likelihood the prosecution story shall fall flat. PE is accordingly closed. As far as prosecution evidence is concerned record reveals that no worthy incriminating material has been brought forward against the accused so far. Accordingly SA is dispensed with as the same shall be an empty formality.
FIR No. 194/09 State Vs. Jasbir Singh 4/6
11. Prosecution case may be true but criminal jurisprudence says that prosecution case must be true. There is a long distance between "may be true"
and "must be true".
12. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. ( Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H)(DB) ,1997(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 662).
13. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. It was observed in Partap v. State of U.P., (SC) 1976 A.I.R. (SC) 966 that while prosecution required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability. In Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (SC) 1990(3) S.C.C. 190 it was again held that in criminal cases burden is always is on prosecution and never shifts. In Nasir Sikander Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (SC) 2005 Cri.L.J. 2621 and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, FIR No. 194/09 State Vs. Jasbir Singh 5/6 (SC) 1996(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 465 it was held that it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and burden lies on prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by the Statute. (AIR 1962 SC 605 relied). Accused is not expected to prove his innocence to the hilt. If prosecution story is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
14. Prosecution has failed to discharge its onus. Accordingly, accused is entitled to acquittal.
15. I order accordingly.
Announced in the open (Gaurav Rao)
Court today MM (SE)/Delhi/04.01.2014
FIR No. 194/09 State Vs. Jasbir Singh 6/6
F.I.R. No: 194/09
U/s 279/338 IPC
P.S. Sarita Vihar
04.01.2014
Pr: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused is present on bail today with his counsel.
No PW is present apart from IO HC Prem Chand.
He has reported that complainant is not traceable. His separate statement has been recorded.
Vide my separate judgment announced today in the open court, accused has been acquitted of the charges in the present case.
Bail bond cancelled, surety discharged, endorsement if any be cancelled, original documents be returned as per rules and procedure.
Fresh bail bonds u/s 437 Cr.P.C. furnished, considered and accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gaurav Rao) MM(SE)/Delhi.
04.01.2014
FIR No. 194/09 State Vs. Jasbir Singh 7/6