Delhi District Court
State vs . Inderjeet Singh on 3 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. APOORVA RANA, M.M-10,
DWARKA COURT (SOUTH WEST), NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSW02-046123-2018
Cr. Case 30623/2018
STATE Vs. INDERJEET SINGH
FIR NO. 208/2018
P.S Kapashera
03.02.2023
JUDGMENT
Case No. : 30623/2018
Date of commission of offence : 29.04.2018
Date of institution of the case : 24.11.2018
Name of the complainant : Sh. Bhupesh Arya
Name of accused and address : Inderjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Phal
R/o Village Munim
Pur, PS Jhajjar
District, Jhajjar,
Haryana.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 279 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted
Date reserved for judgment : 02.01.2023
Date of judgment : 03.02.2023
State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.1 / 18
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. The present case pertains to prosecution of accused Inderjeet Singh (here-in-after referred to as the accused), pursuant to charge sheet filed qua him under Section 279 IPC (hereinafter IPC for sake of brevity) subsequent to the investigation carried out at P.S: Kapashera, in FIR no. 208/18.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.04.2018, at about 06.15 p.m at Kapashera Chowk, within the jurisdiction of PS Kapashera, the accused was found driving a cluster bus no. DL1PD 2548, in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. Consequently, an FIR was registered in the present case and after investigation, the police filed the present charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable u/s 279 IPC.
3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. Notice for offence punishable u/s 279 IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, the accused, vide his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, had admitted the genuineness of copy of FIR No. 208/2018 alongwith certficate u/s 65B of IEA Ex. A1(colly).
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4. The prosecution, in support of the present case has examined four witnesses in total.State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.2 / 18
5. PW-1 was Sh. Chander Prakash, who was the mechanical expert and who deposed that on 15.01.2018, he had conducted the mechanical inspection of vehicle Maruti SX4 car bearing no. DL 2CAH 0667 and made the report in respect of the same. As per the report, the right side front mudguard was dented and scratched and right side front bumper was scratched and removed from its place. There was also scratch and damage on head light on the right side and front bumper was damaged. He further deposed that the front mudguard was moved towards outer side and the right side focus light was damaged. He also stated that the left side mudguard had moved towards outer side.
He then deposed that he had also conducted the mechanical inspection of the vehicle Tata Markpolo bearing no. DL 1PD 2548 and prepared a report in that regard. Through him, mechanical inspection report of Maruti SX4 car was exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and mechanical inspection report of vehicle Tata markpolo was exhibited as Ex. PW 1/B.
6. PW-2 was Ct. Rajesh, who deposed that on 29.04.2018, he was posted at PS Kapashera as Constable and joined the investigation in the present case with ASI Kamal Singh. That, on that day, the complainant Bhupesh Arya came to the PS alongwith his car bearing no. DL2CAH0667 and one bus bearing no. DL1PB2548 and gave his statement to ASI Kamal Singh, upon which ASI Kamal Singh registered the FIR. He then deposed with respect to the investigation carried out by the IO in the present case. Through him, seizure memos of offending car State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.3 / 18 and bus were exhibited as Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B respectively, arrest memo of the accused was exhibited as Ex. PW2/C, personal search memo of accused was exhibited as Ex. PW2/D and photographs of the car of the complainant were exhibited as Ex. P1.
7. PW-3 was ASI Kamal Singh, who was the IO in the present case and who deposed that on 29.04.2018, he was present at PS Kapashera when at about 6:15 PM, complainant Bhupesh came to the PS along with accused Inderjeet Singh and told him that the bus of the accused had hit the car of the complainant from right side as the driver of the said bus suddenly took a turn on the red light. He thereafter deposed on similar lines as PW2 and further deposed with respect to the investigation carried out by him in the present case. Through him, statement of complainant was exhibited as Ex. PW3/A, rukka was exhibited as Ex. PW3/B, site plan was exhibited as Ex. PW3/C, seizure memo of DL was exhibited as Ex. PW3/D, seizure memo of RC, insurance and permit of the vehicle was exhibited as Ex. PW3/E, the offending vehicle was exhibited as Ex. P2.
8. PW-4 was Sh. Bhupesh Arya, who deposed that on 29.04.2018 at around 06.00 PM, he was going from Pushpanjali farms and going towards his house in his car bearing registration no. DL2CAH0667 i.e. Maruti SX4. When he reached at Kapashera Chowk on the red light, he was waiting for the green signal and his car was on the extreme left. That the moment State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.4 / 18 green signal showed up, suddenly, the accused, who was on the right side of the road, turned his bus on the extreme left side and hit against the car of the said PW and caused damage to his car and tried to flee away from the spot. But he was stopped by the said PW at some distance. The said PW got down from his car and asked the accused to come down from the bus, however, the accused started abusing him in filthy language and threatened him that he would run over his bus on the said PW. Thereafter, the PW called PCR and the police came at the spot and he narrated the incident to them. The said PW thereafter deposed with respect to the investigation carried out in the present case.
9. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, PW at serial no. 5, DO/HC Rajesh Kumar, as per list of prosecution witnesses was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by him was dispensed with.
10. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, P.E was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
11. Statement of the accused u/s 281 Cr.P.C read with Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him. The accused controverted and denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.5 / 18 implicated in the case. Accused further opted to not lead evidence in his defence, hence DE was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
12. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence u/s 279 IPC has been proved beyond doubt.
13. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no evidence against him showing his liability in the present case and thus, he is entitled to be acquitted in the present case. It has also been argued that there are material contradictions and lacunae/inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution, due to which the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
14. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and accused have been heard. The evidence and documents on record have been carefully perused.
State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.6 / 1815. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. Accused Inderjeet Singh has been indicted for the offence u/s 279 IPC. Section 279 IPC provides punishment for offence of driving a vehicle in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. To drive home the guilt of the accused under section 279 IPC in road accident cases, following ingredients are required to be proved:- a). That the accused was the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time when the accident occurred. b). That the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
16. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that the main ingredient upon which the said offences hinge upon is that the act of the accused should be done in a rash or negligent manner. These words "Rash" and "Negligent" have not been defined in the IPC. However, the meaning of the said terms have been exhaustively delineated by way of various judicial pronouncements. In Empress v. Idu Beg, (1881) ILR 3 All 776, Straight, J. made the following pertinent observations which have been quoted with approval by various Courts, including the Apex Court:
"Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence 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 State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.7 / 18 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".
Similarly, in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam vs State Of Andhra Pradesh (2000 SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has inter alia held the following:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
Again, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rathnashalvan vs State Of Karnataka (2007 SC) that:
"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. 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. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. 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 State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.8 / 18 done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused."
17. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal.
18. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it may be noted at the every outset, that the entire case of prosecution hinges upon the testimony of PW4, that is the complainant himself, who is the sole eye witness in the case. Now, from perusal of the testimony of the various prosecution witnesses as well as the overall defence taken by the accused in the present matter, including at the time of recording of statement of accused under section 281 read with section 313 of Cr.P.C., it can be conclusively said that a collision had taken place between the two vehicles in question. Furthermore, even the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time does not appear to be disputed on behalf of the accused. During the entire course of evidence, the aforesaid facts have not even been once denied on behalf of the accused. The overall defence of the complainant highlighted from record is to the effect that the incident in question had occurred due to the negligence of the complainant himself. Thus, the facts that the accident in question had occurred between the two vehicles in question and that the State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.9 / 18 accused was the driver of the offending cluster bus at the relevant time can be said to be uncontroverted and established facts.
19. In such a scenario, where the fact, that the accident had occurred and that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time, has been proved, the following issue remains to be determined:
(i) Whether the said accident was caused by a rash and negligent act, attributable to the accused by virtue of his being the driver of the offending vehicle / cluster bus at the relevant time.
20. To establish the aforesaid fact, the main witness whose testimony is relevant in this regard is that of PW4 Bhupesh Arya, i.e., the complainant, who was the sole eye witness to the accident in question. The circumstances in which the accident is purported to have occurred, were delineated by the said witness during his testimony, wherein, he deposed that on 29.04.2018, at around 6 PM, he was coming from Pushpanjali farms and going towards his house in his car bearing registration number DL2CAH0667. That, upon reaching Kapashera Chowk at the red light, he was waiting for the signal to turn green and his car was on the extreme left. That, the moment the green signal showed up, suddenly the accused, who was on the right side of the road turned his bus on the extreme left side and struck the same against his car, causing damage to the car of the complainant. Now this account given by PW4 is in consonance State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.10 / 18 with the overall case of the prosecution as regards the manner in which the accident had occurred. The main allegations bringing out the essential ingredient of rash and negligent driving by the accused are to the effect that at the red light traffic signal at Kapashera Chowk, the offending vehicle was on the right side of the road and when the signal turned green, at the time the accused had turned the offending vehicle to the left side of the road in a sudden manner. Such an act of taking a sudden turn on a road towards the left side from the right side of the road, by the driver of the offending vehicle, in the opinion of this Court, can certainly be said to fall within the purview of a rash and negligent act. On this aspect, this Court draws strength from Rule 3 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which states the manner in which the driver of a motor vehicle is required to maneuver its vehicle when taking a turn, and is reproduced as follows:
"3 Turning to left and right. The driver of a motor vehicle shall:
(a) when turning to the left, drive as close as may be to the left hand side of the road from which he is making the turn and of road which he is entering;
(b) when turning to the right draw as near as may be to the centre of the road along which he is travelling and arrive as near as may be at the left hand side of the road which the driver is entering."
Further, as per rules 13 and 14 of the same, the driver is also required to give signal/indicator when taking a turn.
21. PW4, during his testimony has explicitly deposed State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.11 / 18 that the while waiting for the green signal at the Kapashera traffic signal, the accused was on the right side of the road and the moment the signal turned green, he suddenly turned his vehicle on the extreme left side and struck against the car of the complainant, resulting in damage to the same. When seen in light of the afore-cited rules, the accused can be very well said to have not observed the required norms of driving his cluster bus on the road and thereby acted in a rash and negligent manner. In fact, the accused being a driver by profession ought to have been aware of this basic rule of traffic/driving on the road. Further, during cross-examination, PW4 clearly stated that Mark A shown in the site plan Ex. PW3/C depicted the position of his car and Mark B on the same depicted the position of the offending vehicle/cluster bus. Holistically viewed, the testimony of the said witness has remained unrebutted on all material aspects pertaining to the manner in which the incident in question is stated to have occurred. It is not the defence of the accused that he had taken all due precautions as were required, reasonable and necessary at the time of taking the turn towards his left side and only upon being assured of the safety of other vehicles, had he taken the turn at the signal as averred. In fact, not even a single suggestion in this regard has surfaced on behalf of accused in his defence, let alone any compelling proof to counter the same.
22. Additionally, as per the mechanical inspection report of the car of the victim Ex. PW1/A, inter alia the mudguard on the front right side was found dented and scratched and the bumper from the front right side was found scratched and State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.12 / 18 removed from its place. Damage and scratch on the right headlight was also reported. Not only this, the front mudguard was also found to have been moved towards the outer side. Last but not the least, focus light on the right side was also found damaged. During the course of trial, mechanical expert concerned was examined as PW1, whose testimony, by and large, remained unimpeachable. Though, during cross examination of the said witness, a suggestion was put forth on behalf of the accused to the effect that the damages on the vehicle in question were not fresh, however, no cogent proof in aid of the said suggestion if forthcoming on behalf of the accused. The description of the damage sustained by the vehicle of the victim is in consonance with the damage reported by the complainant and is also in congruence with the damage visible in the photographs of the vehicle of the victim, Ex. P1(Colly), thus appending a corroborative value to the version of the complainant and the prosecution case, altogether.
23. Now, as noted above, the testimony of the complainant/PW4 has remained unrebutted and unshaken on material particulars. The Ld. counsel for the accused has primarily addressed arguments in defence, on the following fronts. Firstly, it was argued that no photographs of the offending vehicle have been placed on record. At this juncture, it is imperative to note that identity of the offending vehicle has specifically not been disputed on behalf of the accused during the entire course of trial and thus, this argument raised on behalf of accused pales into insignificance. Further, it has been contented State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.13 / 18 that the fact that no damage was sustained by the offending vehicle during the collision raises doubts regarding the actual occurrence of the incident in question. However, it is essential to note that during his testimony PW3/IO has specifically stated that the damage sustained by the bus/offending vehicle was not substantial. Further, considering the size of the offending vehicle vis-a-vis the size of the victim vehicle and the manner in which incident in question is stated to have occurred, it is likely that the bus sustained minimal or no significant damage. During the cross-examination of IO/PW3, a suggestion was put across to the said PW to the effect that the victim vehicle / car had suffered damages on its front side owing to the fact that the said car had hit the bus from behind and not otherwise. Yet again, nothing in support of the said contention had been brought on record by the accused. It is not even the case of the accused that the bus had sustained damages on its posterior owing to any such collision by the victim vehicle from the back side, as would have rendered credence to this postulation on behalf of the accused. It was also argued that there is a delay of 3 hours in registration of the FIR in the case. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the accident in question is reported to have occurred at around 6:15 PM and the FIR came to be registered at around 9:15 PM. Further, it is the specific case of the complainant that not only had he apprehended the accused after he tried to flee away from the spot, but also that he along with the accused had gone to the police station for purpose of reporting the matter to the police. Furthermore, it was also admitted by the complainant that talks of settlement between the parties could not fructify at the PS. It State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.14 / 18 was only after this chain of events, that the FIR in the case came to be registered and thus, the lapse of time period of 3 hours in registration of FIR appears to be reasonable in normal course of things. Even otherwise, since no question was put forth to the IO in this regard during his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused during trial, the said fact cannot come to the aid of the accused at this stage.
24. Additionally, it has also been argued by the Ld. counsel for the accused that there are certain lacunae in the version of the prosecution witnesses, for instance, no public person was made witness in the case or was joined by the IO during investigation and the same casts doubt upon the case of prosecution. However, it would be apposite to the reiterate the settled legal position on this aspect that non-joining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and another V. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following in Manjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab ( 2019 SC):
"13.2. Likewise, the submission about want of independent witnesses in support of prosecution case is also baseless. There is no rule that in every criminal case, the testimony of an injured eye-witness needs corroboration from the so-called independent witness(es). When the statement of injured eye-witness is found trustworthy and reliable, the conviction on that basis could always be recorded, of course, having regard to all the facts and surrounding factors. In the present case, the reliable evidence of the injured eye-State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.15 / 18
witnesses cannot be discarded merely for the reason that no independent witness was examined."
25. Apart from the above, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the accident in question occurred owing to the own negligence of the complainant and that the offending vehicle was not at fault. However, there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest the said fact. In fact, as noted earlier, even the damage reported to have been sustained by the victim vehicle, as per its mechanical inspection report, corroborates the manner of accident as depicted by the complainant. The testimony of the complainant/ PW4 has stood the vigorous test of cross examination and has remained steadfast on all material particulars. At this juncture, it is imperative to note that this Court is cognizant of the fact that the site plan does not portray the direction of movement of the vehicles in question at the relevant time. PW3/IO was also questioned on this aspect during his cross examination. However, during his testimony, the complainant has sufficiently deposed as regards the manner in which the vehicles were stationed/moving at the relevant time and as regards how the accident is stated to have occurred and his testimony on the said aspect, as observed earlier, has not faltered. Also, it is not the case of the defence that the vehicles in question were moving in a direction other than what has been delineated by the complainant during his testimony. In such backdrop of facts, since convincing evidence as regards the movement of the vehicles in question at the relevant time has already been brought on record through the testimony of the complainant himself, this State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.16 / 18 Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid irregularity in the preparation of the site plan by the IO is not so material as would shatter the case of the prosecution. Even otherwise, it is a settled law that defective / improper investigation by the investigating agency is solely not a ground for acquittal as it would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designed to be defective [reliance placed on Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P. (1995 SC) and Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh (2003 SC)].
26. In the present case, in the opinion of this Court, no such material contradictions / inconsistencies appear to have surfaced during testimony of the prosecution witnesses, as would impeach the credibility of version of prosecution and prove fatal to its case. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who have corroborated each other in all material aspects. The testimony of the complainant in particular has remained untarnished and unwaivering. The contentions raised on behalf of the accused neither singularly nor holistically, shroud any doubt upon the version of the prosecution. Further, once the case of the prosecution had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it was incumbent upon the accused to rebut the same, which the accused has failed to do. The aforementioned leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has been able to duly prove its case against the accused, for offence punishable under sections 279 IPC, beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this Court hereby, holds accused Inderjeet Singh guilty for commission of offence State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.17 / 18 u/s 279 IPC.
27. In light of the aforesaid discussion, accused Inderjeet Singh is hereby convicted for offence u/s 279 IPC, alleged against him. Convict be heard separately on quantum of sentence.
28. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Announced in open Court
on 03.02.2023, in presence of Digitally
signed by
convict and Ld. Counsel for
APOORVA
APOORVA RANA
RANA
convict.
Date:
2023.02.03
16:18:02
+0530
(APOORVA RANA)
M.M-10/Dwarka Courts/03.02.2023
It is certified that this judgment contains 18 pages, all signed by the undersigned. Digitally signed by APOORVA APOORVA RANA RANA Date:
2023.02.03 16:18:11 +0530 (APOORVA RANA) M.M-10/Dwarka Courts/03.02.2023 State Vs. Inderjeet Singh Page Nos.18 / 18