Delhi District Court
State vs Prakash on 15 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS.CHHAVI KAPOOR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-13:
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
FIR No. 242/1999
State V/s Prakash
U/S 279/337 IPC
PS Civil Lines
CC No. 427/2C
U. ID No.0240IR0023601999
Date of Institution :19.11.1999
Date of commission of offence :23.05.2000
Name of the complainant :Smt.Vidya Devi
Name and address of accused : Prakash S/o Sh. Gopal Dass, R/o
A5, Ashok Vihar, Phase III, Delhi
Offence charged with : 279/338 IPC
Plea of guilt : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Convicted u/s 279/337 IPC
Date on which order has been reserved : 25.09.2013
Date of pronouncement of Judgment :28.09.2013
JUDGMENT
1 Prosecution has filed a charge sheet against the accused Prakash S/o Gopal Dass u/s 279/337 IPC. Prosecution story in brief, is as under:- 2 On 23.08.1999, HC Kailash Chand received information regarding an accident vide DD No. 16 PP Majnu Ka Tilla, dated 23.08.1988 , whereafter he along with const. Ranvir went to Sant Parmanand Hospital and met with the FIR No.242/99 PS Civil Lines State Vs Prakash 1/6 injured Ranjana (aged about 13 years) . The injured was diagnosed to be a case of road traffic accident and declared fit for giving a statement. However, the injured being of young age and traumatized of the incident, was unable to give any statement to the police. In the hospital, the police party met with the mother of the injured namely Vidya Devi, who got her complaint recorded with the police. In her statement, Vidya Devi alleged that a scooter rider ,driving scooter bearing No. DL 5SA 0695 had hit her daughter , as she was trying to cross the road leading from Chowk Kale Khan , Majnu Ka Tilla, Civil Lines on 23.08.1999 at about 2.00 PM. Vidya Devi further alleged that the scooter was being driven by its rider namely Prakash S/o Gopal Dass (referred to the accused ) in high speed and in rash and negligent manner. Hence, she prayed that action be taken against the accused.
3 Upon the aforesaid complaint , the present FIR was registered against the accused u/s 279/337 IPC. During investigation, IO prepared the site plan of the place of the incident, collected the MLC of injured Ranjana , recorded her statement as also the statement of other witnesses . IO also seized the offending vehicle and got the same mechanically inspected. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused in court. 4 On 23.05.2000 , the accused was served with notice u/s 279/338 IPC on the allegations that he had caused grievous injuries upon the person of injured Ranjana by hitting her with his scooter bearing No. DL 5SA 0695, while driving it in rash and negligent manner on 23.08.1999 in the area of Civil Lines. The accused pleaded not guilty to the offences and claimed to be tried by the court. 5 During prosecution evidence, the complainant Vidya Devi and her daughter Ranjana were examined by the state as PW 1 and PW 2 respectively. Both the witnesses corroborated the case set out in the charge sheet against the accused. PW 1 deposed that on 23.08.1999 , at about 2.00PM, she and her daughter were trying to cross the road near Kale Khan Chowk, when a scooter , driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner hit the daughter on her FIR No.242/99 PS Civil Lines State Vs Prakash 2/6 right leg ,whereafter she was taken to Sant Parmanand Hospital in a three wheeler. The injured, while deposing as PW 2 stated that the two wheeler scooter was being driven in rash and negligent manner but she could not remember the scooter number . PW 3 ASI Devender (Technical Inspector) had proved the mechanical inspection report of the two wheeler scooter No. DL 5SA 0695 of the accused as Ex. PW 3/ A. PW 4 HC Kailash deposed that on 23.09.1999, on receiving of DD No. 16 PP Majnu Ka Tilla, he and const. Ranvir had gone to Parmanand hospital but could not record the statement of the injured at the first instance as she was tense . However, he deposed that he recorded the statement of eye witness Vidya Devi, on the basis of which, he got the present FIR registered. PW 5 Const. Ranvir deposed that he had accompanied HC Kailash during the investigation of the present case. PW 6 Record clerk , Sant Parmanand Hospital deposed on behalf of Dr. Tarun Bansal and proved the MLC of the injured as Ex. PW 6/ A. 6 After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused u/s 313 was recorded by the court. The accused claimed that on the date of the incident, some school children were trying to cross the road at red light , near Majnu Ka Tilla, when the injured , in order to avoid collision with a Tata 407, got entangled with the mudguard of his vehicle and sustained injuries. Accused stated that on humanitarian grounds , he had taken the injured and her mother to Parmanand Hospital and had provided money for her treatment. Accused claimed that he was not driving his scooter bearing No. DL 5SA 0695 in rash and negligent manner and had not caused grievous injuries to Ranjana by driving his vehicle in such a manner. However, accused led no evidence in his defence. 7 Arguments on the aspect of merits of the case were heard by the court. 8 As per the prosecution version, the accused was guilty of driving his scooter bearing No. DL 5SA 0695 in rash and negligent manner and in process , hitting against PW 2 Ranjana Kumari , thereby causing grievous injuries upon her person. It was the case of the prosecution that the conduct of the accused in FIR No.242/99 PS Civil Lines State Vs Prakash 3/6 driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner had been witnessed by the mother of the injured Ranajana Kumari i.e. PW 1 Vidya Devi and it was upon her complaint , that the present FIR came to be registered against the accused. On the other hand, it was pleaded by the accused that PW 2 had herself got entangled with the mudguard of his scooter , as she was trying to cross the road hurriedly. The accused claimed that his scooter was in a static condition , when PW 2 collided with it and that , he had taken the injured to the hospital on humanitarian grounds as she had sustained injuries due to entanglement with the mudguard of his scooter.
9 As has already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs that PW 1 Vidya Devi had given her testimony , which was completely in consonance and in corroboration of her statement given to the IO u/s 162 Cr.P.C on 23.08.1999 . Though PW 1 was not able to state the registration number of the offending vehicle , nonetheless the same does not adversely affect the case of the prosecution against the accused as PW 1 had correctly identified the accused in court, to have been the driver responsible for rash and negligent driving and causing of injuries to her daughter on 23.08.1999 in the area of Civil Lines. Even other wise, the accused had himself admitted his presence with the scooter bearing No. DL 5SA 0695 at the spot and hence, non mentioning of the scooter number of his vehicle by PW 1 and PW 2 in their testimonies does not to the root of the matter. The counsel for the accused had put a suggestion to PW 1 that her daughter was running hurriedly on the road , in order to avoid another high speed heavy vehicle and had thus , fallen down on the scooter of the accused.This suggestion was flatly denied by PW 1. She also denied that her daughter was accompanied with other girls of the school at the time of the incident. PW 1 further denied that the leg of her daughter had got entangled in the mudguard of the vehicle of the accused or that the same was in a stationary stage at the accident spot. PW 2 admitted the presence of her mother at the accident site at the time of her accident in her testimony. Both PW 1 and PW 2 FIR No.242/99 PS Civil Lines State Vs Prakash 4/6 deposed that PW 2 had sustained injuries on her right leg due to the accident, whereafter she was taken to Parmanand Hospital. Even PW 2 denied that she had received injuries due to entanglement of her leg in the mudguard of the scooter of the accused.
10 In the mechanical inspection report , proved as Ex. PW 3/A by PW 3 , fresh damages were found on the vehicle of the accused i.e. scooter bearing NO. DL 5SA 0695. In his report, PW 3 had noticed scratches on the rear side i.e. on the body of the vehicle and damages on its side mirrors. The vehicle was otherwise opined to be fit for road test. The report of the mechanical inspector did not say anything about the condition of the mudguard of the vehicle after the accident, nor was any suggestion put to the witness by the counsel of the accused in this regard. Surprisingly, counsel for the accused had put a suggestion to the mechanical inspector that the scooter of the accused might have been hit by another vehicle from its back, but the same was irrelevant as far as the defence propounded by the accused in the present case. A suggestion was consistently put to various prosecution witnesses that the road on which the accident happened was slippery on the date of the incident. It was suggested that mud was lying on the road and due to heavy rains of the season, the mud had spilled all over the road , thereby making it slippery . However, the prosecution witnesses denied that the road was slippery , thereby negating the suggestion of the accused that PW 2 had slipped on his vehicle due to the slipperyness in the road. Even otherwise, the said suggestion was in direct contradiction of the earlier defence of the accused that PW 2 had collided and had got entangled with the mudguard of his scooter while running hurriedly, in order to avert collision with another heavy vehicle on the road. 11 In the light of the above mentioned observations on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the defence propounded by the accused, it is my opinion that the state has emerged successful in proving that the accused was guilty of rash and negligent driving of scooter bearing No. DL 5SA 0695 on FIR No.242/99 PS Civil Lines State Vs Prakash 5/6 23.08.1999 in the area of Civil Lines. However, prosecution has not been able to prove that the injured had suffered grievous injuries upon her person due to the said accident. Prosecution had proved the MLC of the injured (Ex. PW 6/ A) by recording the testimony of the record clerk of Sant Parmanand Hospital, who had stated nothing about the nature of injuries received by the injured. The MLC did not contain any opinion of the doctor, much less an opinion that the injuries were grievous in nature. However, since the MLC has been proved in prosecution evidence, the nature of injuries received by the injured , as stated to in the MLC shall be read in evidence against the accused. Considering the nature of injuries as mentioned in Ex. PW 6/ A , offences u/s 337 IPC are made out against the accused.
12 Accordingly, accused is found to be guilty u/s 279/337 IPC. He is convicted for the said offences.
Announced in the open court Today on September 28, 2013 (Chhavi Kapoor) Metropolitan Magistrate-13(Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No.242/99 PS Civil Lines State Vs Prakash 6/6 IN THE COURT OF MS.CHHAVI KAPOOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-13:
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI FIR No. 242/1999 State V/s Parkash U/S 279/337 IPC PS Pratap Nagar ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE Present : Substitute APP for the state.
Convict in person a/w counsel.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Convict has been found guilty of committing offences u/s 279/337 IPC. Trial of the case went on for nearly about 14 years. The convict is aged about 65 years and is a heart patient. His medical records showing that he has undergone angioplasty in the recent past have been filed. Convict feels remorseful of his conduct and prays for a lenient view. He has suffered the ignominy of a long and protracted trial . After being convicted in the case, convict had deposited Rs.10,000/- in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund to show his compassion for the injured of the case and also towards other aggrieved citizens of the country. The fact of deposition of compensation / cash amount of Rs.10,000/- by the convict in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund has been verified in this case. Considering the circumstances and the nature and gravity of the offences committed in this case and also the age of the convict , I am not inclined to incarcerate the convict any further by sentencing him to any substantive period of imprisonment.
Convict is accordingly ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (IDSI one week) as punishment for offence u/s 279 IPC and further a fine of Rs.500/- (IDSI one week) as punishment for offence u/s 337 IPC.
FIR No.242/99 PS Civil Lines State Vs Prakash 7/6 Fine of Rs.1,000/-is paid by the convict. Receipt be issued to him accordingly.
Copy of this order and judgment dated 28.09.2013 be given free of cost to the convict.
Now nothing remains for adjudication in the present case. Hence, file be consigned to Record Room.
(Chhavi Kapoor)
MM-13(Central):THC
Delhi/15.10.2013
FIR No.242/99 PS Civil Lines State Vs Prakash 8/6