Delhi District Court
State vs . Faraz & Ors on 26 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE06, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW
DELHI
STATE VS. Faraz & Ors
TC NO: 93/2020
Challan No. 09952495/19
Circle LNC
U/s 185, 194D, 3/181, 146/196,
115/190 (2) M V Act
Vehicle No. DL 6SAL 8519
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 04.12.2019
Name of the complainant : ASI Mitender Kumar,
NO. 1340/T, Posted
at CircleLNC, New
Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence : 03.12.2019
Name of the accused : Faraz,
S/o Sh. Irshad,
R/o H. No. 204, H.N. Din,
Basti, New Delhi.
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 17.02.2022
Final Order : Convicted.
Date of orders : 26.02.2022
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1
1. Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused Faraz for having committed the offence punishable u/s 185, 194D, 3/181, 146/196, 115/190 (2) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "M V Act").
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of prosecution that on 03.12.2019 at around 10:00 PM, near Petrol Pump at Nizamuddin, the accused Faraz was found driving the vehicle no. DL 6SAL 8519 under the influence of alcohol. He was also not able to produce DL, PUC and insurance. Further, when he was intercepted by traffic police officia, he was found driving the vehicle without wearing helmet.
3. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out by Circle LNC and challan was filed against the accused. Thereafter, notice u/s 251 Cr.PC was framed against accused vide order dated 08.01.2020. Notice u/s 185, 194D, 3/181, 146/196, 115/190 (2) M V Act was framed upon accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the guilt of accused, the Prosecution examined following two witnesses:
ASI Mitender was examined as PW1;
Ct. Deepak who was examined as PW2;
5. PW1 and PW2 were the traffic police officials who had apprehended the accused on the date of incident. In their respective testimonies, they had given a detailed account of the manner in which the accused was apprehended. Both of them deposed on similar lines. In their examination in chief, they had stated that on 03.12.2019, at about 10.00 PM, they stopped the accused namely Mr. Faraz driving a vehicle bearing no. DL6SAL 8519 who was driving the vehicle without wearing a helmet. He was coming from Nizamuddin and going towards Bhogal. Thereafter, 2 police officials stopped him near petrol pump Nizamuddin. The accused was subjected to breath analyzer test wherein it was found that the accused was driving under the influence of alcohol. The result was found to be 136mg/100ml. Thereafter, the traffic police officials had asked the accused to produce documents such as DL, PUC and Insurance, however, the accused failed to produce them. Witnesses correctly identified the accused present in the court. They were duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, PE was closed on 01.12.2021. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") on 17.02.2022 wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to him which he denied and took a defence that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused choose not to lead defence evidence.
7. I have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. defence counsel and have perused the case file.
8. The Ld. APP urged that testimonies of the material witnesses have remained unchallenged in the crossexamination and there is no reason to doubt their testimonies. The accused, on the other hand, argued that material contradictions have appeared in the testimonies of the PWs and prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
9. In the present case, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. PW1 in his testimony has supported the prosecution story. He has given a detailed account of the incident. Perusal of his testimony clearly shows that the accused was founding driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol beyond 3 permissible limits. He was also found driving without wearing helmet and without having a valid driving license. He was also not having valid PUC and Insurance of the vehicle. Thereafter, challan was imposed by the PW1 against the accused. Breathe analyzer test report clearly shows that the alcohol contents were found to be 136 mg/100 ml. He also maintained his stand during the crossexamination wherein he also deposed that breathe analyzer test was checked by him and the same was found to be properly functioning.
10. Similarly, PW2 has also supported the case of prosecution by deposing that the accused was found driving the vehicle in an intoxicated state and without having a valid driving license. He also maintained his stand during the crossexamination.
11. It should be noted that during the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the present primarily on the following grounds:
No public persons were examined by the prosecution; There was no parameter for checking alcometer;
12. It is a settled proposition of law that the testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded away merely because of the fact that no public witnesses were examined. It is another matter that their testimonies should be scrutinised in more detail. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tahir v. State (Delhi) [(1996) 3 SCC 338], dealing with a similar question, the Hon'ble Apex Court held interalia the following:
"In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the 4 evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. The obvious result of the above discussion is that the statement of a police officer can be relied upon and even form the basis of conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy and preferably corroborated by other evidence on record."
13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255 dealt with the issue of the requirement of the examination of an independent witness, and whether the evidence of a police witness requires corroboration. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that though the same must be subject to strict scrutiny, however, the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are either interested in the investigation or in the prosecution. However, as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars should be sought.
14. Therefore, in view of the above mentioned case law, it becomes clear that while the testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded away forthwith in the absence of any public witnesses, however, it would be prudent to examine or scrutinise their testimonies more closely and should preferably be corroborated. Accused may be convicted on the basis of the testimonies of the police officials if their testimonies are found to be reliable and trustworthy.
15. In the instant case, testimonies of PW1 & PW2 would clearly suggest that the public persons were not examined at the spot. It should be noted that the present case is related to traffic challans which are generally petty offences in nature. Rule of prudence would not always demand the examination of public witnesses in these cases. Special drunken driving drive was being carried out by the traffic police officials on the date of incident in the present case. It cannot be expected from the 5 traffic police officials to make endeavour to examine the public witnesses in each and every traffic challans which they impose.
16. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the nonexamination of the public persons is not fatal to the case of prosecution. Testimonies of PW1 & PW1 can be easily relied upon in the present case.
17. Secondly, it should be noted that Ld. Defence Counsel has not asked any question from PW1 and PW2 regarding the fact that the alcometre was not functioning properly. Even a suggestion in this regard was not put up before Pws. Hence, there exists no material on record which can even prima facie shows that the alcometre was not functioning properly on the date of challan. Hence, there is not even a single material on record which could suggest that the alcometer used in the present case was faulty. Doubt cannot be created in the case of prosecution merely on the apprehension of the accused.
18. When the incriminating materials were put before the accused Faraz, he simply denied them and stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case. He did not even lead DE and did produce on record any document i.e. DL, PUC or insurance of the vehicle. Also, it is a settled proposition of law that statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C does not have any substantive value and can only be used as corroborative piece of evidence to complete the chain of evidences. His denial of the fact that breathe analyzer test was conducted by him would not make much of a difference in the presence of test report and the testimonies of PW1 & PW2 which have been found to be reliable.
19. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case for the offences of drunk driving and driving without weraing helmet and without having a valid driving license, PUC and insurance.
620. Accused Faraz stands convicted for offence u/s 185, 194D, 3/181, 146/196, & 115/190 (2) M V Act.
Announced in the open court (Animesh Kumar) on 26.02.2022 MM06, South East, New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 07 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Animesh Kumar) MM06, South East, New Delhi/26.02.2022 7