Delhi District Court
State vs Kanhiya Lal on 21 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-03, NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Sh. Himanshu Sehloth, DJS
Cr. Case no. : 5281760/2016
FIR No. : 63/2009
Police Station : Model Town
Section(s) : 279/304A IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
Kanhaiya Lal S/o Sh. Lakhan Singh ...................Accused
1. Name of the Complainant : Shashi Kant Choudhary
2. Name of Accused : Kanhaiya Lal
3. Offence complained of or : 279/304A IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of : 20.02.2009
offence
6. Date of Filing of case : 27.10.2009
7. Date of Reserving Order : 29.11.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2026
Digitally signed
HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU
SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date: 2026.02.21
17:00:02 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 1 of 22
9. Final Order : Acquitted
_________________________________________________________
Argued by -: Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Suresh Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
___________________________________________________________
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. Factual Matrix
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the evening of 20.02.2009, at about
8:00-8:15 PM, a road traffic accident occurred near Chhatarsal Stadium on
Ring Road, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Model Town. It is
alleged that the deceased Arun Chaudhary, who was riding a bicycle, was hit
by a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-8SAM-3703, as a result of which
he sustained grievous injuries. He was removed from the spot by PCR officials
to Sushruta Trauma Centre, where he was medically examined and
subsequently declared dead. The post-mortem examination opined the cause of
death to be cerebral damage consequent to head injury, stated to be possible in a
road traffic accident.
Information regarding the accident was recorded at the police station and, on the
basis of the statement of PW-1 Shashi Kant Chaudhary, a rukka was prepared
leading to the registration of the present FIR. During the course of investigation,
the motorcycle and the bicycle were seized, the accused Kanhaiya Lal was
arrested, and his driving licence as well as the registration certificate of the
motorcycle were taken into possession. The motorcycle was subjected to
mechanical inspection, photographs of the vehicles were taken, and the post-
mortem of the deceased was conducted at BJRM Hospital. Statements of
witnesses were recorded and, upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed before the Court alleging commission of offences relating to rash and Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.02.21
17:00:07 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 2 of 22
negligent driving resulting in the death not amounting to culpable homicide of
Arun Chaudhary.
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge u/s 279/304A and claimed trial,
leading to the examination of the prosecution witnesses in support of its case.
2. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
The prosecution in support of its claim, examined 16 witnesses.
2.1 PW-1: Shashi Kant Choudhary s/o Late Sh. Bihari Lal Choudhary stated in
his deposition that on 20.02.09 he was accompanying his brother-in-law (Jija)
namely Arun Choudhary and was going to his home from Azadpur around 08.00
/ 08.15 pm on his own bicycles. The bicycle of Arun was ahead of his bicycle.
When they were about to cross the intersection of Chhatarshal Stadium,
suddenly a motorcycle came at a very high speed and hit against the bicycle of
Arun and Arun sustained very serious injuries. The motorcyclist was
apprehended by public persons and he was present in the court (correctly
pointed out towards the accused.). Police officials reached at the spot and Arun
was removed to hospital who died on the way to hospital. PW1/Shashi Kant
Chaudhary lodged complaint with the police which is Ex.PW1/A which bears
his left thumb impression at point A. He also went to the BJRM hospital and
identified the Arun vide his statement Ex.PW1/B bearing his left thumb
impression at point A. He also received the dead body of Arun after its
postmortem vide receipt Ex.PW1/C bearing his left thumb impression at point
A. Accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW1/D &
PW1/E -respectively which bears his left thumb impression at points A. Police
also prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW1/F bearing his left thumb
impression at point A. He also stated that he could identify the aforementioned
motorcycle as well as their bicycles. The photographs of the motorcycle (2 in
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.02.21
17:00:14 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 3 of 22
number) and of bicycle were also shown to the witness who correctly identified
them. Photographs of motorcycle are Marked as Ex.P1 and P2 and that of
bicycle are Ex.P3.
Ld. Counsel for the accused duly cross examined the witness wherein he
deposed that he is an illiterate person and that the police officials had recorded
his statement in the hospital on 20th However, he does not remember the month
and year. He further admitted that IO recorded his statement at about 8 PM and
that it was correct that after the said date, IO did not record any statement of
him or inquire from him or even met him. He further deposed that he had
placed his thumb impression on his complaint Ex. PW- 1/A and that after doing
the paper work at the hospital, IO did not prepare any document in his presence.
He further stated that IO had taken his thumb impression on some blank papers
also and he did not see the accused person at the spot. He further deposed that it
was correct that at the time of incident there was low visibility because of fog
and also it was correct that the deceased was his brother-in-law. He lastly stated
that it was wrong to suggest that he had filed the present case to claim
compensation or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO or someone
else had caused the accident.
2.2. PW-2: Ram Sajjan Choudhary, S/o Sh. Baubaji Choudhary stated in his
deposition that on 21.02.2009, he went to mortuary of BJRM Hospital where he
identified the dead body of his brother-in-law (Jijaji) vide dead body
identification memo Ex. PW-2/A, bearing his signature at point A and on the
same day Sh. Shashi Kant Choudhary and Chunnu Choudary alongwith him
received the dead body after conducting the postmortem done vide dead body
receiving memo already Ex. PW-1/C, bearing his signature at point B.
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
Date:
SEHLOTH 2026.02.21
17:00:20
+0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 4 of 22
The Ld. Counsel for the accused did not cross examine the witness despite
being given opportunity.
2.3 PW-3: Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Prakash stated in his deposition that he
was the registered owner of vehicle /motor cycle bearing No. DL-8SAM-3703,
Pulsar. On 20.02.2009 his above said motorcycle was being driven by the
accused Kanhiya Lal, present in the court (correctly identified), the said
motorcycle met with an accident and seized by the police. The said motorcycle
was got released by him on superdari vide superdiginama Ex. PW-3/A, bearing
his signature at point A. Today, I have brought the above said motorcycle which
is parked in the parking outside Rohini court complex. The photographs of the
said motorcycle are in judicial file, which are already exhibited as Ex. P1 and
P2. The above said motorcycle is Ex. P4.
At this stage, the accused has submitted that he shall not dispute the identity of
the vehicle during the trial.
Witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he
deposed that police neither recorded his statement nor inquired from him
regarding the present matter. He further stated that he did not received any
notice from the police and the photographs of the motorcycle were not clicked
in his presence. He also stated that he did not see the accused while driving the
said motorcycle. He could not recall the date of obtaining the vehicle on
superdari and attributed it to the considerable lapse of time. He denied that he
was deposing falsely.
2.4. PW-4: Inderpal, Photographer at Shop no. C- 278, Lal Bagh, AzadPur,
Delhi stated in his deposition that he was the photographer and having a Shop at
my residence at C- 278, Lal Bagh, Azad Pur, Delhi. He had a photographer shop
at the ground floor and residence at the first floor. On 21.02.2009 on the request
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
SEHLOTH
HIMANSHU
Date:
SEHLOTH 2026.02.21
17:00:26
+0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 5 of 22
of IO ASI Dharmbir, he went to the PS and he also took the photographs of the
motor cycle no. DL-8S-AN-3703 and one bicycle which was parked in the
premises of the police station and he took photographs through my digital
camera vide photographs already Ex. P-1 to P-3 (objected to by ld defence
counsel for the reason that CD and memory card are not produced). He had not
brought memory card and CD in that regard and also stated that he could not
produce the same because of lapse of time since he had erased the same.
The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein
the witness deposed that it was wrong to suggest that the photographs have not
been taken by him and therefore he cannot produce CD and memory card.
2.5. PW-5: HC Arvind Kumar stated in his deposition that on 20.02.2009 he
was posted at Police Station Model Town as duty officer from 5.00 Pm to
1:00am. On that day, at about 8.25 PM, he received a call from wireless
operator regarding accident in front of Chattershal stadium. He entered the
information in DD register vide DD No. 88-B which is Ex. PW5/A. On that day
at about 10.25 PM a rukka was presented by HC Umesh before him on the basis
of which he registered the present FIR vide computer generated copy Ex.
PW5/B which bears his signatures at point- A (Original seen and returned). At
the relevant time, the computer system was working properly and the FIR was
properly saved in the system after it was typed on it and then no tempering was
made with the computerized record. He also made endorsement on the original
rukka vide Ex. PW5/C bears his signatures at point A. Copy of the FIR and
original rukka were handed over to HC Umesh for handing over to the IO. On
that day, at about 11.05 PM, he received a call from Trauma Center regarding
death of Arun Chaudhary who had met an accident in front of Chattarshal
Stadium. he entered the information in DD register vide DD No. 97-B which is
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
SEHLOTH
HIMANSHU
Date:
SEHLOTH 2026.02.21
17:00:31
+0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 6 of 22
Ex. PW5/D. He had also brought the original DD register and FIR register in the
court (OSR).
The Ld. Counsel for the accused did not cross examine the witness despite
being given opportunity.
2.6. PW-6: ASI Naval Singh stated in his deposition that on 20.02.2009, he was
posted at PCR Van North West Zone, Delhi as HC. On that day, his duty was at
PCR Van. He received a call regarding accident. He alongwith his other staff of
van reached at Ring Road, Chhatarsal Stadium, Model Town, Delhi. There they
found one motorcycle no. DL-8S-AM3703 and one cycle in accidental condition.
He took the injured from the place of accident to Trauma Centre near Kashmere
Gate and got admitted that person there. The injured namely Arun Chaudhary was
in serious condition. IO recorded his statement.
The Ld. Counsel for the accused did not cross examine the witness despite being
given opportunity.
2.7. PW-7:Dr. Kulbhushan, CMO, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi. Stated in his
deposition that on 21.02.2009, he was posted as C.M.O. in BJRM Hospital. On
that day, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Arun
Chaudhary aged about 45 years vide postmortem report Ex.PW-7/A bearing his
signature at point A. During postmortem, he found external injuries on the dead
body of the deceased from Point X to X1. He found cause of death cerebral
damage (head injury). All the injuries were antemortem in nature caused by blunt
force impact and were possible in road side accident.
The Ld. Counsel for the accused did not cross examine the witness despite being
given opportunity.
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.02.21
17:00:37 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 7 of 22
2.8. PW-8: Retired ASI/ Tech. Devender Kumar S/o Shri Umrao Singh stated in
his deposition that he is a Qualified Grade-I Mechanic. He stated that he had done
specialized course/ training from I.T.I. and various vehicle manufacturing
companies. He has also inspected more than 15,000/-vehicles till today. On
21.02.2009, on written request of IO/ ASI Dharambir Ex.PW-8/A. He
mechanically inspected motorcycle make Pulsar bearing registration No.DL-8S-
AM-3703 and gave his detailed report which is Ex.PW-8/B bearing his signature
at point A. During inspection, he found front wheel mudguard scratched from
right side, front right side shocker leg scratched, front head light & left side
indicator light damaged, speedometer damaged, right side body part scratched,
right side leg-guard and break lever scratched and bent. Vehicle was fit for road
test.
Witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he
denied that the bike had a damage prior to the incident. He denied the
suggestion that he did not conduct proper examination of the bike or that he
prepared a false report at the instance of the IO.
2.9. PW-9: Dr. Girish Chander Prabhat, Sr. Medical Officer, DHS,
Karkardoomma, Delhi stated in his deposition that 20.02.2009 he was posted as
CMO in Sushruta Trauma Centre. On that day one injured namely Arun
Chaudhary was brought to casualty by PCR who was medically examined by him
vide MLC Ex.PW9/A which bears his signatures at point 'A'. After preliminary
examination he referred injured in neuro surgery, surgery and Ortho Department
for further treatment.
The Ld. Counsel for the accused did not cross examine the witness despite being
given opportunity.
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
Date:
SEHLOTH 2026.02.21
17:00:42
+0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 8 of 22
2.10. PW-10: Sh. Chunnu Chaudhary S.o Sh. Ram Anuj Chaudhary stated in his
deposition that he was the cousin brother of deceased Arun Chaudhary. He also
stated that on 20.02.2009 on hearing about the accident, he went to hospital
where Arun expired in the night. He identified the dead body of his cousin
deceased Arun Chaudhary vide memo Ex.PW10/A which bears his signatures at
point 'X'. After post mortem dead body of his deceased cousin was handed over to
them vide memo already Ex.PW1/C which bears his signatures at point 'X'.
The Ld. Counsel for the accused did not cross examine the witness despite being
given opportunity.
2.11. PW-11: ASI Partap Singh, stated in his deposition that on 20.02.2009, he
was posted at PS Model Town as MHC(M). On that day, IO ASI Dharamveer
handed over one motorcycle no.DL8SAN-3703 and one bicycle to him for
deposition in the malkhana. He reduced the same information into entry
no.3736/09 dated 20.02.2009 in register no.19, copy of the same is Ex.PW11/A
(OSR) which bears his signatures at point 'A'. he had mentioned the detail of the
case property in the entry. As per the entry, abovesaid motorcycle was released on
superdari, as per the law. Case property i.e. bicycle has been transferred to Distt.
Nazir vide RC no.20/21/16, the copy of the said RC is Ex.PW11/B (OSR).
The Ld. Counsel for the accused did not cross examine the witness despite being
given opportunity.
2.12.PW-12: Dr. Munish, Medical Officer, Shushruta Centre, Delhi stated in his
deposition that on 20.02.2009, he declared Arun S/o Jogeshwar as dead vide
death certificate Ex.PW-12/A which bears his signatures at point 'A'. He prepared
the death summary Ex.PW12/B which bears his signatures at point 'A', wherein
the query was regarding head injury.
Digitally signed
HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU
SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date: 2026.02.21
17:00:48 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 9 of 22
The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he
deposed that it was correct that head injury is possible by falling from the terrace
and also by falling on the floor or assault.
2.13. PW-13: Sh. Anil Kumar, Record Clerk, Sushruta Trauma Center, 9 Metcafe
Road, Delhi stated in his deposition that he was the record clerk and he had been
deputed by D.M.S to depose on behalf of Dr. Brojen Barman. Dr. Brojen Barman
had left the trauma center and his whereabouts were not known. He also stated
that he had brought the relevant record i.e admission summary and death
summary of deceased Arun. The Admission summary of patient Arun is Ex.
PW13/A(Original seen and returned), which bears the signature of Dy. Medical
Superintendent at point A. The death summary bears the signature of Dr. Brojen
Barman at point A, which is already Ex. PW12/B.
The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he
deposed that the death summary Ex. PW12/B was prepared by JR Manish in his
handwriting and same is not prepared by Dr. Brojen Barman and Dr. Brojen
Barman has only signed on it. The witness further deposed that the death
summary was not prepared in his presence or that he had identified signature Dr.
Borjen Barman as per his record although he has not signed in his presence or
that he has no personal knowledge about the MLC. He lastly stated that he could
not comment on the admission summary.
2.14. PW-14: Ct. Sachin Kumar, No. 756/N.E. P.S New Usmaanpur, Delhi stated
in his deposition that on 21.02.2009, he was posted at P.S Model Town as
Constable. On that day, he alongwith IO went to Sushruta Trauma Center,
Metcafe Road, Delhi. IO collected the relevant documents relating to deceased
Arun Chaudhary. Thereafter the dead body identification statement was recorded
by the IO and dead body was sent to mortuary of BJRM for conducting
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.02.21
17:00:54 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 10 of 22
Postmortem examination. Thereafter the dead body was handed over to the
relatives in Ct. Sachin Kumar's presence. Then the dead body handing over
memo was prepared which is already Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point
C. He lastly stated that IO recorded his statement.
The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he
deposed that his statement was recorded once at about 5.30 p.m in the P.S and
that he put his signature on his statement after going through it. He further
deposed that it was wrong to suggest that he had not joined the investigation or
that he never visited BJRM hospital or that no proceeding was done in his
presence or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of higher police officials.
2.15. PW-15: Retired SI Dharamvir Singh, S/o Late Sh. Jaipal singh stated in his
deposition that on 20.02.2009, he was posted at P.S Model Town as an ASI. On
that day he received DD No. 88B dated 20.02.2009 and after receiving the same,
he alongwith HC Umesh reached at the spot i.e. in front of Chhatersaal stadium,
Ring Road Delhi, where motorcycle bearing No. DL 8SAM 3703 make pulsar
and one cycle were found in accidental condition, where they came to know that
PCR Van took the injured to hospital. He left HC Umesh at the spot and went to
Trauma Center. After reaching the hospital, he collected the MLC of the injured
wherein it was mentioned that injured was unfit of statement. Thereafter he
returned back to the spot, where he met Shashikant Chaudhary/complainant and
he recorded the statement of Shashikant, which is already Ex. PW1/A, bearing his
signature at point A and same was attested by him at point B and he also
produced the accused Kanhaiya Lal. Accused was present in the Court and
correctly identified by the witness. Then he prepared the Tehrir, which is Ex.
PW15/A, bearing his signatures at point A. Same was handed over to Ct. Umesh
for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he went to P.S, got registered the FIR and
returned back to the spot and handed over the original Tehrir and copy of FIR to Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.02.21
17:00:59 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 11 of 22
SI Dharamvir and he also handed over DD No. 97B regarding the death of the
injured. In between he prepared site plan at the instance of complainant, which is
already Ex. PW1/F, bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter he seized the
offending vehicle/motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 8SAM 3703 vide
seizure memo, which is Ex. PW15/B, bearing his signature at point A. He also
seized the accidental cycle vide seizure memo, which is Ex. PW15/C, bearing his
signature at point A. He also seized the D/L of the accused vide seizure memo,
which is Ex. PW15/D, bearing his signature at point A. he seized the RC of the
offending vehicle vide seizure memo, which is Ex. PW15/E, bearing his signature
at point A. He made the arrest of the accused vide arrest memo which is already
Ex. PW1/D, bearing his signature at point B and his personal search was
conducted vide memo already Ex. PWI/E, bearing his signature at point B. Then
he deposited the offending vehicle/motorcycle and accident cycle in the
Malkhana of P.S. On 21.02.2019, he alongwith Ct. Sachin Kumar went to the
Trauma Center where he met the relatives of the deceased. Dead body was taken
to BJRM hospital for getting conduct the postmortem of deceased. He recorded
the dead body identification statement which is already Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW1/B
and PW10/A, same was attested by him at point B. Thereafter Post-mortem of the
deceased was got conducted vide request letter which is Ex. PW15/F bearing his
signature at point A and thereafter the dead body was handed over to the relatives
of deceased vide handing over memo which is already Ex. PW1/C, bearing his
signature at point C. The request letter for autopsy is Ex. PW15/G, bearing his
signature at point A. He also got conducted the mechanical inspection of the
offending vehicle vide request letter which is already Ex. PW8/A, bearing his
signature at point A and the mechanical inspection report is already Ex. PW8/B.
He also got clicked the photographs of the offending vehicle as well as the
accidental cycle. He also received the P.M report of the deceased, which is
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.02.21
17:01:06 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 12 of 22
already Ex. PW7/A. Complainant Shashikant also handed over to him a slip
bearing reregistration number of the offending vehicle/motorcycle, which Ex.
PW15/H. After completion of investigation he prepared the charge sheet and
same was deposited before Hon'ble Court.
Witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he
deposed that he alongwith HC Umesh reached at the spot upon the motorcycle
bearing no. DL5SAB9585 at about 8:30 PM. He admitted that the place of
incident was a crowded area and many public persons were gathered there. He
remained at the spot for about 5 minutes and no writing work was done before
going to hospital. He requested to the public persons to join the investigation, but
none was ready to join the same. He did not serve any notice to them. He came
back at the spot again at about 9:10-9:15 p.m. They finally left the spot at about
11.50/11.55 p.m. He prepared the rukka before 10.30 PM. Prior to sending the
rukka, he only recorded the statement of complainant. HC Umesh came back at
P.S might be around one kilometer. 4-5 public persons were standing with the
complainant Shashikant. He did not remember the exact time when he prepared
the site plan. The site plan was prepared by him after sending the rukka and
before returning back of HC Umesh. He admitted that he had not mentioned the
direction of the handle of the motorcycle as well as cycle in the site plan. He had
no knowledge whether there was any skid mark on the spot or not. He further
deposed that he did not remember whether the articles belonging to motorcycle
and cycle were lying on the road or not. He admitted that the name of the witness
is not mentioned in the site plan in whose instance the same was prepared by him.
It was wrong to suggest that he did not mention the name of the complainant on
the site plan because complainant Shashikant was not present at the spot due to
which his name was not mentioned in the site plan. He seized the motorcycle
alongwith its key but no separate seizure memo of the key was prepared by him.
Digitally signed
HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU
SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date: 2026.02.21
17:01:12 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 13 of 22
He deposited the motorcycle and cycle before 12 night in the Malkhana. He did
not remember how the offending motorcycle was taken to the P.S but they took
the cycle in a Rehri. The name of the Rehri puller was Ram Singh. He did not cite
Ram Singh as PWs in the witness list. It was correct that he had not mentioned
the direction of the motorcycle and cycle from which sides they were coming in
the site plan. It was correct that the document Ex.PW15/H neither bear his
signature nor Shashikant. It was correct that the particulars of the case as well as
date are not mentioned on Ex.PW15/H. It was wrong to suggest that the
motorcycle was not present at the spot and same was planted by him to workout
pe the case. He admitted that the registration number of the motorcycle was not
Visible on the photographs Ex.P-1. It was correct that the photographs of the
offending vehicle and cycle were not taken by him at the spot. The photographs
of the motorcycle Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 were taken by them in the P.S at the
time of releasing the motorcycle on superdari. It was wrong to suggest that he
prepared all the seizure memos while sitting in the P.S. It was correct that he did
not take the bill of the cycle. It was wrong to suggest that no slip was handed over
by Shashikant to him. He denied that accused was falsely implicated in the
present case or that all the documents were prepared by him while sitting at the
P.S or that no such incident took place at the spot or that he never visited at the
spot or that he never recorded statement of any witness or that he did not conduct
investigation in a fair manner or that he was deposing falsely.
2.16. PW-16: Retd. ASI Umesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. B.N. Sharma stated in his
deposition that on 20.02.2009 he was posted as HC at PS Model Town. On that
day he was performing night emergency duty from 08.00 PM to 08.00 AM
alongwith ASI Dharamvir Singh. He assisted the IO in the present case. On
receiving information bearing DD No. 88-B regarding accident, he alongwith ASI
Dharamvir reached at the spot i.e. near Chatarshal Stadium, Ring Road, Delhi Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.02.21
17:01:18 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 14 of 22
where one motor-cycle and bycycle were found in accidental condition. They
came to know that the injured was taken to Trauma Center. ASI Dharamvir
leaving behind him at the spot went to the Trauma Center. After sometime, ASI
Dharamvir came back at the spot and handed over to him original rukka/ tehrir,
the same was taken by him to PS for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR,
he alongwith copy of registered FIR and original rukka came back at the spot and
handed over the same to ASI Dharamvir. After that IO/ ASI Dharamvir seized
accidental motor-cycle and bycycle vide seizure memo already Ex. PW15/B and
Ex. PW15/C respectivcely, both bearing his signature at point B. The case
property was deposited in malkhana by the IO. He deposed that he did not want
to say anything else.
Witness correctly identified the case property through the photographs to him
already Ex.P-1. Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 respectively.
Witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he deposed
that he alongwith ASI Dharamveer reached at the spot at about 08:10 PM and
remained there till 10:30-10:45 PM. First of all IO prepared tehrir which was
made at about 10:50 PM. Prior to tehrir no other document was prepared. IO went
to the hospital at about 08:30 PM and came back to the spot at about 11:00 PM.
When they reached at the spot at about 08:10 PM some public persons were
present there. No notice was served upon them to join the investigation. It was
also correct that no whereabouts were recorded by the IO at that time. he went to
the PS for registration of the case at about 11:00 PM and came back alongwith
copy of FIR at about 11:15 PM at the spot. The key of the offending vehicle was
also seized by the IO in his presence and he also put the signatures on the same.
He further deposed that after going through the record, no such seizure memo of
keys is on record. He alone took the offending vehicle to the PS about 11:30 PM.
It was correct that he had not made any arrival DD Entry at the PS. IO/ASI Digitally signed
HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU
SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date: 2026.02.21
17:01:25 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 15 of 22
Dharamveer also came at the PS alongwith him. It was correct that no
photographs were clicked by any of the police officials. It was also correct that no
photography or videography was done. It was also correct that no stead mark of
any of the vehicle was seen at the spot. His statement was recorded in the PS but
he could not say when the same was recorded by the IO. He could not say
whether any of the police officials gave their statement to the IO in that regard. It
was correct that he never visited the spot to join the further investigation. It was
correct that neither the accused was apprehended nor the arrest memo was
prepared at the spot. It was incorrect to suggest that he never visited to the spot or
joined the investigation and all the memos were signed by him while sitting in the
PS or that he was deposing falsely.
3. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
Before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally
explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the
statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 281 read with
Section 313 CrPC. Each and every incriminating document was put to him
separately and his plea was recorded in substance. In reply, the accused stated
that he was innocent. Accused chose to not lead DE.
4. FINAL ARGUMENTS
Final Arguments on Behalf of the Accused
Ld. counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to
prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.
It was submitted that the entire case rests on the testimony of PW-1, whose
evidence is riddled with material contradictions and admissions, including that
he did not see the accused at the spot and that visibility was poor due to fog. Ld.
defence counsel emphasized that no independent public witness was joined
despite the spot being a crowded area, and that even police witnesses have Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.02.21
17:01:31 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 16 of 22
admitted that the accused was not apprehended at the spot. It was further argued
that there is no reliable evidence to establish rash or negligent driving, as the
site plan is deficient, no skid marks were noted, and photographs were not taken
at the scene. Medical evidence, it was contended, does not conclusively connect
the injuries to a road traffic accident alone. In view of these glaring infirmities
and investigative lapses, ld. counsel urged that the accused is entitled to the
benefit of doubt and deserves acquittal.
Final Arguments on Behalf of the State Ld. APP
Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution has successfully established
the occurrence of the accident on 20.02.2009 and the resultant death of Arun
Chaudhary through cogent oral and documentary evidence. It was contended
that the presence of the offending motorcycle at the spot, the medical and
postmortem evidence, and the mechanical inspection report collectively
corroborate the prosecution version. Ld. APP submitted that PW-1, being a
natural witness accompanying the deceased, had no reason to falsely implicate
the accused, and his testimony clearly points towards the accused as the driver
of the offending motorcycle. It was further argued that minor discrepancies or
procedural lapses in investigation cannot overshadow the substantive evidence
on record, particularly when the accident and involvement of the vehicle stand
proved. According to the prosecution, the evidence, when read as a whole,
establishes rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused resulting in the
death of the deceased, thereby warranting conviction.
5. Appreciation of Evidence
The prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses to bring home the charge of
rash and negligent driving against the accused. The evidence may be
conveniently appreciated issue-wise, keeping in view the settled principle that
in cases under Sections 279/304-A IPC, the prosecution must establish, beyond
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.02.21
17:01:37 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 17 of 22
reasonable doubt: (i) identity of the accused as the driver of the offending
vehicle at the relevant time, (ii) that the vehicle was being driven in a rash or
negligent manner, and (iii) that such rash or negligent act was the direct and
proximate cause of death.
A. Occurrence of Accident and Death of Arun Chaudhary
From the testimonies of PW-2, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9, PW-10, PW-12, PW-13
and PW-14, it stands established that Arun Chaudhary suffered injuries on
20.02.2009, was taken to Sushruta Trauma Centre by PCR, and subsequently
expired. The postmortem report (PW-7) opines the cause of death to be cerebral
damage due to head injury, with injuries being ante-mortem and possible in a
road traffic accident. The factum of death and existence of injuries are,
therefore, not in dispute.
However, it is equally relevant to note that PW-12 (Dr. Munish), in his cross-
examination, categorically admitted that head injury is also possible by falling
from a height, falling on the floor, or due to assault. Thus, while the medical
evidence supports the fact of injuries and death, it does not, by itself,
conclusively attribute the same to rash or negligent driving by the accused, nor
does it exclude alternative possibilities.
B. Identity of the Accused as the Driver of the Offending Vehicle
The prosecution case on the identity of the accused primarily rests on PW-1
Shashi Kant Chaudhary, projected as the sole eyewitness. In his examination-
in-chief, PW-1 claimed that a motorcycle at high speed hit the bicycle of the
deceased and that the motorcyclist was apprehended by public persons.
However, in cross-examination, PW-1 made several admissions which strike at
the root of his credibility. He admitted that he did not see the accused at the
spot, that there was low visibility due to fog, and that the IO had taken his
thumb impressions on blank papers. These admissions materially weaken his
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.02.21
17:01:42 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 18 of 22
version and render his identification in examination-in-chief unsafe.
The remaining witnesses do not improve the prosecution case on identity. PW-3
(registered owner of the motorcycle) admitted that he did not see the accused
driving the motorcycle and that his statement was not even recorded by the
police. His evidence, therefore, only establishes ownership of the vehicle and
not the identity of the driver. PW-6 (PCR official) found the motorcycle and
bicycle in accidental condition but did not depose about the presence or
apprehension of the accused.
Most significantly, PW-16 HC Umesh Kumar, in his cross-examination,
admitted that neither the accused was apprehended nor the arrest memo
prepared at the spot, directly contradicting the version of PW-1 and casting
serious doubt on the prosecution claim that the accused was caught at the scene.
Thus, the identity of the accused as the person driving the motorcycle at the
relevant time remains not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
C. Rashness or Negligence in Driving
Even assuming the involvement of the motorcycle, the prosecution must further
prove that it was being driven in a rash or negligent manner. The evidence on
this aspect is conspicuously lacking. PW-1's assertion of "very high speed" is a
bald and subjective statement, unsupported by any objective or corroborative
material. His testimony is further weakened by the admitted poor visibility due
to fog.
The site plan, proved through PW-15 (IO), suffers from serious deficiencies.
The IO admitted that he did not mention the direction of movement of the
vehicles, skid marks, point of impact, or the position of the vehicles in a manner
which could indicate rashness or negligence. No skid marks were noticed by the
police witnesses. No photographs or videography of the spot were taken. The
photographs placed on record were admittedly taken at the police station and
Digitally signed
HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU
SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date: 2026.02.21
17:01:49 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 19 of 22
not at the scene of occurrence.
The mechanical inspection report (PW-8) merely notes damage to the
motorcycle and that the vehicle was fit for road test. It does not indicate any
mechanical failure, nor does it throw light on the manner or speed of driving.
Mechanical damage alone cannot be equated with rash or negligent driving.
In sum, there is no cogent evidence to establish how the accident occurred or
that it was the result of rash or negligent driving by the accused.
D. Quality of Investigation and Corroboration
The investigation, as reflected from the testimonies of PW-15 (IO) and PW-16,
suffers from material lapses. The place of occurrence was admittedly a crowded
area, yet no independent public witness was joined, nor were notices served
upon those who allegedly refused to join the investigation. The site plan is
vague and incomplete. Important procedural aspects, such as seizure of the
motorcycle key, movement of case property, and preparation of documents, are
either unsupported by record or contradictory. The document Ex. PW-15/H,
relied upon by the IO, admittedly bears no signature, date, or case particulars,
further eroding its reliability.
Such lapses assume greater significance where the case hinges on a solitary and
interested eyewitness whose testimony itself does not inspire confidence.
E. Cumulative Assessment
On a cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence, while the prosecution has
been able to establish that Arun Chaudhary died due to injuries sustained in an
incident on 20.02.2009, it has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused was the person driving the offending motorcycle at the relevant
time, or that the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving attributable
to him. The evidence on record raises more than one reasonable doubt, which
cannot be bridged by conjectures or by filling in gaps in the prosecution case.
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.02.21
17:01:55 +0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 20 of 22
6. Conclusion
Upon a holistic and careful appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this
Court finds that the prosecution has been able to establish only the factum of
death of Arun Chaudhary and the existence of injuries sustained by him on the
relevant date. However, in prosecutions for offences relating to rash and
negligent driving, proof of death alone is not sufficient. The prosecution is
required to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the identity of the accused as the
driver of the offending vehicle, the manner of driving amounting to
rashness or negligence, and a direct and proximate causal link between such
act and the death of the victim.
In the present case, the identity of the accused as the driver of the motorcycle at
the relevant time remains shrouded in doubt. The testimony of PW-1, the sole
purported eyewitness, does not inspire confidence in view of his material
admissions during cross-examination, including poor visibility at the spot and
his categorical statement that he did not see the accused at the place of
occurrence. The remaining witnesses are either formal, medical, or police
witnesses and none of them provide independent or direct corroboration
regarding the presence or apprehension of the accused at the spot. On the
contrary, police witnesses themselves have admitted that the accused was not
apprehended at the scene, thereby creating a serious dent in the prosecution
narrative.
Equally, the prosecution has failed to establish rashness or negligence in the
manner of driving. The allegation of "high speed" remains a bald and subjective
assertion, unsupported by any objective evidence such as skid marks, a reliable
site plan, spot photographs, or independent eyewitness testimony. The
deficiencies in the site plan, absence of contemporaneous photography, and theDigitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
Date:
SEHLOTH 2026.02.21
17:02:01
+0530
Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 21 of 22
admitted procedural lapses in investigation further weaken the prosecution case.
Medical evidence, while proving the nature of injuries and cause of death, does
not conclusively rule out alternative causes and, in any event, does not by itself
establish culpable rashness or negligence on the part of the accused.
Criminal jurisprudence mandates that suspicion, however strong, cannot take
the place of proof. Where the evidence on record gives rise to reasonable doubt
as to the identity of the accused and the essential ingredients of the offence, the
accused is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. In the present case, the
cumulative effect of the infirmities in ocular evidence, lack of independent
corroboration, and serious investigative lapses makes it unsafe to return a
finding of guilt.
Accordingly, the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
Resultantly, the accused Kanhaiya Lal S/o Sh. Lakhan Singh is hereby found not
guilty for offences U/s 279/304A of the IPC and is acquitted accordingly.
ORDER:ACQUITTED Pronounced in open court on 21.02.2026 in presence of the accused person. This judgment contains 22 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signedHIMANSHU by HIMANSHU SEHLOTH SEHLOTH Date: 2026.02.21 17:02:08 +0530 (HIMANSHU SEHLOTH) JMFC-03 / North / Rohini Courts 21.02.2026 Cr. Case no. 5281760/2016 State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Page 22 of 22