Delhi District Court
State vs . Major Singh on 23 September, 2015
FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 IN THE COURT OF SH. POORAN CHAND : CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI FIR No.:57/2000 PS: DBG Road U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs. Major Singh Unique ID No.: 02401R1377892008 J U D G M E N T:
______________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case : 654/02
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Amar Singh R/o 16/904, H Block, Hardhyan Singh Road, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of offence : 22.03.2000
(d) Name of the accused : Major Singh
S/o Sh. Bachan Singh
R/o B116, Tara Nagar, Kakrola,
Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 279/304A IPC
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 21.09.2015
(h) Final Order : Convicted
(i) Date of such order : 23.09.2015
State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 1 of 19
FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from the record are that on 22.03.2000 at about 7.45 am at DBG Road Ajmal Khan Road Crossing, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station DBG Road, accused was found driving one bus bearing registration number DL1P8101 of route No. 853 on a public way in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. Further while driving the aforesaid bus in aforesaid manner struck against one Teekam @ Rasia, as a result of which the said Teekam @ Rasia died at the spot. On receipt of DD no. 7, mark X regarding accident, IO SI Satinder Rathi alongwith Ct. Subhash reached at the spot where he found one bus and one dead body lying in front of the bus. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of complainant namely Sh. Manoj Kumar Ex. PW2/A and prepared tehrir Ex. PW5/A and got the FIR Ex. PW4/A registered through Ct. Subhash. After conducting the necessary investigations including preparation of rough sketch, seizure memo of offending vehicle and documents, registration of FIR, arrest of accused etc., accused was chargesheeted for offence punishable u/s 279/304A IPC and filed before the Court for judicial verdict.
Detail of Court Proceedings:
2. After filing of the charge sheet in the case, the accused was supplied the documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C and thereafter vide order State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 2 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 dated 22.02.2002, notice u/s 251 Cr.PC for offences U/s 279/304A IPC was served upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, whereafter the PE in the matter was closed. Thereafter, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, accused led evidence in his defence as DW1 and DW2.
Evidence Held:
4. Total six witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
5. PW1 Smt. Roshni Devi deposed that she is the registered owner of the bus bearing registration No. DL1P8101. She gave reply u/s 133 of M V Act to the police vide Ex. PW1/A wherein it is mentioned that on 22.03.2000 the said bus was being driven by accused Major Singh. She got released the aforesaid bus on superdari vide Ex. PW1/B. The photograph of the said bus is Ex. P1. The bus is Ex. PA.
6. PW2 Sh. Manoj Kumar is the star eye witness/complainant who deposed that on 22.03.2000 he alongwith his maternal uncle Sh. Teekam Singh were going to Karol Bagh via Ajmal Khan Road. It was in between 7.30 State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 3 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 to 8.00 am. When they were at the crossing of Ajmal Khan Road, one bus of route No. 853 bearing registration No. DL1P8101 came from the side of Paharganj in a rash and negligent manner and struck against his Mama, while they were going towards the store. He died at the spot. The driver stopped the bus. Many persons collected there. The driver was apprehended by the public.
He had seen the driver at the time of accident. He can identify the driver. Police had came at the spot and had recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A. He had also identified the dead body of his Mama at Mortuary. Police had recorded his statement to that effect, which is Ex. PW2/B. The dead body was also received by him vide the receipt Ex. PW2/C.
7. PW3 HC Subhash Chand deposed that on 22.03.2000 he was posted at Police Station DBG Road. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 7A regarding accident he alongwith SI Satinder Rathi went to the spot of accident situated at crossing of DBG Road and Ajmal Khan Road. One dead body of male person was found lying there and at some distance from the dead body one bus No. DL1P8101 was standing at that time. Eye witness of the occurrence namely Sh. Manoj Kumar was also present there whose statement was recorded by the IO and a rukka was also prepared on the statement which was given to him for getting the same registered at Police Station. He accordingly got the present case registered at the Police Station on the basis of the said rukka and returned to the spot where he handed over copy of FIR with original rukka to SI Satinder Rathi for investigation. IO tried to arrange the State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 4 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 government photographer but no such arrangement could be done, hence he directed him to bring the personal camera of IO with help of which photographs of the spot were taken. The said photographs of the dead body are on record which are Ex. PX collectively (five in number). The bus in question was also seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. On the direction of IO he took the said bus to Police Station DBG Road and deposited the same in Malkhana. The driver of the said bus already present at the spot hence on direction of the IO he had taken the driver to the Police Station and handed over his custody to duty officer. Thereafter, he went to Mortuary Subzi Mandi where IO had already taken the dead body. The dead body was got identified from the near relatives of the deceased and the postmortem was got conducted. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the near relatives of the deceased. Thereafter, they returned to Police Station. The driving licence and documents of the bus were asked from the driver. He produced the said documents which were seized vide memo Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW3/C. The documents are marked A collectively and the DL is marked B. After making enquiry from accused he was arrested by the IO. The personal search memo is Ex. PW3/D and the arrest memo is Ex. PW3/E. On presenting the surety, accused was released on police bail.
8. PW4 ASI Waheeda Rani Reddy deposed that on 22.03.2000 she was posted at Police Station DBG Road as duty officer between 8.00 am to 4.00 pm. At about 9.30 am, he received one rukka brought by Ct. Subhash sent by State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 5 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 SI Satender Singh for registration of FIR. He registered the present FIR on the basis of the rukka and handed over the copy of FIR with original rukka to Ct. Subhash. The investigation was marked to SI Satender Singh. He has brought the original FIR, copy of same is Ex. PW4/A. His endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW4/B. Cross examination of this witness was recorded as NIL as accused did not put any question to this witness despite grant of opportunity in this regard.
9. PW5 Inspector Satinder Singh is the IO who deposed that on 22.03.2000 he was posted at Police Station DBG Road. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 7A regarding accident mark X at Ajmal Khan Road and DBG Road Crossing, he alongwith Ct. Subhash Chand reached at the spot and found one dead body was lying on road and one bus bearing No. DL1P8101 of route No. 853 was lying near the dead body at a distance of 50 steps. On inquiry, one person namely Manoj relative of deceased met at the spot who narrated about the manner of accident to him. He recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A. He prepared tehrir Ex. PW5/A and gave it to Ct. Subhash for registration of FIR, who went to the Police Station and got the case registered. After sometime he returned to the spot with copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over to him. He prepared site plan at the instance of Manoj Ex. PW5/B. Complainant Manoj Kumar also identified the driver of the offending vehicle who was also present at the spot. The offending vehicle was taken into State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 6 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. After interrogation, accused was arrested and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex. PW3/E and Ex. PW3/D. The driving licence of accused and photocopies of documents of vehicle were taken into possession vide seizure memos Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW3/C. The dead body was taken into hospital/Mortuary where dead body was identified by the relatives of the deceased vide statements Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW5/C. After postmortem dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide memo Ex. PW2/C. Thereafter, he returned to the Police Station and offending vehicle was deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station. During investigation, offending vehicle was mechanically inspected vide memo Ex. PW5/D. He recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC. He took the photographs of the spot. Five photographs are Ex. PX. He recorded the statement of owner of vehicle who appeared before him on the notice u/s 133 of M V Act Ex. PW1/A in which she disclosed that at the time of accident, accused Major Singh was driving the vehicle. After completion of the investigation, he prepared the challan and submitted it before the Court through SHO concerned.
10. PW06 Dr. Sreeniwas, Professor, Forensic Medicine, MAMC has deposed that he has seen postmortem report No. 192/2000 dated 22.03.2000 of deceased Tikam @ Rasia prepared by Dr. Avneesh Gupta. The said doctor left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. Postmortem report is Ex. PW6/A bears the signatures of Dr. Avneesh at point A running State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 7 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 into four pages. The cause of death in this case was haemorrhagic shock consequent upon blunt force trauma to the pelvis. All injuries are antemortem and could be caused in vehicular accident.
11. DW1 Sh. Paramjit Singh deposed that on 22.03.2000 he was working as helper in bus No. DL1P8101. On that day, they had started from Karol Bagh and when they reached Kikarwala Chowk, one person was lying on the road. Police personnel stopped the vehicle and they informed that one person sustained injuries. Their bus was vacated and passengers were shifted in another bus. Their bus taken to Police Station. He remained in Police Station for about one and half hour. Thereafter, he left the Police Station but the bus was impounded by police.
12. DW2 Sh. Jawahar Singh deposed that on the day of incident, Paramjeet Singh was helper on his bus bearing registration number DL1P8101. The bus is registered in the name of his wife namely Smt. Roshni Devi and he was looking after the bus. The bus was under DTC on kms. basis and a new conductor was deputed by the DTC on daily basis. The helper Paramjeet later reached at his home and informed that a body is lying at the road when their bus crossed. The bus even did not touch the said body and bus had gone to ahead two or three bus stops and police came and took the bus back where the body was lying. After about twothree days his bus was released. State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 8 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015
13. This is all as far as prosecution evidence in the matter is concerned.
Arguments advanced and case law relied upon :
14. I have heard arguments advanced by both the sides at length and have also perused the material available on records and the written submissions filed on behalf of accused.
15. It is argued on behalf of accused by Ld. defence counsel Sh. C P Malik that in this case accused is falsely implicated. It is also argued that prosecution case rests only on the testimony of single witness i.e. PW2 Manoj Kumar. There is no corroboration to the testimony of this witness. It is also argued that the PW2 does not know as to who informed the police. It is also argued that PW2 was walking 1015 steps behind his Mama. He further stated that his Mama was struck by the rear end of the offending vehicle. Hence, there was no negligent on the part of driver of offending vehicle and it was deceased who was negligent. It is also argued that DD No. 7 is not proved on record. There are many contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Hence, it is prayed that accused is entitled to be acquitted in this case.
16. Per contra, Ld. APP has argued that there is no such law that as to how many number of witnesses shall be required to prove a case. It is the quality of the evidence of witness and not the quantity of evidence. PW2 has proved the State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 9 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. From the testimony of PW2 it is evident that his Mama was moving at the side of the road and accused while driving his aforementioned vehicle hit against his Mama from the rear side of the offending vehicle. It is further argued on behalf of State that the pedestrian have a right to walk on the pedestrian way and if there is no pedestrian they have a right to walk on the side of the road. All the motor vehicle drivers have a duty towards pedestrians and the motor vehicle driver is supposed to drive in such a manner that he does not hit the pedestrian. Ld. APP also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as "Jeet Lal Vs. The State" decided on 03.08.2010. In view of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, accused be convicted and sentenced as per law.
17. Before commenting on the merit of the case, I would like to discuss the law on the contradictions as pointed out by Ld. defence counsel. It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution has to prove its case on the judicial file beyond reasonable doubts and such doubts in the prosecution story entitle the accused to acquittal. In a case reported as Rama Kant Rai v. Madan Rai 2003 (8) Scale 243 it has been ruled that a person has no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to proof is an exercise particular to each case. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 10 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 speculation. Law cannot afford any favourites other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not a imaginary, trivial or a merely possible; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. The concepts or probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously, be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analyze, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately on the trained intuition of judge.
While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice. In Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab J.T. 2003 (6) S.C. 248 it has been ruled that exaggerate devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must be nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law (see : Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and other J.T. 1989 (4) S.C. 38; AIR 1990 SC 209 prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 11 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 the accused (see: State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastva J.T. 1992 (1) SC 340; AIR 1992 SC 840). A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether if the meticulous hypersensitivity for eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish (See : Inder Singh and Anr. v. State of (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1978 SC 1091). "A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are his public duties." Per Viscount Simon in Stirland Vs. Director of Public Prosecution, 1994 AC (PC), 315 quoted in State of UP Vs Anil Singh JT, 1988 (3) SC 491; AIR 1988 SC 1998.
In Visveswarn V. State 2003 Rajdhani Law Reporter 350 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that in a criminal trial duty of the courts is not to let off criminals on petty discrepancies and minor contradictions. They must show responsibility. Ground realities must be appreciated. Accused be not allowed the benefit of defective investigation. Prosecution lapses cannot be allowed to become escape of criminals. If there is sufficient proof of guilt by border probability, court must ignore technical objections.
The relevant paragraph of the Judgment relied by the prosecution is State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 12 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 reproduced here as under:
"The pedestrians have a right to walk on the pedestrian way and if there is no pedestrian way, they have a right to walk on the side of the road. All motor vehicles drivers have a duty towards pedestrian and merely because a pedestrian is walking on the side of the road, no motor vehicle driver has a right to hit the pedestrian from behind. The very fact that the truck driver did not care for the persons walking ahead on the road and did not apply brakes to save the pedestrian walking on the road itself shows that the Crl. Revision 382/2010 Jeet Lal v. The State Page 2 of 3 truck driver was negligent. It is not the case of the petitioner that the deceased in this case had suddenly jumped before the truck. No suggestion was given to the witness that the deceased was not walking on the side of road or had suddenly come into the middle of the road in front of the truck. The negligence of motor vehicle driver who does not look ahead of the vehicle and does not bother to see the nature of traffic to keep appropriate speed so that the vehicle does does not hit others, is writ large. Every motor State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 13 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 vehicle driver is supposed to drive the vehicle in accordance with road conditions, traffic density and presence of pedestrian on the road. Where the traffic density is more and pedestrians are also walking on the road, the motor vehicle driver is supposed to drive in such a manner that he does not hit the pedestrian and the motor vehicle would stop immediately on application of brakes. If this caution of driving a vehicle in a proper manner is not taken, this would amount to negligence and if the motor vehicle hits somebody from behind, due to such driving or nonapplication of brake, this is criminal negligence.
18. Now, I come on the facts of the present case. To prove the charge against the accused prosecution examined as much as six witnesses. PW2 Manoj Kumar is the sole eye witness examined to prove the charge and other witnesses are police witnesses, superdar and the IO. I have gone through the testimonies of these witnesses. At the cost of repetition, I would like to reproduce relevant part of the testimony of this witness. PW2 has stated that "It was in between 7.30 to 8.00 am. When we were at the crossing of Ajmal Khan Road, one bus of route No. 853, bearing registration No. DL1P8101 came from the side of Paharganj in a rash and negligent manner and struck State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 14 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 against my Mama, while we were going towards the store. He died at the spot. The driver stopped the bus. Many persons collected there. The driver was apprehended by the public. I had seen the driver at the time of the accident. I can identify the driver. (The accused present in the Court today is correctly identified by the witness)".
19. PW2 Manoj Kumar is a layman and is a chance witness and has no intention to falsely implicate the accused in the present case as there is no enmity pointed out by defence with this witness. It is settled preposition of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if the court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the prosecution. As per Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
20. In the present case, prosecution is under a duty to prove the following facts in issue:
(i) whether accident was caused by the bus in question bearing registration number DL1P8101;
(ii) whether accident was caused due to rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle i.e. bus bearing no. DL1P8101;
(iii) whether present accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident?
State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 15 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015
21. I will decide all the three issues simultaneously. PW2 has categorically stated that accused was driving the bus coming from the side of Paharganj in a rash and negligent manner and struck against his Mama while they were going towards the store. The driver was apprehended by the public. He had seen the driver at the time of the accident. He handed over the accused to the police then and there. The offending vehicle was seized by the IO in the present case which has been proved on record from the spot. The site plan of the accident is also prepared at the instance of PW2 by the IO which is proved on record. In view of the testimony of PW2 coupled with the corroboration of the offence, this Court has no hesitation to held that accident was caused by bus bearing registration number DL1P8101. PW2 deposed that bus was coming in rash and negligent manner. This act of accused in itself shows negligent on his part because accused was under a duty to stop the bus on the road but he did not do so. It is clear from the record that accident occurred at around 7.30 to 8.00 am in the morning. The volume of traffic on the road at around 7.30 am to 8.00 am remains light. From the circumstances, this Court is of the view that accused anticipating that bus being on high speed hit the pedestrian which was coming from the opposite side. PW2 has also categorically stated that he has seen the accused at the time of accident, therefore I have no hesitation to held that it was accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and hit the pedestrian due to which the deceased died at the spot. So far as the arguments of the accused that State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 16 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 deposition of PW2 that "accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner" does not ipso facto attribute any negligence on the part of the accused is concern. PW2 Manoj Kumar categorically deposed that while he alongwith his Mama going towards the store the offending vehicle struck against his Mama. During cross examination in response to the question put to this witness by the accused he has deposed that deceased was struck by the rear end of the offending vehicle. He has deposed that he did not notice whether any other persons were also walking on that side of the road near his Mama. The cumulative effect of testimony of this witness, it is clear that he was moving in the right direction on the road and while passing through the deceased accused did not perform his duty to take care of pedestrian which he otherwise owe towards pedestrian moving on the road. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as "Jeet Lal Vs. The State"
decided on 03.08.2010 relied by the State the pedestrians have a right to walk on the pedestrian way and if there is no pedestrian way, they have a right to walk on the side of the road. In these circumstances, the manner in which accident has been caused in itself shows negligent of accused. In view of the legal proposition as discussed above and the evidence come on record this Court is of the view that minor contradictions as pointed out by the Ld. defence counsel does not prejudice the case of the prosecution. I totally agree with the arguments advanced by the Ld. State counsel that it is quality of evidence of witness and not the quantity of evidence as no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. I held that State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 17 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 PW2 Manoj Kumar being a chance witness is a reliable witness and there is no material contradiction in the testimony of this witness.
22. PW1 Roshni Devi deposed that on 22.03.2000 the offending vehicle was being driven by accused Major Singh. No only this DW1 and DW2 have also categorically deposed that offending vehicle was being driven by accused Major Singh on 22.03.2000. The only defence of accused is that no accident was caused by the bus in question. Both the DW's have deposed that dead body was already lying on the road when the bus reach there. This defence is not plausible as there are material contradictions in the testimony of both the DW's. DW1 has deposed that "one person was lying on the road. Police personnel stopped the vehicle and they informed that one person sustained injuries. Their bus was vacated and passengers were shifted in another bus. Their bus taken to Police Station" whereas DW2 has deposed altogether different story. DW2 has deposed that "The bus even did not touch the said body and bus had gone to ahead two or three bus stops and police came and took the bus back where the body was lying". Therefore, there are material contradictions in the testimony of both the DW's which prejudice the defence of accused. Therefore, in view of above reasons, I hold that at the time of the accident accused was driving the offending vehicle.
23. In view of my above reasons, I am of the considered view that accused while driving the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL1P8101 was State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 18 of 19 FIR NO. 57/00: PS DBG Road; U/s 279/304A IPC DOD: 23.09.2015 rash and negligent. Hence, accused is convicted for offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC. Let convict be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court (Pooran Chand)
on 23.09.2015 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
State V/s Major Singh (Convicted) Page 19 of 19