Delhi District Court
State vs . Tajender Singh on 1 March, 2011
FIR No. 570/98
PS Narela
Page no.1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK WASON
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 570/98
U/s. 279/304A IPC
PS: Narela
State vs. Tajender Singh
Date of Institution of case:-20.12.99
Date of Judgment reserved:- 01.03.11
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 01.03.11
JUDGMENT
Sl. No of Case :1021/2 Date of commission of offence :14.12.98 Name of complainant :Sh. Ram Chandra, S/o. Sh. Hitai Mandal, R/o. Village Raghali District Madhuvani, Bihar.
Name and address of accused :Tajender Singh, S/o. Sh. Ajit Singh, R/o. Village Khera Khurd.
Offence complained of :279/304 A IPC Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty Date of order :01.03.2011 Final order :Acquitted BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
The accused has been sent to face trial under Section 279/304 A Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) on the allegations that on 14.12.98, at about 5.30 p.m. near DESU office, Ganga Holy Road, Village Poot Khurd, Contd.../-FIR No. 570/98
PS Narela Page no.2 Narela, he was found driving vehicle i.e tractor bearing registration no. HNC-648 on the said public road in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving in the said manner, one person namely Bhikari Mandal sitting in the trolley fell down and died (not amounting to culpable homicide) and on the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR bearing no. 570/98 was registered at Police station Narela and the accused has been charged with the offences under Section 279/304 A IPC.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. The copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and notice was given to him vide order dated 15.02.00, to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution has examined only six witnesses.
4. PW 1 is Dr. Rajesh Gupta, CMO, Civil Hospital. He has proved detailed postmortem report of Bikhari Mandal as Ex. PW 1/A. He was not cross examined by accused.
Contd.../-
FIR No. 570/98PS Narela Page no.3
5. PW 2 is Head Constable Rattan Singh. He has proved the copy of the FIR as Ex. PW 2/A. He was not cross examined by accused.
6. PW 3 is Sh. Jiwan Mandal. He has identified the dead body of his brother-in-law Bhikari Mandal and proved his statement as Ex. PW 3/A. He was not cross examined by accused.
7. PW 4 is Constable Vinod Kumar. He has deposed that on 14.12.98 on receiving DD no.14, he alongwith SI Bhagwan Singh reached at Village Pooth Khurd, at Khera Road and found one tractor with trolley and a dead body in it and driver Tajender Singh i.e accused in the present case. He has further deposed that the accused had informed that a labourer had fallen from the trolley and came under the tractor. He has further deposed that the number of tractor was HNS-0648. He has further deposed that IO prepared rukka, got the FIR registered, tractor with trolley was seized, personal search of accused was conducted and driving licence of accused was seized. He was cross examined by the accused.
Contd.../-
FIR No. 570/98PS Narela Page no.4
8. PW 5 is Retired Sub-Inspector Jai Singh. He has proved his detailed mechanical inspection report as Ex. PW 5/A.
9. PW 6 is Sh. Dalel Singh. He is the registered owner of the tractor bearing no. HNC-648. He has proved the superdginama furnished by him as Ex. PW 6/A. He was not cross examined by the accused.
10. It is matter of record that no other witness was examined by the prosecution despite being given last and final opportunity to conclude prosecution evidence through IO as well as DCP office vide order dated 20.07.09, 11.03.10, 25.05.10, 03.09.10, 19.10.10 and again on 18.11.10 and accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 01.02.11.
11. Subsequent to the recording of statement of witnesses, statement of accused was recorded and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused in which he has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that he does not want to lead defence evidence and final arguments were heard.
Contd.../-
FIR No. 570/98PS Narela Page no.5
12. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the state, Ld. Counsel for accused as well as perused the record.
13. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for the offences U/s. 279/304 A IPC. To prove a case U/s. 279/304 A IPC against the accused, the prosecution has to prove the following facts:-
a). that the accused was driving the vehicle i.e tractor with trolley bearing no. HNC-648 in a rash and negligent manner.
b). that while driving the said vehicle in the aforesaid manner, the accused has caused death of Bhikari Mandal (not amounting to culpable homicide).
14. In the present matter, the testimony of public witnesses are material one. It is matter of record that public witnesses namely Shankar Mandal and Ram Chander were summoned but they did not come to the court to depose regarding the accident in question. It is also matter of record that even bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against them various times through DCP office and bailable warrants received back unexecuted and hence, these both witnesses could not be examined before the court. Other Contd.../-
FIR No. 570/98PS Narela Page no.6 witnesses are formal in nature and no witness examined by the prosecution has ever deposed regarding driving of offending vehicle by the accused in rash and negligent manner. Even none of the witnesses have deposed that they have seen the accused driving the offending vehicle on the day of the accident. Therefore, there is no evidence before the court by which it can be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the first aspect i.e the accused was found driving vehicle i.e tractor with trolley bearing no. HNC-648 on the day of the accident in rash and negligent manner and thereby causing accident in question. When this fact has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, then there is no need to consider the other aspects. This fact has not been proved by the prosecution.
15. Other witnesses are formal in nature and their evidence are of no avail for the prosecution and no amount of evidence can lead to the conviction of the accused. In these circumstances, I am of the view that benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
16. In view of the discussion made above, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt.
Contd.../-
FIR No. 570/98PS Narela Page no.7 Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 279/304 A IPC.
17. His previous bail bond is extended in terms of Section 437 A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
DEEPAK WASON METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURT, DELHI ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e on 01st March, 2011.
Contd.../-