Delhi District Court
State vs Raju on 20 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI
State V/s Raju
FIR No. 566/03
PS: Ashok Vihar
JUDGMENT
A) The date of commission : 11/10/2003
of offence.
B) Name of the complainant : Dashrath S/o Sh. Mohan Singh
R/o. H.No. 400, I-Block,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
C) Name of the accused : Raju
S/o. Sh. Bhuram Ram
D) Offence complained of : U/s 279/338 IPC
E) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
F) Final order : Convicted U/s. 279/338 IPC
G) The date of such order : 20.07.2012
Date of Institution : 17/03/2004
Judgment reserved on : Not reserved
Judgment announced on : 20/07/2012
State V/s Raju FIR No. 566/03 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 1/11
THE BRIEF REASON FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 11/10/2003 at about 09:30 am at in front of KC Block within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ashok Vihar, accused was found driving a vehicle bearing No. DL 1PA 7184 in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others & while so driving caused grievous injuries on the person of one Dashrath and thereby committed offence U/s 279/338 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation challan was filed by the police U/s 279/338 IPC of which cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
3. Compliance of Sec.207 was carried out and complete set of documents was supplied to the accused.
4. Vide order dated 01/12/2004 notice U/s. 251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused for trial of offences U/s 279/338 IPC by the Ld. Predecessor to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
State V/s Raju FIR No. 566/03 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 2/115. So far prosecution has examined 4 witnesses to prove the allegations against accused.
A brief scrutiny of examined PWs is as under.
PW-1 ASI Krishan Singh is the IO of this case and has detailed about the steps taken by him during the course of investigation. He proved site plan as Ex. PW-1/B, seizure memo vide which offending bus was seized as Ex. PW-1/C, personal search memo as Ex. PW-1/C, seizure memo of DL of accused as Ex. PW-1/D. PW-2 Sh. Dashrath is the injured. He deposed that on 11.10.2003 he boarded bus route No. 235 having registration No. DL 1PA 7184 from Ashok Vihar More for Water Tanki Wazirpur and when his stand came he asked driver of the bus i.e. the accused on which he stopped the bus and before he could completely alight from the bus, the accused moved his bus all of a sudden and he fell down on the road from the bus and the left rear tyre of the bus struck him and caused him injuries on his leg and hand. Further he deposed that he was taken to S.L. Jain hospital where police recorded his statement Ex. PW-2/A and later on from there he was shifted to Ahuja Nursing Home Karol Bagh. He further deposed that the accident was caused due to negligence of the accused. Further that police arrested the accused at his instance. He correctly identified the accused.
This witness was cross examined by accused wherein he denied the suggestion that the accused was not driver of the bus. He further denied the suggestion that accused had taken him to hospital. He further denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused under misconception finding him in the hospital that he was the driver of the bus.
State V/s Raju FIR No. 566/03 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 3/11PW ASI Ram Bhau was examined as PW-2. He proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW-2/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW-2/B. PW-3 Retd. ASI Devender mechanically inspected the vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1PA 7184 and proved his report as Ex. PW-3/A.
6. P.E. was closed on 27.03.2012 and thereafter statement of accused was recorded under section 281/313 Cr.P.C, to which he claimed innocence but preferred not to lead D.E. Thereafter the matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through the evidence and the material available on record.
8. The following facts needed to be proved by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused:-
a) That the alleged vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1PA 7184 was being driven by the accused at the time of alleged accident.
b) That the alleged accident happened due to the said vehicle being driven by the accused in rash and / or negligent manner.
c) That due to the alleged accident, injured Dashrath received grievous hurt.State V/s Raju FIR No. 566/03 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 4/11
9. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused has been falsely implicated by the injured/complainant. It is further submitted that the police did not bother to make any public person to witness the incident despite their being presence of public persons at the spot.
10. Per contra Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he should be convicted.
11. From the rival arguments and material on record I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove their case beyond shadows of reasonable doubt.
12. Identity of the accused and the offending vehicle There is not an iota of doubt regarding the identity of the accused as the man behind the wheels of the offending vehicle on the fateful day, at the relevant time.
The accused was identified by injured/PW-2 Dashrath, as the one who was driving the offending vehicle DL 1PA 7184 at the relevant time.
State V/s Raju FIR No. 566/03 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 5/11Further, during his examination u/s 281/313 Cr.P.C the accused gave evasive answers and deposed that he was arrested but a false case has been planted upon him.
The accused did not make any complaint to any authorities including the court. The accused led no defense evidence to prove that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Further he could not discredit the testimonies of PWs. The court has no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who have corroborated each other in all material aspects about the accused driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
Accused should have led evidence in his defense to show that he was not the actual offender and has been falsely implicated, which he chose not to. The personal search of accused was taken vide memo Ex. PW-1/C and his DL was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/D and the bail bond and personal bond dated 11.10.2003 i.e. the day of incident corroborates the version of the complainant regarding his identity. Had he been falsely implication, he could have approached the court or senior police officials for the same but the same was not done.
In view of the above discussions, no doubt remains as to the identity of the accused person as the driver of the offending vehicle.
State V/s Raju FIR No. 566/03 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 6/1113. Rash and Negligent Act What is rash/negligence varies from case to case and there cannot be any fixed parameters for judging rashness/negligence. At the same time, there cannot be any assumption/presumption of the same. Rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand is the gross and culpable or proper case and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. ( Niranjan Singh v . State (Delhi Administration), (Delhi) 1996(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 320 .
Meaning of expression negligent act and rashness came up for discussion in the case titled as Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala, (SC) 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 605 and the Hon'ble Apex Court Held :-
(1) A negligent act is an act done without doing something which are a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it - A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately.
(2) Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law.State V/s Raju FIR No. 566/03 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 7/11
(3) Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
It was held in Ishwar Singh V. State of Haryana 2000 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 571 That the driver cannot be presumed or assumed to be rash. Such accident are now innumerable with the tremendous increase in traffic but still the negligence or rashness of an accused must be exhibited, explained and proved on record as to what was omitted by the driver of the offending vehicle which he should have take care of & as to what act was committed by him which led to the accident.
Now coming to the fact that whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and/or negligent manner. To prove the same, prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW-2/injured Dashrath. There is use of word negligence in the testimony of this witness to show the manner of the offending vehicle being driven by the accused. Though the use of these words by themselves do not show the act of the accused being negligent but does speaks volumes about it.
PW-2 has stated in his examination in chief that before he could completely alight from the bus, the accused moved his bus all of a sudden and he fell down on the road from the bus and the rear tyre of the bus struck him and caused him injuries on his leg and hand. The very fact that the accused moved his bus before the injured/PW-2 Dashrath completely disembarked proves his negligence and rashness. It was the imperative State V/s Raju FIR No. 566/03 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 8/11 duty of the accused as the driver of the bus to stop the vehicle at a designated bus stop so that the passenger can alight or board the bus. In the instant case as per the testimony of the injured the accused did not stop at the bus stop while the injured was alighting from the bus did not stop the bus in a proper manner so that he could have alighted with ease. Even thereafter, when the injured had alighted the bus was not stopped in time and the injured came under the effect of the rear wheel of the bus and suffered injuries. This was sheer negligence on the part of the accused by not taking proper precautions and safety measures for the alightment or boarding of passenger.
In view of the above discussions it can be deduced safely that the accused acted rashly and negligently while driving the offending vehicle.
14. Cause of injuries of the victim The next requirement to prove the case against the accused is whether the injuries received by the injured Dashrath was Causa Causan and not the Sine Qua Non of the rash/negligent act of the accused. To hold the accused guilty it must be proved on the record that the act of the accused must be the proximate cause of the injuries received and not the remote cause.
PWs have stated that immediately after the accident, injured was taken to Sunder Lal Jain hospital, Delhi where M.L.C No. 4852/03 was prepared by Dr. Ravi Gupta. Dr. Ravi Gupta had opined the nature of the State V/s Raju FIR No. 566/03 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 9/11 injuries to be "grievous". Accused did not dispute the genuineness of the M.L.C and the same was exhibited as Ex. X 1. As per M.LC Ex. X 1, on 11/10/2003 at 10:30 a.m, the injured Dashrath was brought to the hospital with History of RTA (Road Traffic Accident). The time of accident being approx. 09.30 a.m and injured being taken immediately to hospital clearly shows the injuries being causa causans of the accident.
Therefore, in view of above discussions, the prosecution has sufficiently proved on the record that the proximate cause of the injuries received by the injured was the accident caused by the accused by his rash and negligent driving.
The contentions of the the Ld. Defence counsel that no public person as stated by the complainant who were on the spot at the time of alleged incident were made witnesses by the IO at the spot which casts serious doubts upon the prosecution story does not hold water in my opinion. There was no requirement of the same and absence of any public person(apart from 'interested' witnesses examined) has not affected the prosecution story in any manner. The Indian Evidence Act does not specify any particular number of witnesses required to prove a fact and a fact can be proved even by one witness whether he is official or independent public witness depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Law requires that evidence has to be weighed and not counted (Ambika Prasad and Ano. Vs State 2002 (2) FIR No. 130/99 16/22 CRIMES 63 (SC) . The Evidence Act does not lay down about any number of witnesses needed for proving a particular fact.
State V/s Raju FIR No. 566/03 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 10/11Thus, in view of the above discussion, the corroborative testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined and the documents on record, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. Accordingly the accused is held guilty for offences u/s 279/338 I.P.C and convicted accordingly.
A copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost and the matter be now listed for arguments on the point of sentence.
(Bhupinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts : Delhi Announced in the open court on July 20th, 2012.
State V/s Raju FIR No. 566/03 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 11/11