Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh Dayal Mathur on 2 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PADMA LADOL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04,
NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 286/2015
PS Inderpuri
U/S : 279/338 IPC, 1860
State V/s Rakesh Dayal Mathur
Cr.C No. 7430/2017
CNR No. DLND020068422017
Date of Institution 20.03.2017
Complainant Smt. Anjana Siya
W/o Ram Raj
R/o H. No. WZ-87, Dasghara
village, New Delhi
Name, parentage and address of the Rakesh Dayal Mathur
accused S/o Late Prem Dayal Mathur
R/o H. No. F-62, Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi
Offence complained off 279/338 Indian Penal Code
Plea of Accused Not Guilty
Final Order Convicted
Date of Judgment 02.07.2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argued by: Ms. Shruti Singhal, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Madan Lal, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digitally
signed by
FIR No. 286/15 PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur LANDOL Date: Page 1 of 38
2024.07.02
15:41:31
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The SHO, Police Station Inderpuri has presented this charge-sheet against above named accused for initiation of trial U/s 279/338 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 26.09.2015 DD No 29A was lodged about an accident. Thereafter Ct. Mogal Ansari and Ct. Umed reached at the spot of accident i.e. Ratanpuri Chowk where they found the offending vehicle scooter bearing registration no. DL-9SF-0956 on the roadside. Upon query, they got to know that both the injured have already been shifted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Ct. Umed left Ct. Mogal Ansari at the spot and left for the hospital. After reaching the hospital, he saw the accused being treated under MLC No. 1973/15 and the injured Anjana Siya being treated under MLC No. 1974/15. The accused was opined not in a fit condition to give statement and injured/complainant was opined to be fit for statement. Hence, statement of complainant/injured was recorded wherein she stated that on the same day i.e. 26.09.2015 after finishing work, she was on the way to her home. At around 4.30 PM, when she was crossing the road near Ratan Puri Chowk, a scooter bearing Registration No. DL-9SF-0956 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from R- Block Red Light and hit her due to which she fell down on the road and sustained injuries. That the accused also fell Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL FIR No. 286/15 LANDOL Date:
State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur 2024.07.02 15:41:38 Page 2 of 38 +0530 down with his scooter. One unknown person took her as well as the accused in his car to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. The above statement was converted into tehrir and present FIR was registered. Initially case was registered u/s. 279/337 IPC. During the course of investigation, the doctor opined the nature of injury on complainant/injured as grievous, hence, provision u/s. 337 IPC was replaced with Sec. 338 IPC. The owner of the offending vehicle was found to be accused himself. Offending vehicle was seized. Mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was conducted and documents verified. Accused was formally arrested and released on bail. After completion of the entire investigation, final report was presented for trial against accused Rakesh Dayal Mathur.
3. Cognizance, compliance of Section 207 CrPC and plea of the accused After presentation of charge-sheet, accused was summoned by the Ld. Predecessor Judge. Copy of the charge-sheet were supplied to accused u/s. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). Thereafter, charge u/s.
279/338 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') was framed against the accused on 18.01.2021 to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
4. Prosecution evidence Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:41:45 +0530 FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Page 3 of 38 In order to prove its case, prosecution examined seven witnesses, which will be discussed later, however the exhibits of this case are as per the following table -
Witness exhibiting Identification Description
PW-1 ASI Ex. PW-1/A Endorsement on
Ramesh Chand rukka
Ex. PW-1/B Copy of FIR No.
286/2015 (OSR)
PW-2 HC Mogal Ex. PW-2/A Seizure Memo of
Ansari offending vehicle
Ex. PW-2/B DL of offending
vehicle
Ex. PW-2/C RC of offending
vehicle
PW-3 Dr. Amit Ex. PW-3/A MLC No.
Chaudhary 1973/15 of
accused
Ex. PW-3/B MLC No.
1974/15 of
complainant/injur
ed
PW-4 Ct. Pawan Ex. PW-4/A Register No. 19
PW-5 SI Umed Ex. PW-5/A Statement of
Singh complainant
Ex. PW-5/B Site Plan
Ex. PW-5/C Notice u/s. 133
MV Act
Ex. PW-5/D Arrest Memo of
Accused
Ex. PW-5/E Personal Search
Memo of
Accused
PADMA
LANDOL
FIR No. 286/15
Digitally signed by
State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur PADMA LANDOL Page 4 of 38
Date: 2024.07.02
15:41:54 +0530
PW-6 T.U Siddhiqui MarkPW-6/A Mechanical
Inspection Report
PW-7 Anjana Siya - -
5. PW-1 ASI Ramesh Chand (now SI) deposed that on 26.09.2015, he was posted as ASI/Duty Officer in PS Inder Puri. On that day his duty hours were from 4.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight. At around 8.10 p.m, Ct. Mogal Ansari handed over one rukka to him for the registration of FIR. He endorsed the said rukka vide Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, he registered the present FIR and the copy of the same is Ex. PW-1/B (OSR) bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter he handed the original rukka along with copy of FIR to Ct. Mogal Ansari to be handed over to SI Umed. PW-1 was not cross-examined despite granting opportunity.
6. PW-2: HC Mogal Ansari deposed that on 26.09.2015, he was posted as constable at PS Inder Puri. On that day, he was on emergency duty with Ct. Umed. On receiving a call, both of them went to Rattanpuri Chowk where a scooter was lying on the road in accidental condition. On enquiry, they came to know that injured was already taken to the hospital.
He further deposed that IO went to the hospital and he remained at the spot. After some time, IO returned back to the spot. IO recorded statement of the complainant and handed over rukka to him for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to the PS and got the FIR registered. After FIR No. 286/15 Digitally signed by State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur PADMA PADMA LANDOL Page 5 of 38 LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:42:00 +0530 registration of the FIR he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. PW-2 further deposed that the scooty was seized by the IO and was taken to the PS. IO also seized the DL and RC of the scooty. The seizure memo of the scooty is Ex. PW2/A, bearing his signature at point A. Seizure memo of DL and RC are Ex. PW2/B and PW2/C, bearing his signature at point A respectively.
In his cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that he does not remember the exact time but it was evening. That they went to the spot on the scooter of the IO. He stayed at the spot for 2 to 2 and half hours. They had not recorded statement of any public witness. He also deposed that he does not remember what was the distance between the PS and the spot. That he further failed to remember exactly if there is DTC bus stop on the side of the spot. Witness also failed to remember if there is a zebra crossing at the spot. He deposed that there is no fencing or the divider at the spot.
PW-2 also failed to remember if there were blood stains at the spot. He deposed that the spot is busy road. That the seizure documents and the site plan were prepared at the spot. That the scooter was lying on the left side.
7. PW-3: Dr. Amit Chaudhary, CMO, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital deposed that he has been working in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital since 2011. On 26.09.2015, he was posted as CMO at Sir Ganga Ram hospital. On that day, he examined injured Rakesh Dayal Mathur and Anjana Sia Devi and PADMA LANDOL FIR No. 286/15 Digitally signed by State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur PADMA LANDOL Date: 2024.07.02 Page 6 of 38 15:42:07 +0530 prepared the MLC. Upon taking the attention of the witness to both the MLCs bearing No. 1973/15 and 1974/15, the witness correctly identified the MLCs bearing his signatures. The MLCs are Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B, bearing his signatures at point A and B and point A, B and C respectively. PW-3 was not cross-examined despite granting opportunity.
8. PW-4: Ct. Pawan deposed that he has brought the original store room register No.19 Part (1) containing the order vide which the case property was sold in public auction. The copy of the said order is Mark PW4/A in which it is mentioned that the case property i.e. scooter registration No. DL9SF-0956 was sold in public auction with the permission of Sh. Sujit Saurabh, Ld. MM, PHC, NDD. PW-4 was not cross-examined despite granting opportunity.
9. PW-5: SI Umed Singh (now retired) deposed that on 26.09.2015, he was posted as SI at PS Inder Puri. At 4.30 PM, he received a call regarding accident at Rattanpuri Chowk. He along with Ct. Mogal Ansari went to the spot where they found one scooter was lying on the road in accidental condition and upon enquiry, they found that injured were taken to the hospital by some person in a car. Thereafter, he left the constable at the spot and himself went to Sir Ganga Ram hospital where he found that two persons were admitted in the hospital vide MLC NO. 1973/2015 and 1974/2015 by the name of Rakesh Dayal Mathur and FIR No. 286/15 Digitally signed by PADMA State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date: Page 7 of 38 2024.07.02 15:42:24 +0530 Anjana Sia Devi. The doctors intimated him that injured Rakesh Dayal Mathur was unconscious and unfit for statement. As per the doctors, injured Anjana Sia Devi was fit for statement. Then he recorded her statement which is Ex PW-5/A. Same was attested by him at point A. That she narrated that while she was returning from her work, one scooter hit her while she was trying to cross the road at Rattanpuri Chowk, due to which, the scooter rider and she got injured and one person dropped them to the hospital in injured condition. Thereafter, he returned back to the spot and handed over the rukka after making endorsement on the same which is bearing his signatures at point B for registration of FIR. The scooter was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point B. That he also prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant which is Ex. PW-5/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter he gave notice u/s. 133 of M.V Act to the registered owner of the offending vehicle and the same was received back with the reply that injured accused Rakesh Mathur was himself arrived in the vehicle at the time of accident. The notice is Ex. PW-5/C, bearing his signature at point A. On 16.10.2015, accused Rakesh Dayal Mathur came to PS along with her wife and after due enquiry, he was arrested and personally search vide memo Ex. PW5/D and Ex. PW5/E, bearing his signature at point A. The accused was released on police bail as the offence was bailable in nature. The offending vehicle was got mechanically examined. The DL and RC were also seized FIR No. 286/15 Digitally signed by PADMA State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
Page 8 of 382024.07.02 15:42:33 +0530 by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/B and Ex PW2/C, bearing his signature at point B. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses. Then after completion of investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet in the court. PW-5 correctly identified the accused in Court.
In his cross-examination, PW-5 deposed that he left the PS at about 4.00 PM. His departure was recorded on receiving the call by the DO. He deposed that it takes about 10 minutes to reach at the spot from the PS. That he reached at the spot at about 4.10 PM. He remained at the spot for 15- 20 minutes. PW-5 further deposed that blood spots were also there at the spot. That both the injured were admitted on the beds adjacent to each other in the emergency. He recorded the statement of the complainant in the hospital.
Witness failed to remember the exact time when he recorded the statement but deposed it was in the evening. That the injured/complainant was not crossing the road from the zebra crossing. There is a DTC bus stop in the same side where the accident occurred but it is at some distance. That he cannot tell the exact distance between the spot where the accident took place and the zebra crossing. He further deposed that there is no proper divider with fencing at the spot. That he did not take any photographs of the spot despite being aware about the order Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Witness further deposed that he mentioned the age of the complainant as informed by her. He has gone through the mechanical report and the offending vehicle. PW-5 deposed that he does not remember the exact date when he FIR No. 286/15 Digitally State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL Page 9 of 38 LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:42:40 +0530 came to know that accused has been discharged from the hospital but he came to know this fact through the doctors. That he did not seize any blood stained clothes of the injured. He denied the suggestion that he has not investigated the case properly as the accused was hit from the rear right side by other vehicle due to which he fell on the road unconscious. He also denied the suggestion that the accident was never happened due to negligence of the accused and that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant. PW-5 further denied the suggestion that he was aware of the fact that complainant was discharged from Sir Ganga Ram hospital on the same day and that the site plan was not prepared. Witness also denied the suggestion that accused was apprehended from his house and not at the PS.
10. PW-6: Sh. T.U Siddhiqui, Mechanical Inspector deposed that he is a Government approved surveyor and loss assessor and working for more than 45 years independently in this field. On 10.10.2015, at the request of SI Umed Singh PS Inder Puri, he had conducted mechanical inspection of vehicle make of Bajaj Scooter (Chetak), bearing registration No. DL9SF-0956 and submitted his detailed report. On examination, fresh damage was found.
Vehicle was fit for road test. That his detailed mechanical inspection report is Marked as Mark PW6/A, bearing his signature and seal at point A. Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL FIR No. 286/15 LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:42:47 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur +0530 Page 10 of 38 In his cross-examination, PW-6 conceded that the Bajaj scooter was an unstable ride and it is two wheeler and the engine is on one side only. He also conceded that there were dents on left and right side of the scooter and the dents must have been caused by some hit. PW-6 deposed that he cannot say if the dent on front mudguard could have been caused by human touch or not.
11. PW-7: Smt. Anjana Siya deposed that on 26.09.2015 at about 4.30 PM, she returning from work to home and when she reached at Rattanpuri Chowk, one scooter came at a very high speed and hit her and due to the accident, she fell on the road and got injured. Some of public persons came to rescue her and took her to Ganga Ram hospital. The police officials visited her at the hospital and recorded her complaint which is Ex. PW5/A bearing her impression at point B. She further deposed that the accused who was driving the offending scooter also accompanied her to the hospital and she informed the police officials that he was the rider of the offending scooter. She also informed the police officials about the spot where the accident took place. That the police officials also recorded her statement. PW-7 correctly identified the accused in Court. Then, Ld. APP for state sought permission to cross-examine the witness as the witness was not disclosing the complete facts of the case. It was allowed. Witness conceded that the registration number of the offending scooter was DL9SF-0956. PW-7 further Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
FIR No. 286/15 2024.07.02
15:42:56
+0530
State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Page 11 of 38
admitted that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at a very high speed in rash or negligent manner. In her cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW- 7 deposed that she got discharged from Sir Ganga hospital as they were demanding huge sum of money. She conceded that there is a zebra crossing at Rattanpuri Chowk. That she was coming from the side of Pusa and was crossing the road through the zebra crossing. PW-7 conceded that there is DTC bus stop near the spot and she boards the bus from bus stop. She further deposed that the accident took place at the zebra crossing at the spot. Witness admitted that usually there is heavy traffic at the spot. However she denied the suggestion that some other vehicle hit the scooter of the accused and in turn it hit her and that the vehicle which hit the scooter fled away from the spot. She also denied the suggestion that accused got injured due to hitting from another vehicle. Witness admitted that accused got injury on his head. She deposed that she does not know whether there was a pool of blood at the spot due to injuries caused to accused. She deposed that she was conscious after the accident. That she and the accused were on the adjoining beds in the hospital. The accused was not unconscious at the hospital. That there were 2-4 blood stains on the shirt of the accused. She also denied the suggestion that her statement was not recorded in the hospital. She conceded that she never visited again at the spot. She again denied the suggestion that accused was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and that FIR was falsely lodged. She FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally Page 12 of 38 signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:43:05 +0530 deposed that Medical examination was conducted in the RML hospital. PW-7 conceded that her disability was zero and that she got issued a medical certificate specifying her disability as 40% from PHC, Bihar. She also conceded that after that her medical examination was conducted from AIIMS wherein 6% disability report was submitted to the court. She further deposed that she did not receive any notice from Jamohi, Bihar to get her medical examination conducted again. She deposed that she ha not been living in Jamohi, Bihar since last 10-15 years. She conceded that she did not have to cross any road while going from R-Block to Dashghara.
Statement of accused u/s. 313 r/w 281 CrPC
12. The statement of accused under Section 313 r/w 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded on 10.11.2022, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He stated that a vehicle hit his scooter from behind as a result of which he fell unconscious on the road.
He suffered injury in his head as well as his ribs. He had to undergo plastic surgery on the left side of his forehead. He used to drive his scooter at a very slow speed since he had undergone a surgery for hernia in 2012 wherein a wire mesh was inserted in his abdomen and he was advised to drive at a very slow speed. The IO did not seize his blood stained clothes and also did not click his photographs. That his MLC is also on record at Ex. PW-3/A. That he was not FIR No. 286/15 Digitally State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur signed by PADMA Page 13 of 38 PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:43:36 +0530 interrogated by the IO. He was hospitalised from 26.09.2015 till 15.10.2015 due to injuries sustained in the accident. Accused has further stated that IO has not properly investigated the case and intentionally made him the accused in this case. He has also stated that he was not responsible for the accident and that he himself was a victim of an accident. Accused opted to lead DE and examined three witnesses who deposed as follows:
13. DW-1: Ms. Alka Nagpal, Ahlmad in the court of Ms. Shaifali Barnala Tandon, MACT, Patiala House Court deposed that she has brought the summoned record of MACT case titled as Smt. Anjana Siya Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur. The MLC dated 26.09.2015 issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi is Ex. DW1/A (already exhibited in above noted case as Ex. R1W2/A). The report from Bihar Medical Authority is Ex. DW1/B (colly). That the photograph of injured Sh. Rakesh Dayal Mathur is Ex.
P1 (colly) (already exhibited in above noted case as Ex. RW1/1). The hospital bills are Ex. DW1/C (already exhibited in above noted case as Ex. RW1/2).
In her cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, she deposed that the case number as per record of which the relevant document were supplied by her is 124/2020 titled as Smt. Anjana Siya Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur. That the document which has been supplied by the DW-1 is already placed on judicial record in above noted case. That she does not have any personal knowledge of the case.
FIR No. 286/15State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally signed by Page 14 of 38 PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:43:45 +0530
14. DW-2: Sh. Gorav Malhotra identified the signatures of Dr. Rathindra Sarangi at point A on discharge summary, which is Ex-DW2/1. Witness deposed that he can identify the signatures on the basis of discharge summary by Dr. Rathindra Sarangi received in medical record department from time to time. He deposed that he has been working in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital for the last 26 years in MRD department. Witness was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
15. DW-3: Sh. Anil Chauhan deposed that he is running photo studio in the name of Chauhan Studio, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi. He had developed CTC (copy to copy) three photos which are at Ex-P1. He also deposed that Cash memo No. 3603 dated 23.09.2022 was issued by him which bears his signatures at point A in respect of the aforesaid CTC. Receipt is at Ex-DW3/1. That he also developed three photographs of blood stained clothes, which are Ex-P2(colly) (OSR). Witness further deposed that he identifies the signatures of his son namely Rahul Chauhan bearing at point A on receipt bearing no. 2472 dated 16.07.2021 which is at Ex-DW3/2. DW-3 further deposed that his son Rahul Chauhan is working with him in the same studio and he usually signs the receipt while he was sitting at the shop and he can identify his signatures.
In his cross-examination by Ld. APP, witness deposed that he is running the above stated FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Page 15 of 38 Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:43:53 +0530 shop from last 17 years. That the accused came on 17 th day of some month in the year 2021. On that day, he brought some photographs and asked him to take copy of those photographs brought by accused. He took out total 6 copies of photos measuring 4 x 6 size. Again in the year of 2022 dated 27.09.2022 accused came with the photographs and asked him to prepare photographs of the copies brought by him and he had prepared set of five copies of photos measuring 5 x 7 size. DW-3 denied the suggestion that accused never visited at his shop and he on its own prepared the said photographs. Witness further deposed that he has not brought the bill book today wherein the duplicate copy of the above exhibited bills are available. He conceded that the signatures bears on bill Ex-DW3/A at point A does not bear his name. Witness denied the suggestion that the signatures bearing on Ex-DW3/A is not his signatures as his name is not written as below the signature. He however admitted that the signatures bearing on bill Ex-DW3/A at point A is of his Son and the same does not bear his name below the signatures. DW-3 also denied the suggestion that the signatures on Ex-DW3/2 is not the signatures of his Son as his name is not written below the signatures.
Final Arguments
16. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts by examining all the material FIR No. 286/15 Digitally State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur signed by PADMA Page 16 of 38 PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:44:03 +0530 witnesses who have supported the prosecution version in material aspects. It is further submitted that the version of the injured/complainant as well as all other prosecution witnesses have been consistent at every stage. It is also submitted that there is a clear admission on the part of accused that he had hit the complainant/injured and facts and circumstances of the case clearly establishes the rashness and negligence of accused. Accordingly, conviction of accused was prayed.
17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts. Defence argued that the complainant/injured has not supported the prosecution case on a material aspect because complainant stated that she was crossing the zebra crossing and accident took place at zebra crossing however as per the site plan, the accident took place 50-60 metres away from the Ratan Puri Chowk where zebra crossing is present. It is further argued that the site plan has been prepared by IO himself and not at the instance of complainant as the complainant has deposed in her cross-
examination that she never went back to the spot. Ld. Counsel for accused has also argued that IO neither took any photographs of the spot and offending vehicle nor seized the blood-stained clothes of accused. It is further argued that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It is contended that FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally Page 17 of 38 signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:44:25 +0530 the accused was driving his scooter at a normal speed and another vehicle hit the accused which in turn hit the complainant. It is lastly argued that no public witness has been examined despite PW-2 being at the spot for 2 hours. Ld. Counsel concluded that on account of overall facts, accused is liable to be acquitted of the present offence.
Points of determination
18. After hearing Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused and having gone through the case file carefully and meticulously, this court is of the opinion that there are two points for determination- firstly, if the accused Rakesh Dayal Mathur drove the offending vehicle, secondly, if yes, then whether the accused drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on a public way and thirdly, thereby caused grievous hurt to injured Anjana Siya.
SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW
19. The setted principles of law is that in order to invite the wrath of law in Section 279 IPC, the act complained of needs to be either rash or negligent act. As per Black Law's Dictionary, 'negligence' is failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is intentionally, wantonly, or wilfully disregardful of others rights. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act and is thus FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally Page 18 of 38 signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:44:34 +0530 opposed to a deliberate act. In rashness, the criminality lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness or indifference to consequences.
20.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajashthan (2012) 9 SCC 284 has also defined negligence as "omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the Court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence."
21.It is clear from above that there is not a straight jacket formula for determining if a particular act amounts to a rash or negligent act. Same has to be determined on the basis of the attending circumstances which may vary from case to case.
Digitally signed by PADMA FIR No. 286/15 PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur 2024.07.02 15:44:43 Page 19 of 38 +0530 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
22. Before delving into the discussion and findings, it is noteworthy that the accused has not disputed the fact that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
Accused has further not disputed the factum of hitting the injured/complainant with his scooter which is categorically seen from the suggestion given to the injured/complainant during her cross-examination that the accused was hit by another vehicle which resulted in the scooter of accused hitting the complainant/injured. Same defence has been taken by accused even in his final arguments. The first ingredient therefore stands established that the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at the time of accident.
23. The next and the only question now to be decided is whether the accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident resulting in grievous injuries to victim/complainant. Before proof of the same, some facts ought to be considered in the present case. Firstly, the mechanical inspection report [Ex. PW- 6/A] shows the point of impact and damage at the front side. The fresh damage is seen at the front mud guard-dent, left beading scratched, and left/right cover-dent/scratched. Brake and lights are stated to be working. Further, the injuries sustained by the complainant/PW-7 shows specific impact to left leg i.e fracture of proximal metaphysics of left tibia with fracture of medial tibial plate and also FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally signed by Page 20 of 38 PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:44:51 +0530 swelling below left knee. These injuries when correlated with damage to the vehicle, clearly shows that vehicle hit the complainant on her left leg and the front mud guard of vehicle impacted her legs. The impact to the complainant/injured can be easily matched with the offending vehicle. Even otherwise, hitting of complainant by the accused with his scooter is duly admitted.
24. However, the repeated defence taken by the accused is that he was hit by some other vehicle and due to that impact, he hit the complainant. Now, the important aspect herein is to analyse the weight of such allegation made by accused. In defence evidence, accused has filed a copy of his MLC dated 26.09.2015 [Ex. DW-1/A which is already Ex. PW-3/A], his photographs showing injuries suffered [Ex. P1 (colly)], Medical Bill (Sir Ganga Ram Hospital) dated 26.09.2015 [Ex. DW-1/C], Discharge Summary dated 19.01.2012 [Ex. DW-2/1], Receipt/Bill of Chauhan Studio dated 23.09.2022 [Ex. DW-3/1], photographs of blood stained clothes [Ex. P2 (colly)] and Receipt/Bill dated 16.07.2021 of Chauhan Studio [Ex. DW-3/2]. All these documents which are relied on by accused go on to establish that on the date of accident in question i.e. 26.09.2015, he also suffered injuries. This fact is otherwise undisputed by the prosecution as well as complainant. None of the documents relied on by accused reflects the involvement of a third vehicle which allegedly hit the accused on the date of incident. It is also noteworthy that if FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally Page 21 of 38 signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:45:00 +0530 accused was hit by some other vehicle and he suffered serious injuries and also got plastic surgery of his forehead done, moreover, the medical bill at Ex. DW-1/C reflects expenses of over Rs. 3 Lakhs, it is unfathomable why he did not take any action against that third person. During final arguments, accused has simply submitted that he did not make any complaint against that driver because he was unconscious. Accused has repeatedly alleged that he was the actual victim of the accident and not the complainant. Just because he suffered more injuries than complainant does not per se make him a victim unless he is able to create a doubt in the prosecution case or show that accident was caused due to the rashness/negligence of someone else. It is further to be noted that during cross- examination of PW-5/IO, it has been suggested by accused side that accused was hit from the rear right side by some other vehicle due to which he fell on the road. However, in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC, accused has stated that a vehicle hit his scooter from behind as a result of which he fell unconscious on the road. This shows that accused himself is not sure from which side, he was hit by another vehicle which further creates suspicion on his defence. Moreover, he has also not mentioned any basic details pertaining to that vehicle, its make, colour etc. The defence of accused is also not supported by the Mechanical Inspection Report Ex. PW-6/A of the offending vehicle which nowhere shows any damage on its back as claimed by accused as seen above. The Report shows left/right FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally Page 22 of 38 signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:45:10 +0530 cover dent/scratch which does not per se establish that it was the result of impact caused by another vehicle.
Hence, in view of the above discussion what can be concluded is that accused did suffer dangerous injuries as reflected from MLC, photographs, medical bills and discharge summary on record. However, by no stretch of imagination it can be concluded that he suffered the injuries due to some other vehicle and not from the present incident in question.
25. Next important issue which is to be decided is whether the accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident resulting in grievous injuries to victim/complainant. PW-7 is the injured as well as eye-witness to the present offence. She has deposed that when she reached at Ratan Puri Chowk, the offending vehicle came at a very high speed and hit her. On putting leading questions by Ld. APP for State, complainant/injured deposed that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. In her complaint [Ex. PW-5/A] also, complainant has stated the same facts. She has stated that accused came from R-Block Red Light side at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit her while she was crossing the road near Ratan Puri Chowk. In her cross-
examination, she has admitted that there is a zebra crossing at Ratan Puri Chowk. She has further deposed in her cross-
FIR No. 286/15State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally signed by Page 23 of 38 PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:45:19 +0530 examination that she was crossing the road through zebra- crossing and the accident took place at the zebra-crossing. The site plan Ex. PW-5/B marks the spot of accident as point 'A' which is at some distance from Ratan Puri Chowk. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that zebra crossing is at Ratan Puri Chowk which means that complainant has deposed falsely. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that PW-5/IO has stated that he had prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant however, complainant has admitted in her cross- examination that she never went back to the spot of incident. Moreover, the site plan at Ex. PW-5/B does not bear the signature/thumb impression of complainant which supports the statement of complainant. It appears that complainant described the place of incident to the IO in hospital and IO on his own accord, prepared the site plan without actually taking the complainant back to the spot. Hence, the site plan which is a doubtful document is not proved by the prosecution. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the same except for the broad referral to the place of incident to the extent it is admitted by accused. Ld. Counsel for accused has tried to impeach the credit of complainant/injured by pointing out contradiction in her deposition and that of PW-5/IO specially on the aspect of spot of incident. PW-5/IO has deposed in his cross- examination that the injured was not crossing the road from zebra-crossing. When he himself has prepared the Site plan, IO would naturally depose in tandem with it.FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally Page 24 of 38
signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:45:26 +0530 When the site plan itself has not been proved, this court sees no reason to belief the version of PW-5/IO on this aspect and disbelief the testimony of complainant when she herself is the injured/eye-witness. This also lends further corroboration from the very fact that the accused has categorically admitted that he has hit the complainant/injured. When this fact is duly admitted, there is no point of real controversy as to the exact spot of incident.
26. There is nothing adverse coming out in the cross-
examination of complainant/PW-7 which would create any kind of suspicion in her testimony. In fact, truthfulness of the complainant is seen from her testimony when she admitted that she never went back to the spot of incident and she has not been living in Jamohi Bihar since the last 10-15 years when the question qua disability certificate was put to her.
27. At this juncture, it is necessary to understand how rash and negligent driving has to be proved. In Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajashthan (2012) 9 SCC 284 has held that:
"12. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally Page 25 of 38 signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:45:33 +0530 for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to 'rash and negligent driving' within the meaning of the language of Section 279 IPC. That is why the legislature in its wisdom has used the words 'manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life'. The preliminary conditions, thus, are that (a) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven; (b) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and (c) such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated under Section 279 IPC is attracted."
Hence, rash and negligent driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case and there is no strait jacket formula to determine the same for every case. The attended circumstances need to be speculated to determine rashness and negligence. The Court has to adopt another parameter, i.e., 'reasonable care' in determining the question of negligence or contributory negligence. The doctrine of reasonable care imposes an obligation or a duty upon a person (for FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally signed by PADMA Page 26 of 38 PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:45:39 +0530 example a driver) to care for the pedestrian on the road. The other aid with the courts in such cases is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine serves two purposes - one that an accident may by its nature be more consistent with its being caused by negligence for which the opposite party is responsible than by any other causes and that in such a case, the mere fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. Secondly, it is to avoid hardship in cases where the claimant is able to prove the accident but cannot prove how the accident occurred.
28. In the case in hand, it is undisputed that the accident occurred near Ratan Puri Chowk (to this extent Site plan can be referred to). It is also an admitted fact that the said place usually has heavy traffic and a DTC bus stop is also present at few metres away. The accused as well as PW- 6/Mechanical Inspector have stated that the offending vehicle which was Bajaj Chetak scooter is an unstable ride. If that is the case, it casts additional duty upon the accused to adopt more care while riding the same specially on busy roads like the one in present case. Accused has contended that he usually drives at a slow speed since he had a surgery for hernia 3 years before the accident in question and doctor had advised him to maintain a slow speed. This argument is devoid of merits in the absence of any such medical report or other clinching evidence. The manner of driving as deposed by PW-7/complainant is that accused came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally Page 27 of 38 signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:45:45 +0530 her. Due to the impact, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. As already discussed, there is even considerable damage to the front mud guard of the offending vehicle. It appears that after offending vehicle fell on the ground pursuant to hitting the complainant, it sustained damages/dents/scratches on its sides as shown in the Mechanical Inspection report [Ex. PW-6/A]. It is true that mere driving at high speed cannot itself constitute rash and negligent act. However, high speed on a busy road heading towards a bus stand that too at a round about can be an act of recklessness. The accused thus on a busy road was driving at high speed and had possibly disregarded the round about of road near the bus stand. There is always a possibility of people present at the bus stop and even people and vehicles approaching from the gap in the median. The accused disregarded all the above and continued to drive in high speed. Accused did not bother to slow down or employ caution while approaching such a section of the road. The vehicle first hit the complainant and then due to the impact, accused himself also fell down. The impact was so much that accused himself sustained dangerous injuries and complainant suffered fractures on left leg. The mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle clearly shows the possible impact force which can only be due to high speed. The said circumstances can together be considered as sufficient to hold that accused while driving the offending vehicle was careless and had no regard to possible outcome of his way of driving even FIR No. 286/15 Digitally signed by State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur PADMA PADMA LANDOL Page 28 of 38 LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:45:53 +0530 when approaching a cautious area on the road. The accused thus drove the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
29. Further to prove allegations of Section 338, the prosecution was duty bound to prove that the accused had caused the accident thereby causing grievous injury to complainant.
30. The MLC of victim/complainant clearly shows fractures/injuries to her left leg The MLC was also proved by PW-3 and there is no reason forthcoming to believe that the MLC prepared by the attending doctor is false. However, the accused has not been able to highlight any injury on the complainant which ought to be explained or which could not have been caused due to the accident as alleged. The MLC thus support the prosecution case and there is no doubt that injuries sustained by the complainant/victim cannot be caused in a vehicular accident and in manner as alleged.
31. Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that prosecution has failed to examine any public witness despite the spot being a public place and a busy road. In the considered opinion of this Court, our criminal justice system does not mandate plurality of witness when the available eyewitness, even if a sole witness is a credible witness and his/her deposition is free from any suspicion or blemish. In FIR No. 286/15 Digitally signed by State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur PADMA PADMA LANDOL Page 29 of 38 LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:46:00 +0530 fact, it is trite law that testimony of single eyewitness can form basis for conviction provided it is of sterling quality. In Bhimappa Chandappa v. State of Karnataka (2006) 11 SCC 323, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "testimony of a solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction. The credibility of the witness requires to be tested with reference to the quality of his evidence which must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress the Court as natural, wholly truthful and so convincing that the Court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither the Legislature (Section 134, Evidence Act, 1872) nor the judiciary mandates that there must be particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction."
Further, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mahesh vs State Of (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi (2007 SCC OnLine Del 633) held that:
"Undoubtedly, he is a neighbour of the Appellants as well as the deceased. It is a well settled principle of law that it is quality of the evidence which is material for deciding the criminal trial. Emphasis has always been put on the quality of evidence under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, which makes it clear that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact."
FIR No. 286/15 Digitally
signed by
State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur PADMA
PADMA LANDOL Page 30 of 38
LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02
15:46:10
+0530
Furthermore, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nageshwar Shri Krishna Ghobe v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 4 SCC 23] has held that:
"6. In cases of road accidents by fast moving vehicles it is ordinarily difficult to find witnesses who would be in a position to affirm positively the sequence of vital events during the few moments immediately preceding the actual accident, from which its true cause can be ascertained. When accidents take place on the road, people using the road or who may happen to be in close vicinity would normally be busy in their own pre-occupations and in the normal course their attention would be attracted only by the noise or the disturbance caused by the actual impact resulting from the accident itself. It is only then that they would look towards the direction of the noise and see what had happened. It is seldom -- and it is only a matter of coincidence -- that a person may already be looking in the direction of the accident and may for that reason be in a position to see and later describe the sequence of events in which the accident occurred. At times it may also happen that after casually witnessing the occurrence those persons may feel disinclined to take any further interest in the matter, whatever be the reason for this disinclination. If, however, they do feel interested in going to the spot in their curiosity to know some thing more, then what they may happen to see there, would lead them to form some opinion or impression as to what in all likelihood must have led to the accident......"FIR No. 286/15
State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally signed by Page 31 of 38 PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:46:18 +0530
32. Ld. Counsel for accused has raised one more objection with respect to the multiple disability certificate procured by accused. He has challenged the one issued by concerned Bihar Authority which shows 40 % disability when admittedly complainant was not residing in Bihar since the last 10-15 years. In the considered opinion of this court, this aspect is to considered by the Ld. MACT or by this Court at the time of passing of order on sentence. Hence, any finding on the same at this juncture is not warranted.
33. At this juncture, it is pertinent to highlight the law with respect to investigation and more particularly, a faulty/defective investigation is not res integra. It is trite law that if investigation is illegal or suspicious, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independent of the impact of the faulty investigation; otherwise criminal trial will descend to the I.O ruling the roost. Yet if the court is convinced that the evidence of eyewitnesses is true, it is free to act upon such evidence though the role of the I.O if the case is suspicious. This has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abu Thakir & Ors AIR 2010 SC 2119. It is also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhanaj Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 2004 SC 1920 that an accused cannot be acquitted on the sole ground of defective investigation; to do so would be playing into the hands of the I.O whose FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally signed by Page 32 of 38 PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:46:25 +0530 investigation was defective by design. Also, in Maqbool vs. State of A.P AIR 2011 SC 184, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a case of killing by shooting, where the IO failed to collect bloodstained soil and empty shells from the scene, since the eye-witnesses deposed to the firing of shots resulting in death, which was corroborated by medical evidence, the default of the IO did not cause prejudice to the accused. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munna Lal vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 80] has has taken the same view:
"28. (c) A defective investigation is not always fatal to the prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. While in such a case the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence, a faulty investigation cannot in all cases be a determinative factor to throw out a credible prosecution version."
34. In the present case, as already seen above IO/PW-5 has prepared the site plan on his own accord and not at the instance of complainant/injured. As rightly contended by the Ld. Counsel for accused, no photographs of the spot or offending vehicle has been furnished by IO. PW-5/IO has admitted that he did not take any photographs of the spot despite being aware about the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Though these discrepancies/defects in investigation did not affect the case of prosecution since FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally signed by Page 33 of 38 PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:46:41 +0530 the deposition of the complainant/injured is coherent, nothing adverse came out in her cross-examination so as to impeach her credit, further the factum of hitting of complainant by accused is an admitted fact and the other attending circumstances also pointed towards the rash and negligence driving of accused. However, facts of every case is not peculiar like the present one and IOs cannot afford to carry investigation in a perfunctory manner. This in fact is a serious dereliction of his duty and in sheer violation of clear directions/guidelines of higher courts with respect to manner of investigation specially in motor accident cases.
35. It is essential to highlight the directions for proper investigation of road accident cases issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2007 CrLJ 1089:
"13. Before I part with this case I would like to make it known that I have come across various cases of a similar nature involving allegations of rash and/or negligent driving in which I find that the investigations carried out are below par. It is a well-known fact that road accidents are on the rise and many of these accidents result in fatalities. It is also becoming more and more apparent that the investigating agencies are not investigating such accidents in a proper and scientific manner. The result and consequence of which is that even those persons who might have been guilty for having committed offences under Section 279/304A IPC are being acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt or lack of evidence. This is not a very happy situation. In cases of road accidents particularly those which result in fatalities, the investigation should be carried out in a swift and scientific manner. 13.1. In most cases I find that the site plans are not produced. Even the site plan that is produced is of a very unsatisfactory FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally Page 34 of 38 signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:46:48 +0530 nature. It is, therefore, imperative that the investigating officer should be provided with maps of the roads drawn to scale so that accurate site plans can be produced in evidence for the appreciation of courts. The exact point of impact as well as tyre skid marks and the point at which the vehicles come to rest after the collision should be demarcated clearly. The observations with regard to the length of the tyre skid marks of the vehicles involved in the impact go a long way in indicating the speeds at which the vehicles were traveling. This would enable the courts to examine the evidence in a much more objective manner and the courts would not be faced with vague and subjective expressions such as "high-speed".
13.2. The mechanical inspection reports that are prepared are also, I find, in a majority of cases, of a very superficial and cursory nature. The inspection ought to be carried out by qualified personnel who are able to indicate in their reports the exact physical conditions of the vehicles. They should be able to point out with exactitude the damage suffered by the vehicles as a result of the impact. The mechanical inspection report should indicate all the tell-tale signs of the collision such as the paint of one vehicle rubbing off on the other. It should also indicate as to whether the vehicles were mechanically sound or not prior to the impact so as to enable the court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the collision took place due to human rashness or negligence or mechanical failure beyond human control.
13.3. As a rule, photographs ought to be taken not only of the vehicles involved in the collision but also of the site and surrounding areas so that the exact topography can be easily discerned by courts.
13.4. The prevalent weather conditions must be noted by the investigating officer. This would go to establish as to whether the road was slippery due to rain; whether there was poor visibility due to fog or mist etc. 13.5. Furthermore, the path of movement of the vehicles must be sought to be established in the course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt as in the present case. 13.6. The drivers of the vehicle involved must also be subjected to tests to reveal whether they had consumed any intoxicants. 13.7. Proper investigation of such accidents would go a long way in aiding the criminal justice system in convicting those FIR No. 286/15 Digitally signed by PADMA State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur PADMA LANDOL Page 35 of 38 LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:47:01 +0530 who are guilty and acquitting those who are innocent. A shoddy investigation will only point in one direction and that is in the acquittal of all whether they are guilty or whether they are innocent. Because, no criminal court would (and ought not to) convict any person merely on the basis of conjectures, assumptions, probabilities. All elements of subjectivity need to be eliminated and the investigation should be such that, when a charge-sheet is filed, the court is presented with a case which when taken objectively would lead to the inescapable conclusion that a conviction is maintainable."
36. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mayur Arora v. Amit @ Pange (2011) 1 TAC 878 on 12 April, 2010 has also issued comprehensive directions to the Investigating Agencies highlighting the manner in which investigations in motor accidental cases are to be conducted. Among the detailed directions, one important direction is as to what a chargesheet should contain:
MACT Manual ANNEXURE-III Delhi Police STANDING ORDER NO. 157 OF 2008 Investigation of Road Accidents Cases.
CHARGE SHEET:-
Fatal accidents or simple accidents involving physical injuries are to be necessarily dealt with u/s. 279, 304-A IPC or 279/337/338 IPC as the case may be. After this, the vehicles are to be seized, the defaulting driver arrested, the mechanical inspection of vehicles done, the charge sheet should be prepared and submitted in the court. These cases are summon-trial-cases and require to be sent to court after completion of the investigation within 6 months form the date of the arrest of the defaulting driver, as is required u/s. 167 CrPC. The investigation carried beyond 6 months without the permission of the Metropolitan Magistrate is bad in law and not maintainable in the court.
The following points are required to be taken note of while preparing charge sheet u/s. 173 CrPC in accident cases:
i) Permissible speed on the road where accident has taken place.FIR No. 286/15
State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Digitally signed by Page 36 of 38 PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 15:47:26 +0530
ii) Site plan indicating exact position of the vehicle and the victim involved in the accident.
iii) Condition of the road light whether sufficient light was there or it was not.
iv) Number of vehicles and other road users on the road at the time of accident viz. whether the road was crowdie or otherwise.
v) Lane of the vehicle in which the accident took place
vi) Approximate speed of the erring vehicle.
vii) Whether the driver of erring vehicle was listening to mobile or he was talking to someone else sitting beside him?
viii) Width of the road whether it has central verge or not.
ix) Was there any speed breaker in close proximity?
x) Condition of the road whether raining or otherwise.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the SHO and DCP concerned as a staunch reminder and caution for diligently abiding by the above directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi so that there is a complete compliance in all the future motor accidental cases by the IOs.
Findings of the present case:
37. In view of the observations and findings as discussed till paragraph no. 34, the prosecution thus has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Rakesh Dayal Mathur was driving the offending vehicle DL-9SF-0956 make Bajaj Chetak Scooter and while driving the same in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger life and personal safety of humans and caused accident causing grievous injury to victim Anjana Siya. Ingredients of 279/338 IPC thus stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL FIR No. 286/15 LANDOL Date:
2024.07.02 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur 15:47:34 +0530 Page 37 of 38 FINAL ORDER
38. In view of the above reasons accused Rakesh Dayal Mathur is convicted u/s. 279 IPC for driving vehicle on a public way in manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life; he is also convicted u/s. 338 IPC for causing grievous hurt to victim/complainant Anjana Siya by rash and negligent driving which endangered human life.Digitally signed by
PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date: 2024.07.02 15:40:41 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (PADMA LADOL) on this 02nd July, 2024 JMIC-04: New Delhi: PHC Certified that this judgment contains 38 pages and each page bears my Digitally signed signatures. PADMA by PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date: 2024.07.02 15:40:47 +0530 (PADMA LADOL) JMIC-04: New Delhi: PHC FIR No. 286/15 State Vs. Rakesh Dayal Mathur Page 38 of 38