Delhi District Court
State vs Dharmender on 18 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF Ms POOJA AGGARWAL:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT:
Aman Vihar DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No.241/2011
PS Aman Vihar
State Vs Dharmender
Date of Institution: 26.03.2012
Date of Judgment: 18.11.2019
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 528079/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 07.08.2011
(c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Ram Prakash
(d) Name of Accused, his : Dharmender
parentage & residence S/o Sh. Kishan Lal
R/o RZ-24, Karan Vihar, Part-IV,
Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/sec. 279/337/338/304A IPC
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order : Conviction
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The accused Dharmender has been sent to face trial for the commission of offences under Sections 279/337/338/304A IPC of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') upon the allegations that on 07.08.2011, at about 8.30 pm, in front of H. No. R- 236, Gali no. 9, Karan Vihar II, Delhi, he was driving a Wagon-R car bearing registration number DL9SK-0078 on a public way in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving, he caused simple injuries to Ram FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 1 of 19 Prakash and Udaivir, grievous injuries to Nitu and Sneha and caused the death of one Manju not amounting to culpable homicide.
2) After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court, cognizance of the offences was taken, the accused was admitted to bail and copy of chargesheet and the documents were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) Notice was then served upon the accused Dharmender for commission of offences under Section 279/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code by the Ld Predecessor to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses.
5) PW1 Sh. Chander Bhan being the Superdar testified that he was the owner of the Wagon R bearing no. DL9SK-0078 which was being driven by accused Dharmender on 07.08.2011 when he was also sitting in the said car and at about 8.30 pm, when they were moving in the gali of Karan Vihar, there was a heap of garbage at one side of the gali and when their tyre crossed the garbage, their car lost balance and hit against some public persons who were sitting in the gali and they were beaten by the public persons. He further relied upon the photographs of the spot i.e. Mark-1 to Mark-10 and also testified as to one notice u/s. 133 M.V. Act i.e. Ex.PW1/A having been served upon him to which he replied and he also correctly identified the accused in FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 2 of 19 the Court. During his testimony, the accused did not dispute the identity of the vehicle and PW-1 was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6) PW2 Sh. Ram Prakash being the complainant/ one of the injured testified after refreshing his memory that about two years prior to his testimony, on the 7th day of month of Sawan, at about 8.30 pm, he was sitting with his family members and one neighbour Udayvir outside his house when one Wagon-R car bearing registration no. 0078 came from Shani Bazar side and struck against them due to which his wife Manju Devi, daughter Neetu and Sneha and neighbour Udayvir sustained injuries. He further testified that there were total three members in the said car being driven by the accused which car got stuck in the Naali and went on to testify that the accident was caused due the negligence driving of the accused who was driving the said car at extreme high speed in the gali. He further testified that public persons had caught and beaten all the three persons in the car and someone called the police who took accused as well as two other persons to Police station and he took another car from their neighbour, went to the PS and thereafter, to SGM Hospital where doctors declared his wife as brought dead. He further testified as to his statement Ex.PW2/A having been recorded by the police officials later on which he identified his thumb impression. He further relied upon the photographs of the spot Mark 1 to 10. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
FIR No. 241/2011PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 3 of 19
7) PW3 SI Virender being the 1st Investigating Officer testified that on 07.08.2011, at about 8.55 PM, he received a call regarding accident through DD No. 41-A upon which he went to the spot with Ct. Amit where they found a Wagon R car bearing no. DL-9SK-0078 in accident condition and upon inquiry, they came to know that the three occupants of the car including the driver had been beaten by the public persons and the injured as well as the occupants of the car had already been shifted to SGM hospital upon which he went to the hospital leaving Ct. Amit at the spot. PW3 SI Virender further testified that at the hospital, he collected the MLC's of injured persons including the MLC of Manju upon which the doctor had endorsed as to the injured having been brought dead whereafter, he recorded the statement of complainant Ram Prakash i.e. Ex.PW2/A and two daughters of the complainant as well as a neighbour were also found admitted in the hospital. PW3 further testified that he then returned to the spot, photographed the spot from different angles from his mobile, made endorsement on the complaint Ex.PW3/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Amit who returned to the spot with ASI Jai Karan after the registration of FIR as further investigation was marked to him and ASI Jai Karan prepared site plan. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8) PW4 Kumari Sneha being one of the injured and a minor witness was examined by the Ld Predecessor without oath wherein she testified that on 07th August at the time of the accident, she was sitting outside her house near the door with her family members when a car FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 4 of 19 came from Shani Bazar Road side in a very fast speed and hit against her mother, father, sister and uncle due to which they all sustained injuries. She correctly identified the accused in the Court and was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
9) PW5 Ms. Neetu being another injured testified that on 07.08.2011, she was siting outside her house with her parents, sister and uncle at which time, vehicle bearing no. DL9SK-0078 came from Shani Bazar road side at very high speed and hit against them due to which her mother become unconscious and they sustained injuries. She correctly identified the accused as the driver of the said car and further testified that one of her neighbours Raj Bhadhur took them to SGM hospital where the police came and she narrated the incident to them. She further testified that the accused had not blown the horn or given any indication. She was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
10) PW6 Ct. Amit testified on similar lines as PW3 SI Virender.
He went on to testify that public persons had gathered at the spot due to the accident and that SI Virender had requested some public persons to join the investigation but none was ready to join. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
11) PW7 Ct. Bijender testified that on 07.08.2011, when he was posted at Accident Investigation Unit, they received a call regarding an accident upon which he went to the spot at Shani Bazar Road, near FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 5 of 19 Laxmi Dairy, Karan Vihar with IO ASI Jai Karan where they found one Wagon-R car bearing no. DL-9SK-0078 and IO requested public persons to join investigation but none agreed. He further testified that Ct. Amit then reached at the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR to the IO and ASI Jai Karan seized the said Wagon-R car vide memo Ex.PW7/A, the licence of accused was seized vide Ex.PW7/B, photocopy of documents of the car were seized vide Ex.PW7/C and the accused was arrested and personally searched vide Ex.PW7/D and Ex.PW7/E. He correctly identified the accused in the Court, identified his signatures on the documents and also identified the photographs of the vehicle. He was also duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
12) PW8 Mintoo testified that on 07.08.2011, he was going towards the house of his uncle Ram Prakash via Shani Bazar Road when at about 8.30 pm, he saw one Wagon R car bearing no. DL9SK0078 coming from Aman Vihar side enter into Karan Vihar when he was walking on Shani Bazar Road, and the driver of the said car was driving in very rash and negligent manner and at very high speed and while so driving, he hit 4-5 persons who were sitting in front of his uncle's house and his Aunt Manju Devi, his cousin sister Neetu and one neighbour sustained injuries with Manju Devi became unconscious. He further testified that the public persons gathered at the spot forcing the accused to come out of the car in which three persons were sitting and the accused as well as three other persons sitting in the car were beaten by the public.
FIR No. 241/2011PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 6 of 19
13) PW8 further testified that he took all the injured persons to SGM Hospital with the help of neighbours where his Aunt was declared dead by the doctor due to injuries sustained in the accident. He further testified as to having identified the dead body of the deceased at mortuary, SGM Hospital and as to the dead body having been handed over to him after postmortem vide memo Ex. PW8/A identifying his signatures on the same. He correctly identified the accused in the Court and the accused did not dispute the identity of the offending vehicle. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
14) PW9 Retd. ASI Jai Karan being the 2nd Investigating Officer testified that on 07.08.2011, at about 11.40 pm, upon receipt of DD entry no. 9 i.e. A-3, he went to the spot i.e. in front of R-236, Street no. 9, Karan Vihar, Part 6, Delhi by private Tata 407 bearing no. DL- 1LE-7244 with Ct. Vijender where they found that one Wagon R bearing no. DL9SK-0078 and Ct. Amit was also present who had stated that SI Virender had gone to SGM Hospital and that the driver of the offending vehicle had been beaten by public persons and the injured had already been taken to SGM Hospital. He further testified that after sometime, SI Virender also reached at the spot after recording the statement of injured Ram Prakash and prepared the rukka and then got the FIR registered through Ct. Amit who returned to the spot after the registration of FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO/ASI Jai Karan and SI Virender also FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 7 of 19 handed over the MLC's of injured to him.
15) He further testified that in the meanwhile, one boy Mintoo also reached at the spot claiming himself to be an eye witness whose statement was then recorded and the site plan Ex. PW9/A was prepared at his instance. He further testified as to having seized the offending vehicle vide memo ie Ex. PW7/A which was deposited in the malkhana. He went on to testify that he then went to hospital where dead body of Manju was identified by her relatives vide memos A11 and A12 ie Ex. PW9/B and PW9/C whereafter the postmortem of the deceased was conducted vide his request letter ie Ex. PW9/D after which the dead body of deceased was handing over to her relatives vide Ex. PW7/A. PW9 Retd. ASI Jai Karan further testified as to having then served notice u/s. 133 M. V. Act Ex. PW1/A on Kuldeep Arora and Chander Bhan and that on 11.08.2011, Chander Bhan produced the driver of the offending vehicle in the AIU where he seized the DL of accused Ex Z1 vide memo Ex. PW7/B, seized the photocopy of RC ie Mark Z and insurance of offending vehicle mark Z1 vide vide Ex. PW7/C and in the meanwhile, complainant Ram Prakash also reached at AIU and identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of incident whereafter the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW7/D and Ex.PW7/E.
16) PW9 further testified that on 12.08.2011, he got the offending vehicle mechanically inspected vide A4, recorded the statement of FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 8 of 19 other injured, prepared the challan and filed it before the Court. He correctly identified the accused in the Court, identified his signatures on the documents as well as the photographs of the spot showing offending vehicle vide Ex. X1 to X10. He was duly cross examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
17) PW10 Udaiveer being another injured testified that on the day of the incident, he was sitting with his wife and younger son on the door of his rented house in Karan Vihar with his neighbour Ram Prakash, his wife Manju and daughters Sneha and Neetu when at about 7.00pm, a WagonR car came into their street at high speed with high sound and hit against them all due to which Manju died, her daughters sustained injuries on their legs, Ram Prakash was also injured while he sustained injuries on his hands and legs while his son and wife did not sustain injuries. He further testified that after the accident, a crowd gathered at the spot and the injured were taken to the hospital with him being taken to SGM Hospital. He correctly identified the accused as being the driver of the said WagonR and also identified ExX5 and ExX7 as being the photographs of the spot. He was also duly cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
18) During the course of trial, during admission denial, the accused admitted the genuineness of the following documents:
a) FIR no 241/11 ie Ex. A-1,
b) DD entry 41A and DD no.9 dated 07.08.2011 ie Ex. A2 & A3,
c) Notice and reply u/s. 133 M. V. Act ie Ex. PW-1/A, FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 9 of 19
d) Mechanical inspection Report Ex. A4,
e) MLC of Uday Vir, Neetu, Ram Prakash and Sneha Ex. A5 to A8,
f) Postmortem report of deceased Manju Ex. A9,
g) MLC of Manju Ex. A10,
h) Identification statement of Raj Bahadur Ex. A-11 and Mintu Ex.
A12,
i) MLC of accused and his companions Bablu and Chander Bhan Ex. A13 to A15,
j) Superdarinama of Wagon R car ie ExA16,
k) Photographs Mark X1 to X10.
19) After prosecution evidence was closed, the statement of accused alongwith additional statement of accused were recorded under Section 281 read with section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused who maintained his innocence setting up the defence that on the day of the accident his car had slipped on the malba lying on the road and some children were also playing on the road and to prevent injury to them ,he had turned his car towards left where some persons were sitting on the left side and someone came under the car. The accused however, chose not to lead any defence evidence.
20) Final arguments were advanced on behalf of the State as well as by Ld. Counsel for the accused which arguments have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record as well as the written arguments of the accused.FIR No. 241/2011
PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 10 of 19
21)It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any bene- fit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
22) In the case at hand, it was for the prosecution to prove:
a) the factum of the accident having taken place by the offending vehicle ie WagonR car bearing registration number DL 9SK 0078;
b) the identity of the accused as being the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident;
c) that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place and
d) that due to such rash and negligent act of the accused, simple injuries were caused to Ram Prakash and Udaivir, grievous injuries were caused to Nitu and Sneha and it also resulted in the death of one Manju not amounting to culpable homicide.
Appreciation of evidence
23) In the present case, the identity of the accused as being the driver of the Wagon R car bearing number DL 9SK 0078 has been proved by the prosecution through the testimony of PW1 Chander Bhan, PW2 Ram Prakash, PW4 Kumari Sneha, PW5 Neetu, PW8 Mintoo and FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 11 of 19 PW10 Udaiveer as they have all testified that the accused Dharmender was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident whom they also correctly identified in the Court. Nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination of any of these witnesses to disbelieve their consistent testimony as to the identification of the accused as being the driver of the offending vehicle nor any motive for his false identification has been brought forth so as to cast any doubt as to such identification in the Court which inspires confidence of the Court even more so since the accused has himself admitted the reply to notice under Section 133 MV Act ie Ex 1/A wherein the accused had been identified to be the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident by Sh Chander Bhan. Hence, in view of the consistent and creditworthy testimony of the above-mentioned prosecution witnesses and keeping in view that even in his statements recorded under Section 281 read with section 313 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, the accused has not disputed the factum of him being the driver of the Wagon R car bearing no DL 9SK 0078 at the time of the accident, the factum of the accused driving the said car at the time of accident stands proved.
Factum of accident being caused by the offending vehicle
24)As per the consistent testimony of PW2 Ram Prakash, PW4 Kumari Sneha, PW5 Neetu, PW8 Mintoo and PW10 Udaiveer, Ram Prakash, his wife/deceased Manju Devi, his daughters Sneha and Neetu as well as Udayvir were all sitting in front of House no 236, Karan Vihar Part VI on the day of the incident, when one WagonR car bearing FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 12 of 19 registration number DL 9SK 0078 came from Shani Bazar Road side and hit them resulting in injuries to all of them. During the course of the prosecution evidence, even the accused himself did not dispute the identity of the offending vehicle which was also identified by these prosecution witnesses through photographs Ex X1to X10. Even in the testimony of PW3 SI Virender, PW6 Ct. Amit, PW7 Ct Bijender and PW9 ASI Jai Karan, it has come on record that the Wagon R car bearing number DL 9SK 0078 was found at the spot in accident condition on the day of the incident. Nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination of any of these prosecution witnesses to disbelieve their consistent testimony as to the identification of the offending vehicle and even in his statements recorded under Section 281 read with section 313 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, the accused has not disputed the factum of the accident having been caused by Wagon R car bearing no DL 9SK 0078, and consequently, the said fact stands proved.
Accident being result of rash and negligent driving of accused
25) To prove its case, it was also imperative for the prosecution to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused while he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. It has to be borne in mind that a rash act is primarily an overhasty 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 FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 13 of 19 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 (Ref:
Mohd. Aynuddin alias Miyam v. State of A.P. (2000) 7 SCC 72).
26)In the present case, PW2 Sh. Ram Prakash has testified that on the day of the accident, ie 7th day of month of Sawan, at about 8.30 pm, when he was sitting with his family members and one neighbour Udayvir outside his house, one Wagon-R car bearing registration no.
0078 came from Shani Bazar side and struck against them due to which his wife Manju Devi, daughters Neetu and Sneha and neighbour Udayvir sustained injuries and that the accused was driving the said car at extreme high speed in the gali. PW4 Kumar Sneha, PW5 Neetu, PW8 Mintoo and PW10 Udayvir testified on similar lines with PW5 Neetu further testifying that at the time of the accident, the driver had neither blown any horn nor given any other indication.
27)During the cross-examination of PW2 Ram Prakash, the accused was able to elicit that at the time of the accident there was electric light in the gali and that the width of the gali was about 20 feet though PW2 was unable to tell the exact speed of the offending vehicle reiterating that speed was very fast. The testimony of PW4 Kumari Sneha as to the speed of the offending vehicle being very high went unrebutted. Even in respect of the testimony of PW8 Mintoo and PW10 Udayvir as to the speed of the offending vehicle being high, nothing could be FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 14 of 19 elicited in their entire cross-examination so as to render their testimony uncredit-worthy. PW5 Neetu during her cross-examination has further reaffirmed that the speed of the offending vehicle was so high that he lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle entered the front portion of their house as reflected in Mark X7 to Mark X10 but no further questions in respect of the same were put to her rendering her testimony as to speed of the offending vehicle as well as the manner of negligence and rashness on the part of the accused, unrebutted.
28)An argument has been put forth by the accused that the prosecution has failed to prove the exact speed of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and hence has failed to establish rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. However, there is no merit in the argument as raised as even though it is no doubt true that the term high speed is relative and from the evidence as led, the prosecution has failed to prove the exact speed of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, it cannot be lost sight of that it is the duty of a driver of a motor vehicle to drive the same with caution and reasonable care implying thereby that the driver is expected to drive the vehicle within the speed limits and at any rate at a speed at which he can control the vehicle at all times.
29)In the present case however, no such care or caution was taken by the accused while driving the offending vehicle and the negligence of the accused is writ at large in his act of driving his car in such a manner at FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 15 of 19 such speed that he could not control the same even though the street was well lit and the injured/deceased were sitting on the side of the road in front of their house over the nali. The factum of the presence of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused also stands established since it has already come on record in the mechanical inspection report Ex A-4, that the engine, brakes, horn as well as the steering of the WagonR car No DL 9SK 0078 were ok which implies there was no reason for the accused to have not applied brakes well within time before hitting any of the injured/deceased nor there was any reason for him to have not blown any horn and the omission thereof proves the presence of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused which resulted in injuries to the injured and death of the deceased in this case.
30)It is duly noted that though in his statement recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused stated that the accident took place as there was some malba lying on the road on which his car slipped and children were playing in the street, and it was to prevent injuries to them that he had turned his car to the left and some person sitting on the left side came under his car, he led no evidence to prove his version. It can also not be lost sight of that the statement of accused under section 281 or 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the evidence of the accused. The explanation furnished at the time of recording such statement is to be proved by witness appearing in the witness box where they can be subjected to cross examination. Mere explanation given in the FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 16 of 19 statement of accused under Section 281 or 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not amount to proof. ( Ref: V S Yadav vs Reena Crl.A. No. 1136 of 2010 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court].
31)In the present case, with the accused not stepping into the witness box and in view of the cogent, consistent and creditworthy testimony of the eye-witnesses/injured, the prosecution is held to have proved beyond reasonable doubt the factum of accused driving his car with rashness and negligence leading to the accident even more so as no evidence has come on record as to the accident having been caused despite exercise of due care and caution of the driver of the vehicle.
Accident to have resulted in simple injury to Ram Prakash and Udaivir, grievous injuries to Nitu and Sneha and the death of Manju not amounting to culpable homicide
32)The oral testimony of the PW2 Ram Prakash and PW10 Udayvir as to them having sustained injuries in the accident has been duly corroborated by the MLC 18964/11 ie Ex A7 of injured Ram Prakash and MLC 18965/11 ie Ex A5 of injured Udayvir wherein the nature of injuries has been opined as simple. Since the accused did not dispute the said MLCs having admitted the same under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the factum of simple injuries having been caused to the PW2 Ram Prakash and PW10 Udayvir has been duly proved by the prosecution.
FIR No. 241/2011PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 17 of 19
33)The oral testimony of the PW4 Kumari Sneha and PW5 Neetu as to them also having sustained injuries in the accident has been duly corroborated by the MLC 11952/11 ie Ex A8 of injured Sneha and MLC 18963/11 ie Ex A6 of injured Neetu wherein the nature of injuries has been opined as grievous and they were also was not cross- examined by the accused on this aspect. Hence in view of the unrebutted oral testimony duly corroborated with the above mentioned MLCs, the factum of grievous injury having been sustained by the injured Sneha and Neetu as a result of the accident stands proved.
34)The factum of the death of Manju to have resulted from the accident in question has also been sufficiently proved by the prosecution in as much as the post mortem report of the deceased Manju ie Ex A9 has been admitted by the accused as per which the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock as a result of lung injury due to blunt force impact with all injuries being ante-mortem in nature and being possible in manner alleged ie in RTA when she was hit by a car on 07.08.2011 at about 8.30pm.
35)Hence, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the factum of simple injury having resulted to Ram Prakash and Udaivir, grievous injuries having resulted to Nitu and Sneha and the death of Manju not amounting to culpable homicide having been caused by the rash and negligent act of the accused in driving the offending vehicle.
FIR No. 241/2011PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 18 of 19 Decision
36)In view of the above discussion and as no material contradiction has come on record in respect of the investigation carried out by the investigating agency, as the prosecution has been able to discharge the onus cast upon it and has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the WagonR car bearing number DL 9 SK 0078 in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident and causing injuries to Ram Prakash and Uday Vir, grievous injuries to Neetu and Sneha and the death of Manju Devi, the accused Dharmender S/o Sh Kishan Lal is convicted of offences under Section 279/337/338/304A IPC in FIR no. 241/11, PS Aman Vihar.
37)Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
Announced in the open court POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL on 18.11.2019. AGGARWAL Date: +0530 2019.11.18 17:16:46 (POOJA AGGARWAL) Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 19 pages and each page bears my signature. POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2019.11.18 17:16:53 +0530 (POOJA AGGARWAL) Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 241/2011 PS Aman Vihar U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC State Vs Dharmender Page No. 19 of 19