Delhi District Court
State vs Mayank Tyagi on 25 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARIDAMAN SINGH CHEEMA
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05, SAKET COURTS,
DELHI
DLSE020027772019
Cr. Case No.-: 983/2019
FIR No. -: 104/2018
Police Station -: Sarita Vihar
Section(s) -: 279/338 IPC
STATE
VS.
MAYANK TYAGI
1. Name of Complainant :- Manish Kumar Sharma
2. Name of Accused :- Mayank Tyagi S/o Sh.
Pradeep Tyagi
3. Offence charged under :- 279/338 IPC
section
4. Plea of Accused :- Not Guilty.
5. Date of Commission of :- 28.04.2018
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 05.07.2019
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 01.08.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 25.08.2025
Aridaman
singh
9. Final Order :- Acquitted cheema
Digitally signed
by Aridaman
singh cheema
Date:
2025.08.25
15:55:25 +0530
FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 1 of 19
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 28.04.2018 at about 04:35PM at Mathura Road towards Faridabad, near Sarita Vihar Rd Light, inffront of District Park Gate, accused was driving a duster car registration bearing no. UP14-CL-5858 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety and hit against motorcycle bearing no. DL3S-DV-3082 and caused grievous injury to bikers namely Manish and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), for which the present FIR was lodged in PS Sarita Vihar.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the accused and chargesheet was presented in the court on 28.01.2019. Cognizance of the offence was taken vide order dated on 28.01.2019. Copy of charge-sheet alongwith documents were supplied to the accused u/s 207 Cr.PC.
3. On finding a prima facie case against the Accused, charge under section 279/338 IPC was framed against him on 15.12.2021 Digitally signed by for which the he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Aridaman
Aridaman singh
singh cheema
cheema Date:
2025.08.25
15:55:30
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
+0530
FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 2 of 19
4. During the trial for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC, prosecution led the following evidence against the Accused and examined 4 witnesses to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:
5. PW-1 Manish Kumar has deposed that on 28.04.2018 he was coming from Ashram side to Badarpur on his motor cycle bearing No. DL 3S DV 3082 and at around 04.30 PM when he reached near Sarita Vihar red light, and at that time when he crossed the red light, the car which was moving ahead of him, applied sudden brakes and he also applied brake. At that time, the accused was driving duster car bearing registration No. UP 14 4848. He again said that he does not remember the exact number, came from his back side and hit on his left leg due to which he sustained fracture on his left leg. Thereafter, he was taken to Apollo hospital, where he underwent treatment. Thereafter, his statement was recorded by the police which is Ex. PW1/A. During the investigation, police seized his motor cylce and he got the same released on superdari. The driver/accused was present in the court and correctly identified by the witness. He correctly identified the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP 14 CL 5858 through photographs annexed with the chargesheet. The photographs are Ex. P1 to Ex. P4. He correctly identified the motor cycle bearing bearing registration No. DL 3S DV 3082 through photographs annexed with the chargesheet. The photographs are Ex. P5 to Ex. P8. Digitally signed by Aridaman Aridaman singh cheema singh Ld. APP for the State sought permission of the court want to Date:
cheema 2025.08.25 15:55:33 +0530 put a leading question to the witness with regard to the manner in FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 3 of 19 which the offending vehicle was being driven as he was not disclosing full facts. The same was allowd.
Witness admitted that offending vehicle was driven by the accused in a very high speed and due to the same he hit him.
In his cross-examination he admitted that the spot of the incident was a heavy traffic area. He admitted that the spot of incident was just ahead of red light of sarita vihar. He admitted that he applied brake since the car ahead of him applied sudden brake. He was driving his motor cycle on second lane. He denied the suggestion that he did not see the vehicle coming from his behind in his side mirror. He admitted that he applied the brake after keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front of his motor cycle, in the same lane. He admitted that he did not maneuver his bike to the right of the left, before applying the brake. He denied the suggestion that because he did not consider the vehicle coming from the back side and he suddenly applied brake in the middle of the lane, during traffic, the present accident took place. His speed was between 30-40 kms per hour when he applied the brake. He does not know the speed of the vehicle which was in front of him. The rest of the traffic was plying at a much higher speed, as his speed was slow only because of the vehicle plying in front of him. He denied the suggestion that because the traffic was moving at a higher speed and he was being slowed down by the vehicle which was moving in front of his motor cycle, he was driving the motor cycle in a zig zag manner and hence led to the accident, when he Digitally signed by Aridaman Aridaman singh applied sudden brake. The witness was shown site plan which is singh cheema cheema Date:
2025.08.25 15:55:39 Ex. PW1/X1. The witness had been asked to mark the point where +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 4 of 19 the accident took place. He has marked the same as Point X (in green colour) on the said site plan. He admitted that when he was standing at the right light after that he had gone ahead with the traffic as the traffic moved after the red light. At the red light, there were 3-4 vehicles ahead of him. He admitted that when the red light became green, the traffic started moving ahead in normal medium speed. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place at a spot 25-30 mts after the red light. He admitted that Point X marked by him would be around 50-60 mts from the red light. He denied the suggestion that when he applied sudden brake, he had put his left leg on the ground in order to balance myself and at that time, his foot came under the the tyre of the offending vehicle. He denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred due to his negligence of applying sudden brakes.
6. PW -2 Sh. Imamuddin has deposed that on he does not know anything about the present case. I also does not know the accused present in the court that day.
He was then cross-examined on behalf of the State and he denied the suggestion that on 28.04.2018, he had joined the investigation of the present case and IO had seized the vehicles involved in the accident and arrested the accused driver namely Mayank Tyagi in his presence. He denied the suggestion that police had seized the RC of the offending vehicle, seized the DL of the accused, arrested the accused and conducted his personal Digitally signed by search in his presence. Seizure memos of DL and RC of the Aridaman Aridaman singh singh cheema cheema Date:
2025.08.25 offending vehicle, arrest memo and personal search memo 15:55:42 +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 5 of 19 annexed with the judicial file are shown to the witness and witness identifies his LTI at Point A on the aforesaid documents. The documents are Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, and Ex. PW2/D respectively. He denied the suggestion police had recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC. The statement of the witness annexed with the chargesheet, Ex. PW2/D1 was shown to the witness and the contents of the same from Point X to X1 is read over to the witness and witness denies the same in toto. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately deviating from his earlier statement and not identifying the accused since he had have been won over by him.
In his cross-examination on behalf of accused he admitted that that police had obtained his thumb impression on some blank papers.
7. PW -3 ASI Maharaj Singh deposed that on 28.04.2018, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as HC. On that day, IO/ASI Virender Singh received DD No. 36A at around 04.35 PM. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI Virender Singh reached on the spot, i.e., Mathura Road, Ashram to Faridabad, Sarita Vihar red light, near district park gate. Upon reaching there, they does not found any accidental vehicle but found the complainant namely Imamuddin who told us that the accused driver took the injured person into his car (offending vehicle) to Apollo hospital himself. The motor cycle of the injured person was already taken to Apollo hospital by the Digitally signed by Aridaman Aridaman singh relatives of the injured person before they reached to the spot. singh cheema cheema Date:
2025.08.25 Thereafter, IO received DD No. 38A from Apollo hospital with 15:55:45 +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 6 of 19 respect to the MLC of the injured person. Thereafter, he alongwith IO/ASI Virender Singh reached to the Apollo hospital, IO/ASI Virender Singh collected the MLC of injured person already Ex. A4 and IO recorded the statement of injured person in the hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and driver of the offending vehicle reached to the spot of incident alongwith the motor cycle of the injured person from the hospital. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of accused person on the spot. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC. Thereafter, IO prepared the tehrir and handed over to him for the registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to the PS and got the FIR registered and came back to the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over to the IO/ASI Virender. IO prepared all the documents with respect to the present case on the spot. Thereafter, IO seized both the vehicles, i.e., offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP 14 CL 5858 and victim's motor cycle bearing registration No. DL 3S BV 3082 and prepared the seizure memos of both the vehicles, Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B respectively. Thereafter, IO prepared the seizure memo of the DL of both the vehicle, and prepared the seizure memos of DL of both the vehicles, already Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B respectively. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused person vide arrest memo already Ex. PW2/C and conducted his personal search vide already Ex. PW2/D. Thereafter, IO released the accused person on police bail. IO deposited both the vehicles in the malkhana in PS Sarita Vihar. Accused was present in the court and correctly identified by the witness. He correctly Digitally signed by identified the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP 14 CL Aridaman singh Aridaman singh cheema cheema Date:
2025.08.25 5858 through photographs annexed with the chargesheet. The 15:55:49 +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 7 of 19 photographs are Ex. P1 to Ex. P4. He correctly identified the motor cycle bearing bearing registration No. DL 3S DV 3082 through photographs annexed with the chargesheet. The photographs are Ex. P5 to Ex. P8.
In his cross-examination he stated that it took around two and a half hours in doing the formalities of reaching at the spot after receiving the DD entry No. 36A, going to the Apollo hospital, getting the MLC of injured and took the offending vehicle driver to the spot. He admitted that the statement of victim had been recorded during that period and it is not mentioned in my 161 CrPC statement. He admitted that the accused/driver of the offending vehicle cooperated us in whole the proceeding conducted by him. He admitted that his statement was recorded by the IO before handing over of the tehrir to him. He admitted that that his statement u/s 161 CrPC bears the FIR number, date, sections and it is not mentioned in 161 CrPC statement that his statement was recorded before the registration of FIR. He denied the suggestion that no eye witness was found on the spot when they reached at the spot with the accused. He admitted that IO recorded the statement of eye witness Imamuddin in his presence before registration of FIR and it was not mentioned in my 161 CrPC statement. He admitted that the incident had not taken place in his presence and he does not have any personal knowledge about the incident. He does not know whether the injured was in fault in the incident. Digitally signed by Aridaman Aridaman singh singh cheema cheema Date:
2025.08.25 15:55:53 +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 8 of 19
8. PW -4 ASI Virender Singh deposed that on 28.04.2018, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as ASI. On that day, he received DD No. 36A at around 04.35 PM. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Maharaj Singh reached on the spot, i.e., Mathura Road, Ashram to Faridabad, Sarita Vihar red light, near district park gate. Upon reaching there, they did not find any accidental vehicle but found the complainant namely Imamuddin who told us that the accused driver took the injured person into his car (offending vehicle) to Apollo hospital himself. The motor cycle of the injured person was already taken to Apollo hospital by the relatives of the injured person before they reached to the spot. Thereafter, he received DD No. 38A from Apollo hospital with respect to the MLC of the injured person. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Maharaj Singh reached to the Apollo hospital, he collected the MLC of injured person which is already Ex. A4 and he recorded the statement of injured person in the hospital. The same is already Ex-PW1/A. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Maharaj Singh and driver of the offending vehicle reached the spot of incident after leaving the motor cycle of the injured and the offending vehicle of accused person at the PS. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of accused person on the spot. Thereafter, he recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC. Thereafter, he prepared tehrir and handed over to HC Maharaj Singh for the registration of FIR. Tehrir is EX-PW4/1. Thereafter, HC Maharaj Singh went to the PS and got the FIR registered and came back to the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over to him. He prepared the site Digitally signed by Aridaman Aridaman singh plan which is already Ex-PW1/X1. Thereafter, he seized both the singh cheema cheema Date:
2025.08.25 15:55:57 vehicles, i.e., offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP 14 CL +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 9 of 19 5858 and victim's motor cycle bearing registration No. DL 3S BV 3082 and prepared the seizure memos of both the vehicles which are already Ex. PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively. Thereafter, he prepared the seizure memo of the DL of the accused person and prepared the seizure memos of insurance documents of the offending vehicle, already Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B respectively. Thereafter, he arrested the accused person vide arrest memo which is already Ex- PW2/C and conducted his personal search vide already Ex. PW2/D. Thereafter, he released the accused person on police bail which is Ex-PW4/2. He deposited both the vehicles in the malkhana in PS Sarita Vihar. He got the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles done, report of which is EX-PW4/3 and Ex-PW4/4. He filed the charge sheet alongwith relevant documents. Accused was present in the court and correctly identified by the witness. He correctly identified the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP 14 CL 5858 through photographs annexed with the chargesheet. The photographs are Ex. P1 to Ex. P4. He correctly identified the motor cycle bearing bearing registration No. DL 3S DV 3082 through photographs annexed with the chargesheet. The photographs are Ex. P5 to Ex. P8.
In his cross-examination he stated that it took him around 15 minutes to reach the spot after getting the DD entry. He admitted that the family members of the injured were present at the hospital when they reached Apollo Hospital and they had also taken the motor cycle of the victim which was duly parked in the Digitally signed by Aridaman Aridaman singh parking lot of the hospital. He does not remember the name of the singh cheema cheema Date:
2025.08.25 15:56:02 +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 10 of 19 relatives / family members who were present at the hospital at that time. He admitted that the accused had taken the injured to hospital. He stayed in the hospital for about 45 minutes. He does not remember the address of the complainant. He voluntarily stated that it was a matter of record. He admitted that he had left the hospital alongwith the accused and the offending vehicle. He admitted that he reached the spot after the accident had already taken place and traffic was running smoothly. He admitted that when he reached there was usual traffic on the spot. He denied the suggestion that all the paper work was done while sitting at the PS. He denied the suggestion that the accused person has been falsely implicated in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot.
9. The record transpires that during the course of the trial, the accused admitted (without admitting the correctness of allegations contained therein) the present FIR (Ex.A1), mechanical inspection report of vehicled bearing registration no. UP14CL5858 and DL 3S DV 3082 (Ex.A2 and Ex.A3), MLC bearing no. 361/2018 (Ex.A4) and indemnity bond dt. 08.05.2018 (ex.A5) and accordingly witness mentioned at serial no. 5, 7 and 8 were dropped from the list of witnesses.
10. After completion of prosecution evidence all the Digitally signed by Aridaman incriminating material were put to accused and his statement was Aridaman singh singh cheema cheema Date:
2025.08.25 recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has stated that the accident took 15:56:06 +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 11 of 19 place due to the negligence of injured PW-1 i.e. Manish Kumar because the vehicle was at the starting point from the red light and the speed of accused's vehicle was 05-10kmph. The witnesses were interested witnesses because injured wants to extort money from the accused. All the police witnesses were not present at the spot. The accident had occurred due to the negligence of injured i.e. Manish Kumar because on the date of incident, car of the accused had just started when the signal turned green then the injured came with his vehicle at very fast speed from behind and when he tried to overtake his vehicle from the right side in a narrow space, he suddenly applied the breaks as his front vehicle had applied breaks and then he got disbalanced due to which he placed his left foot under the car of the accused 1and he got injured. It was not his mistake. It is the injured who had without intention put his foot under the car of the accused. He was the one who took the injured to the hospital and remained with him till the police came. He further stated that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused chose not to lead DE.
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
11. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and the accused and perused the records carefully. Ld. APP for the State has stated that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and the accused is liable to be convicted.
Aridaman singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:56:11 +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 12 of 19
12. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has stated that PW-1 had admitted in his examination in chief that the car in front of PW-1 had suddenly applied the brake and PW-1 had also applied the brakes. The PW-1 have not mentioned anything about rash and negligent act of the accused and had only given a bald statement when Ld. APP for the State cross-examined him. PW-2 had turned hostile and had not identified the accused.
13. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:-
1. That the accident actually took place.
2. That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
3. That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
14. Before proceeding further, let us discuss the meaning of the expressions "rash" and "negligent". These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have Aridaman exercised in the same circumstances. singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:56:14 +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 13 of 19
15. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1972 SC 685 as under :
"Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstance out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted............Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case".
16. In the case at hand, the PW-1 has stated in his examination in chief that when he crossed the red light the car which was moving ahead of him applied sudden breaks and he also applied the breaks and the accused while driving duster car came from behind and hit on his left leg. PW-1 did not say anything regarding the rash and negligent act of the accused and had only stated when he was cross-examined on behalf of State. PW-2 had stated that he does not know anything about the incident and have also not identified the accused person. PW-4 had recorded the statement of Aridaman singh cheema the injured and PW-3 had accompanied PW-4 during investigation. Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:56:18 +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 14 of 19 Mechanical inspection report (Ex.A2) shows left side front fender is dent/scratched and Right side front fender is dent/scratched.
17. It was observed by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in the case titled as "Vinod Kumar v. State" 2012(1) RCR (criminal) 567 as follows, "No evidence or any other material was placed on record by the prosecution to show the manner in which the Petitioner was driving the said vehicle to prove the rashness and negligence of the Petitioner......................................., except making a bald statement that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner which does not prove the guilt of the Petitioner. There is no evidence placed on record to show the speed of the vehicle or the manner in which it was being driven to show rashness and negligence on the part of the Petitioner, especially when the area was a crowded one".
18. It is pertinent here to mention that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Mahadeo Hari Lokare Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC 758 which states that if a person suddenly crosses road without taking a note of approaching vehicle, the driver however slowly he may be driving, may not be in a position to save the accident.
Aridaman
19. It is pertinent here to mentioned that State of M. P. Vs. singh cheema Bhawanesh Kumar AIR 1958 MP 205 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:56:20 +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 15 of 19 "15. We are equally clear that from the mere fact that the accused-respondent did not possess a driving licence, it cannot be positively inferred that he was guilty of rashness or negligence in driving a heavy vehicle like a truck..........................
16. ...................... Under both the sections the gravamen of the offence consists in the conduct of the accused being either 'rash or negligent.' Though the words used in both the sections are 'rash' and' negligent' simpliciter, the fact that we are considering their son notation with reference to the law of crimes, indicates that that degree of rashness or negligence will have to be proved which will make it safe for us to infer that the conduct of the. accused which is complained of is a crime."
20. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution.
22. One of the main witness of the prosecution have turned hostile in the present case. It is pertinent to note that under Indian Digitally signed by law, the evidence of hostile witnesses is not discarded completely. Aridaman Aridaman singh singh cheema cheema Date:
The legal maxim, "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not 2025.08.25 15:56:25 +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 16 of 19 applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witnesses, it was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under
-
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether.
The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
23. It was observed by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in the case titled as "Vinod Kumar v. State" 2012(1) RCR (criminal) 567 as follows, "No evidence or any other material was placed on record by the prosecution to show the manner in which the Petitioner was driving the said vehicle to prove the rashness and negligence of the Petitioner......................................., except making a bald statement that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner which does not prove the guilt of the Petitioner. There is no evidence placed on record to show the speed of the vehicle or the manner in which it was being driven to show rashness and negligence on the part of the Petitioner, especially when the area was a crowded one".
Digitally
signed by
Aridaman
Aridaman singh
singh cheema
cheema Date:
2025.08.25
15:56:31
+0530
FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 17 of 19
24. In the case at hand, there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner, except the bald statement made by PW-1 only when he was cross- examined on behalf of the State. Further, PW-1 had admitted that the car infront of him suddenly applied brakes and he had also applied brakes at that instance and there is nothing regarding the rash and negligent act of the accused present at this stage as mentioned by the complainant. Upon sudden application of brakes, the person who is in his lane cannot be said to be acting in rash and negligent manner and the same thing upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Mahadeo Hari Lokare Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC 758. PW-2 had totally turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW-4 had recorded the statement of the injured and PW-3 had accompanied PW-4 during investigation. There was heavy traffic there and but none of them have been cited as witnesses in the present case.
25. Further, it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled Digitally to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story signed by Aridaman Aridaman singh singh cheema and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to cheema Date:
2025.08.25 15:56:36 acquittal. +0530 FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 18 of 19
26. In view of the above discussion and in light of above- mentioned case laws, the court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that the car driver was driving in a rash and negligent manner or that the accident of the complainant/injured was caused due to the rash and negligent manner act of the accused.
27. Therefore, in ultimate analysis as a result of trial, accused namely Mayank Tyagi S/o Sh. Pradeep Tyagi is acquitted for the offences u/s 279/338 IPC.
Announced in open court on 25.08.2025 in the presence of the Digitally signed Accused. Aridaman by Aridaman singh cheema singh Date: 2025.08.25 cheema 15:56:39 +0530 (ARIDAMAN SINGH CHEEMA) JMFC-05, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 25.08.2025 The judgment contains 19 pages and each page have been digitally signed on each page by the undersigned. Digitally signed Aridaman by Aridaman singh cheema singh Date:
cheema 2025.08.25
15:56:43 +0530
(ARIDAMAN SINGH CHEEMA)
JMFC-05, South-East District,
Saket Courts, New Delhi
25.08.2025
FIR No. 104/2018 State vs. Mayank Tyagi Page 19 of 19