Delhi District Court
State vs . Sabir Khan on 29 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03, NORTH DISTRICT ,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Sabir Khan
FIR No. 667/2005
PS. Jahangir Puri
U/s. 279/304A IPC
CIS No. 5283448/16
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission : 14.10.2005
of offence
2) The name of the complainant: : Kashmir Singh
3) The name & parentage of accused : Sabir Khan
S/o Liyakat Khan
4) Offence complained of : U/s. 279/304A IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 29.11.2018
Date of Institution : 06.02.2006
Judgment reserved on : 03.11.2018
Judgment announced on : 29.11.2018
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 14.10.2005,
FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 1/15
at about 8:30 PM, at Mukarba chowk bypass red light, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangir Puri, accused was
driving vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration no. UP30A5782 in a
rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal
safety of others. It is further the case of prosecution that while driving
the said vehicle in aforementioned manner, accused struck his truck
against a pedestrian Manjeet Singh and ran over him, who succumbed
to his injuries and thereby, accused committed offence u/s 279/304A
IPC.
2) After completion of investigation, chargesheet against the
accused was prepared and filed in the Court whereupon cognizance
was taken. After complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C.
Notice for accusation for offences u/s. 279/304A IPC was served
upon the accused, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
3) In Prosecution evidence, the prosecution got examined nine
witnesses.
4) PW1 Sh. Kashmir Singh deposed that on 14.10.2005 at about
8.00 pm, he along with his brotherinlaw Sh. Manjit Singh were
going towards Karnal Bypass, Mukarba Chowk from Azadpur, Delhi;
that when they were crossing the red light at Mukarba Chowk, a truck
FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 2/15
came there from the side of Azadpur with fast speed and in a rash and
negligent manner and hit against his brotherinlaw who was just
ahead of him at the time of crossing the road; that police official who
was on motorcycle chased the offending vehicle and apprehended the
driver of the same i.e accused. He further deposed that he narrated the
incident to police who recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A; that the
accused was arrested and personally searched in his presence vide
Ex.PW1/B & Ex.PW1/C; that offending vehicle was taken into
possession by police vide memo Ex.PW1/D; that the relevant
documents of the vehicle were also taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW1/E; that his brotherinlaw succumbed to his injuries as the
offending truck ran over his brotherinlaw at the time of accident;
that he is illiterate and cannot tell the registration number of the truck,
however, the offending vehicle was bearing the UP registration
number.
5) In his crossexamination by Ld. defence counsel, PW1 Kashmir
Singh admitted that he was not present at the spot at the time of
accident. He also admitted that he had not seen the driver; that he did
not know the number of offending vehicle; that he went to the
hospital in police vehicle soon after accident along with victim; that
he signed the document at PS; that he did not know where site plan
was prepared.
FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 3/15
6) In his crossexamination by Ld. APP, PW1 stated that they
were crossing the road together; that driver of the truck was
apprehended by police officials after chasing. In his cross
examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW1 stated that he was at a
some distance at the time of accident and he had reached there after
the accident.
7) PW2 Ct. Dharamvir deposed that on 14.10.2005, he was posted
at PP DDA Fats, Jahangir Puri and on that day on receiving the copy
of DD no.32 regarding accident, he alongwith ASI Vijender Singh/IO
went to the spot i.e. Mukarba Chowk, Karnal bypass where the
offending truck no.UP30A5782 was brought by the traffic police
official Ct. Manoj Kumar and the complainant Kashmir Singh
alongwith the accused; that the injured had already been shifted to the
hospital by PCR officials; that he was left at the spot and IO went to
the hospital; that after sometime, IO returned back and handed over
him a rukka for getting the case registered; that he returned back with
rukka and copy of FIR which were handed over to the IO who
prepared a site plan at the instance of complainant; that the truck and
its relevant documents were taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW1/D and E; that the driving license of the accused was also
taken into possession in his presence vide memo Ex.PW2/A; that
accused was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW2/B
and C; that the injured succumbed to his injuries; that post mortem of
FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 4/15
the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and thereafter his
dead body was handed over to his relatives vide receipt Ex.PW2/B.
8) In his crossexamination, PW2 stated that DD no.32 was
received at about 8.45 O'clock; that accident did not take place in his
presence; that he did not remember the time when IO came back the
spot from the hospital. He denied that he did not visit the spot or that
no proceeding was conducted by IO in his presence or that IO
obtained his signature while sitting at PS or that accused has been
falsely implicated in the present case.
9) PW3 is Inderjeet Singh who deposed that on 15.10.2005, he
went to BJRM hospital mortuary and identified dead body of his
deceased brother vide Ex.PW5/A and later on, he obtained the dead
body of his deceased brother vide Ex.PW2/B.
10) PW4 SI (Retd) Kesari Ram deposed that on 14.10.2005, he was
Incharge of Commander98 and was present at Mukarba Chowk
bypass; that one truck bearing no.UP30A5782 came from Azadpur
side and hit one person who was going on the road; that the truck
driver alongwith the truck ran away from the spot; that they heard
noise and went to the spot; that they saw that traffic Ct. Manoj
Kumar alongwith Kashmira Singh started chasing the abovesaid
truck; that they shifted the injured to BJRM hospital; that he gave
FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 5/15
information to CommanderI; that doctor of BJRM hospital declared
the injured namely Manjeet Singh as brought dead; that they again
came back at the spot; they met Ct. Manoj Kumar, who produced the
driver of the abovesaid truck namely Sabir Khan and IO recorded his
statement.
11) In his crossexamination by Ld defence counsel, PW4 stated
that they were three officers in PCR van; that he did not remember
name of other two officers; that his duty hours were 8.00pm to
8.00am; that the entry of heavy vehicles like truck are allowed after
about 9.00pm; that the time of accident was around 8.30pm; that he
did not stop the truck before the stand even when it was being driven
before the entry time; the PCR van was standing at a distance of 90
to 100 steps from the spot; that Ct. Manoj was present near the spot.
He further stated that accident had taken place in his presence and his
staff; that he cannot tell why the other two officers of PCR were not
examined and made witness by IO; that he did not ask Ct. Manoj and
Kashmir to chase the offending truck; that he did not remember
whether IO recorded statement of other police officers or not; that the
truck came from the side of Azadpur; that injured was also coming
from that side and he did not remember the name of the person who
was with injured.
12) PW5 ASI Rohtash deposed of registering the FIR, copy of
FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 6/15
which is Ex.PW5/A and made endorsement on the original rukka vide
Ex.PW5/B. He was not cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
13) PW6 ASI Sanjay Kumar is the DD writer who deposed that at
about 08.55 PM, he received a call from Control Room regarding
accident which he entered into a rojnamcha vide DD no.32PP and
handed over the same to ASI Vijender, true copy of DD entry
no.32PP is Ex.PW6/A.
14) PW7 HC Manoj deposed that on 14.10.2005, he was on duty
from 3.00 pm to 12 midnight at Mukarba Chowk; that he was
regulating the traffic at the spot; that at about 8.30pm, a truck bearing
no.UP30A5782 came from the side of Azadpur and turned towards
ISBT whereas he had not given the signal to the traffic to turn to right
towards ISBT; that truck was being driven in high speed though he
cannot tell the exact speed; that at that time two surds (Granthi) were
crossing the road; that truck hit the granthi who was walking ahead.
He further deposed that that the injured was crushed under the truck;
that other granthi whose name was Kashmira raised alarm but the
driver of the truck did not stop or slow down the truck; that at that
time, he had parked his motorcycle on that road. He further deposed
that he on his motorcycle alongwith Kashmira chased the truck and he
stopped the truck before Bhalswa Chowk by intercepting the truck
with his motorcycle; that at that time accused Sabir Khan was driving
FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 7/15
the truck; that he made accused drive the truck back to the spot; that
by that time, injured had been shifted to BJRM hospital by PCR van
official; that IO came to spot from PS; that he handed over accused
and offending truck to IO and then he resumed his duty and regulated
the traffic at the spot.
15) In his crossexamination, PW7 stated that at that time traffic
signal was there but not working; that he was standing in center; that
Kashmira and the deceased were relatives. He denied that he was not
present at the spot or that he did not see the accident taking place or
that accused and offending vehicle were not brought to the spot or
that accused has been falsely implicated in this case or that he was
deposing falsely.
16) PW8 ASI (Retd.) Vijender Singh deposed about the
investigation part conducted by him. He deposed that on 14.10.2005,
on receipt of DD no.32 PP at about 9.10pm regarding accident, he
along with Ct. Dharamveer went to spot where he came to know that
injured had already been shifted to hospital; that he left the Ct
Dharamveer at spot and went to BJRM hospital where he obtained the
MLC of injured; that he did not find any eye witness in the hospital;
that he came back to spot where he found Ct Manoj, Kashmira Singh
and offending truck & driver of the truck. He further deposed of the
investigation part i.e. recording statement of eyewitness Ex.PW1/A,
FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 8/15
prepared site plan Ex.PW8/B, seizure of offending truck and its
documents vide memos Ex.PW1/D & Ex.PW1/E respectively, seizure
of DL of accused vide memo Ex.PW2/A; arrest & personal search of
accused vide memo Ex.PW1/B & Ex.PW1/C respectively. He further
deposed that case property was deposited in the Malkhana, he
prepared inquest report, got conducted postmortem of deceased,
recorded statement of witnesses, got the vehicle mechanically
inspected and filed chargesheet after completion of the investigation.
17) In his crossexamination, PW8 stated that he reached at spot at
about 9.30pm; that he did not meet any person at the spot; that he did
not remember the exact time while he reached the hospital; that he
found no eye witness at hospital; that when he reached at the spot for
the first time, he did not find offending vehicle and accused there; that
he formally arrested accused from spot at about 2.00am; that except
Kashmira Singh, Ct. Manoj was also eyewitness; that he prepared
site plan in early morning of 15.10.2005; that he did not obtain
signature of Kashmira and Ct. Manoj on site plan. He denied that he
did not visit the spot or that he did not conduct the investigation or
that he prepared documents while sitting at the PS or that he was
deposing falsely.
18) PW9 Dharamveer deposed that he is the owner of the truck
no.UP30A5782 and after the accident he got released his truck on
FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 9/15
superdari vide memo Ex.PW9/A; that on the day of incident accused
Sabir Khan was driver of his truck.
19) After prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313
Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein accused pleaded innocence and false
implication in the present case. He opted not to lead defence
evidence.
20) I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld.
Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
21) It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an
accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on
the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The general burden of establishing the guilt of accused is
always on the prosecution and it never shifts.
22) In the present case, complainant/PW1 Kashmir Singh, PW4 SI
(Retd) Kesari Ram and PW7 HC Manoj are the most material
witnesses for the prosecution, who are stated to be the eyewitnesses
examined in this case. Hence, their testimony is required to be
scrutinized with greatest care and circumspection in order to arrive at
the conclusion whether the same is clear, cogent and reliable to bring
home guilt of the accused in the present case.
FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 10/15
23) Whereas, complainant/PW1 Kashmir Singh deposed on the
lines of prosecution case in his examinationinchief except stating of
the number of offending vehicle and the fact of his chasing the
offending vehicle along with one police official, he contradicted
himself in his cross examination by stating that he was not present at
the spot at the time of accident. He also admitted that he had not seen
the driver in contrast of what he stated in his examinationinchief,
where he identified accused as driver of offending vehicle and also
stated that accused was arrested in his presence. When he was again
cross examined by Ld. defence Counsel, he admitted that he was at
some distance at the time of accident and he reached there after the
accident. Hence, this witness took a volatile stand as to the material
facts and circumstances and cast serious doubt over his presence at
the spot and also about witnessing the incident in question. He
deposed that he is an illiterate and cannot tell the registration number
of truck and that he did not know the registration number of offending
vehicle. However, in sharp contrast to this, his statement Ex. PW1/A
find mention of the number of offending vehicle. All such
inconsistencies and contradictions in the version of complainant/ PW
1 seriously affects his trustworthiness and credibility and make him
unworthy of credence. It is well settled that a witness making
inconsistent and contradictory statement with respect to material facts
and circumstances is unworthy of credence.
FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 11/15
24) Moreover, testimony of other eyewitnesses i.e PW4 SI (Retd)
Kesari Ram and PW7 HC Manoj are also not free from
susceptibilities and contradictions, which also make them unreliable
and unworthy of credence. Whereas, PW4 SI (Retd) Kesari Ram
deposed that one truck bearing no.UP30A5782 came from Azadpur
side and hit one person who was going on the road. However, his
testimony is not in consonance with the DD entry no. 32PP dated
14.10.2005, wherein it was recorded that it was informed by the ASI Kesari Ram that one unknown vehicle caused accident at Mukarba chowk and went away. Meaning thereby that as per the aforesaid DD entry, it was some unknown vehicle which caused the accident as per information given by ASI Kesari Ram, whereas, the same police official i.e. PW4 deposed about the truck number which he saw coming from Azadpur side, which clearly create doubt over his truthfulness and credibility. Not only this, he stated in his cross examination that the entry of heavy vehicles like truck are allowed after about 9.00pm; that the time of accident was around 8.30pm; that he did not stop the truck before the stand even when it was being driven before the entry time. This again cast doubt as to why the said heavy vehicle was not stopped by the police officials even when it was allegedly on road before the permitted entry time. This again makes the prosecution story doubtful.
25) PW7 HC Manoj deposed that after the accident, he alongwith FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 12/15 Kashmir chased the truck at his motorcycle, stopped the accused driving the truck and made the accused drive the truck back to spot. He also stated that by that time, injured had been shifted to BJRM hospital by PCR Van officials. However, contradictorily, complainant/PW1 Kashmir Singh stated in his cross examination that he went to the hospital in police vehicle soon after accident along with victim. He also admitted that he did not saw the driver. Meaning thereby that as per complainant, he did not went on a motorcycle alongwith any police official to chase the offending vehicle and rather, he immediately went to hospital along with victim. This is clearly in contradiction of what was deposed by the PW7 in this regard. Moreover, as per PW7, when he came back to the spot, IO came there from PS and he handed over accused and offending truck to the IO. However, contradictorily, IO/PW8 ASI Vijender Singh stated in his cross examination that when he reached at the spot for the first time, he did not find offending vehicle and accused there. IO denied that he did not mention the time of arrest of accused in arrest memo. However, no such time of arrest of accused is mentioned in arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. Hence, sufficient doubt has been cropped up into the prosecution case. On the basis of such material on record, finding of guilt of accused cannot be recorded.
26) None of the other witnesses examined by the prosecution were present at the given time and place of incident. None of them had FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 13/15 even seen the accused driving the offending vehicle. Material available on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case.
27) It is settled preposition that the prosecution has to prove the guilt against beyond all reasonable doubt and that too by leading independent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. There is no controversy to the proposition that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt occurring in the prosecution case. The general principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, are to be borne in mind.
28) In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused for offence u/s 279/304A IPC. Accordingly, accused Sabir Khan is acquitted of the said offences U/s. 279/304A IPC. Accused is directed to furnish fresh bail bond in terms of Section 437A of Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount. Bail bond furnished and accepted. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court (SACHIN GUPTA)
on 29nd Day of November MM3/North District
Rohini Courts/Delhi,
29.11.2018
FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 14/15
FIR No. 667/05, PS. Jahangir Puri, State Vs. Sabir Khan, CIS No. 5283448/16 15/15