Delhi District Court
State vs Kamal Vats on 11 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS RUCHIKA SINGLA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -04, ROOM NO.212
DWARKA, DELHI
STATE versus Kamal Vats
FIR No. 22/13
PS: Dwarka South
U/s-279/427 IPC.
1. Serial No. of the case : 0240 5R 0197982013
2. Date of commission of offence : 22.01.2013
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Pintoo Kumar, S/o Sh. Hari Narayan
4. Name of the accused, and his : Kamal Vats S/o Sh. Pramod
parentage and residence R/o 198, B-Block, Gali No. 14, Harijan Basti,
Naseerpur, Delhi
5. Date of Reserving Judgment : 10.10.2014
6. Date when judgment was : 11.11.2014
pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : Section 279/427 IPC
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
9. Final Order : Convicted
10. Date of Order : 11.11.2014
JUDGMENT
Brief Statement of the reasons for the decision of the case
1. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that the accused Kamal has been brought before this court for trial on the allegation that he had committed the offence under Section 279/427 IPC, Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) as on 22.01.2013, he was driving a Car bearing registration no. DL-2CN-1143 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving the offending vehicle, he hit one taxi bearing no. DL-1RY-2621 and caused damage to public property. An FIR was lodged at the behest of Sh. Pintu Kumar.
State v. Kamal Vats FIR no. 22/13 PS Dwarka South Page 1 of 6
2. The investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 279/427 IPC on 10.07.2013. After hearing arguments on charge, a notice under Section 279/427 IPC was framed against the accused on 25.09.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence. PW1 ASI Azad Singh is the DO. PW2 Ct. Jai Parkash is the witness in the arrest of the accused who accompanied the IO in the investigation of the case. PW3 Shri Puran Chand is the Mechanical Inspector. PW4 Pintu Kumar is the complainant. PW5 SI Dinesh Kumar is the IO. The PE was closed vide order dated 17.09.2014 and the statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded on the same day whereby the accused pleaded false implication. The accused did not lead defence evidence. Hence, the DE was closed. Thereafter, final arguments were advanced by the Ld. APP and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and the matter was reserved for orders.
3. The Prosecution has alleged that the accused has committed the offences under Section 279/427 IPC. Section 279 IPC is as under:-
''Rash driving or riding on a public way- Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on an any public way 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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend one thousand rupees or with both''.
4. To bring home the charge under Section 279, IPC, the prosecution must prove the following:
a) that the accused was driving a vehicle;
b) he was driving the said vehicle on a public way;
c) he was driving the vehicle in a a rash and negligent manner; and
d) he was driving the vehicle in such a manner so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
5. The accused has denied that he was driving the said vehicle. The prosecution version is the contrary. Ld. APP has argued that the offence is made out against the accused on the basis of the testimony of PW4 Pintu Kumar who stated on the Oath that on 22.01.2013 when he was going towards Sector-10, Dwarka, he reached at Sector-10 Red light and the accused reached at the spot in the offending vehicle and hit his car. Some police persons were following him. Later on, when he was State v. Kamal Vats FIR no. 22/13 PS Dwarka South Page 2 of 6 taken out he was found in drunken condition. It is stated by the Ld. APP that the said witness clearly deposed on oath that the accused was driving in a very fast speed and the accident had occurred due to negligence of the accused. Further, after the police was called at the spot, they found the accused along with the offending vehicle in an accidental condition at the spot. The same is proved from the testimonies of PW2 Ct. Jai Parkash and PW5 SI Dinesh. The offending vehicle was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW2/C and was produced in court. The same was correctly identified by PW4 Pintu and was proved as Ex.P1. The same was mechanically inspected by PW3 Puran Chand whose report is Ex. PW3/B. The mechanical inspection report in respect of the complainant's vehicle is Ex. PW3/A. On a conjoint reading of the two reports, it can be easily seen from the damage caused to both the vehicles that the accident was of a higher magnitude indicating towards the rash and negligent act of the accused.
6. Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated. He submits that there are a number of discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses. He submits that PW4 Pintu Kumar stated that the accident occurred at about 06.00 PM while the DD entry no. 34A regarding the information of accident was made at 06.20 PM. Also PW2 Ct. Jai Parkash stated that he had already received the DD entry at about 06.00 PM. Further, there is a confusion regarding the offending vehicle that whether the same is a Alto Car or a Maruti 800 Car. It is stated that at some places the same is mentioned to be the Alto Car while the latter is mentioned at other places. This discrepancy is also present in the testimonies of the witnesses. Then it is stated that the complainant mention in his testimony that there were three other persons sitting in the car of the accused but they were not joined in the investigation. Their statements were not recorded. Even their names have not been mentioned in the charge sheet. Thereafter, in the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW3/A, it is mentioned that the complainant's vehicle was damaged at both the front and the back side but the reason for the same was not explained in the charge sheet. Later on, PW4 in his cross-examination stated that due to the impact of the accident, his car hit in a pole. It is submitted that actually the complainant himself was driving uncontrollably due to which the accident occurred. Hence, it is stated that the rash and negligent driving of the accused is not proved. Hence, he is liable to be acquitted.
7. I have perused the record. In his statement u/s 313 CrPC, the accused denied each and every question put to him. He stated that he was not present at the spot and that he was called to the Police State v. Kamal Vats FIR no. 22/13 PS Dwarka South Page 3 of 6 Station on the day of the accident. However, this version is not indicated in the cross-examination conducted by the ld. Counsel for the accused. There is not even one suggestion to either the complainant or the IO that the accused was not present at the spot or that the accused was not driving the offending vehicle. It is a very settled principle of law that mere averment in the statement u/s 313 CrPC is not evidence. Separate evidence has to be led to this effect which has not been done in the present case. Further, this is also a well settled principle of law that when a fact is not specifically denied by a party, the same is deemed to be admitted by him. In the present matter as mentioned earlier, the accused has not put even one suggestion to either the complainant or the IO that he was not present at the spot or that he was not driving the offending vehicle. Hence, in view of the same it is proved that the accused was driving the offending vehicle and was present at the spot. From the charge sheet and the testimonies of the witnesses, it is also apparent that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way. Hence, this essential ingredient is also made out.
8. Now, most importantly, the prosecution must prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In the opinion of the Court, the said fact is proved from the testimony of PW4 Pintu Kumar. As mentioned earlier, he has clearly deposed regarding this fact on oath. Further, the mechanical inspection reports Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW2/B also indicate the severity of the accident. The complainant's vehicle was damaged from the left and the right side and all the four windows were damaged. The offending vehicle was damaged from the front and the left side. Its number plate, front mirror, both head lights, indicator, front bonnet and driver side mirror were broken. The photographs of the vehicle have been placed on record as Ex. PW5/B1 to Ex. PW5/B4. From the photographs it can be seen that the offending vehicle was badly damaged on the front side. Hence, from the state of things, the extent and gravity of the accident can be seen. Also, PW4 Pintu has categorically deposed on oath that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
9. Now, certain objections were raised by the Ld. Counsel for the accused regarding the discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses in the present case. He submitted that PW4 Pintu Kumar stated that the accident occurred at about 06.00 PM while the DD entry no. 34A regarding the information of accident was made at 06.20 PM and PW2 Ct. Jai Parkash stated that he had already received the DD entry at about 06.00 PM. In the opinion of the court, the same is immaterial. The DD entry would naturally be made after the incident had occurred. Further, the police witness may have State v. Kamal Vats FIR no. 22/13 PS Dwarka South Page 4 of 6 stated the wrong time due to lapse of time. Police officials are involved in investigations day in and day out. Such a lapse is quite natural. Further, admittedly at some places the offending vehicle is mentioned to be the Alto Car while the same is mentioned as Maruti 800 car at other places. However, it is impertinent to mention that both the car models are similar in make and the same may be an inadvertent mistake. Even otherwise, the vehicle was produced in the court and correctly identified by the witnesses. Also, the registration number of the vehicle has been mentioned correctly by all the witnesses. Hence, the vehicle has been proved.
10. Then, the Ld. Counsel for the accused pointed out that the complainant mentioned in his testimony that there were three other persons sitting in the car of the accused but they were not joined in the investigation. However, in the opinion of the court, though it is a lapse on the part of the IO, but it does not affect the merits of the case. The prosecution has examined the complainant who is the witness to the commission of offence by the accused. Lastly, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has raised an objection regarding the damage to the vehicle of the complainant at both the sides. But the objection is ill-founded. The cause of the damage has been duly explained by the complainant in his cross- examination. Hence, the objections are not maintainable. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has proved that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
11. Lastly, the prosecution must prove that the accused was driving the vehicle in such a manner so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. It has already been discussed that from the evidence produced on record, it is proved that the accident was grave. It could have caused hurt or injury to any person. Further, Section 44, IPC defines 'injury' as harm illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. In the present case, it has been proved that from the said accident, the vehicle of the complainant was damaged. Hence, harm was caused to the property of the complainant. Hence, this essential ingredient is also made out. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the prosecution has proved that the accused has committed the offence under Section 279, IPC.
12. Next, the accused has been charged for the offence under Section 427, IPC, which provides for punishment for mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees. Mischief has been defined under Section 425, IPC as under:
State v. Kamal Vats FIR no. 22/13 PS Dwarka South Page 5 of 6 "Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief"."
13. Hence, to make out the above mentioned offence, the prosecution must prove that:
a) the accused caused destruction or change in a property;
b) while causing such destruction, he had the intention to cause such damage or he knew that he shall cause such damage; and
c) such an act destroyed or diminished the value or utility of that property or affected it injuriously.
14. I shall deal with the second requisite condition first. To prove the commission of this offence, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to cause a damage or he knew that his act shall cause the damage. Previously, it has been discussed that the commission of offence under Section 279, IPC has been proved against the accused. Offence under Section 279, IPC pertains to rash and negligent act. Both are dramatically opposite to each other. Either a person can be negligent or he can have the intention or knowledge to commit an offence. Both cannot be there together. Once it has been proved that the accused was acting negligently in the present case, it cannot be proved that he was acting intentionally or with knowledge. Hence, the offence under Section 427, IPC cannot be said to be proved against the accused. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the accused is convicted for the offence under Section 279, IPC but acquitted for the offence under Section 427, IPC.
Let the accused be heard on the quantum of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.11.2014 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04 DWARKA COURTS, DELHI State v. Kamal Vats FIR no. 22/13 PS Dwarka South Page 6 of 6