Delhi District Court
State vs . Jai Prakash on 27 November, 2015
FIR NO. 48/2010; PS DBG Road ; U/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act. DOD: 27.11.2015 IN THE COURT OF SH. POORAN CHAND: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI FIR No.: 48/2010 PS: DBG Road U/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act. State Vs. Jai Prakash Unique ID No.: 02401R0325012010 J U D G M E N T:
______________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case : 163/2
(b) Name of complainant : HC Ranjeet Singh, No. 76C, Police Station DBG Road, Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of offence : 27.02.2010
(d) Name of the accused : Jai Prakash
S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop
R/o H. No. 16/345 E, Tank Road,
Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181,
146/196 of M V Act.
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 27.11.2015
(h) Final Order : Acquitted u/s 279/304A IPC
& Convicted u/s 3/181, 146/196
State V/s Jai Prakash ("Acquitted u/s 279/304A IPC & Convicted u/s 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act") Page 1 of 10 FIR NO. 48/2010; PS DBG Road ; U/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act. DOD: 27.11.2015 of M V Act.
(i) Date of such order : 27.11.2015 BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The facts of the case in brief as borne out from the record are that on 27.02.2010 at about 11.17 pm, in front of ICICI Bank, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station DBG Road, accused was found driving one scooter bearing registration number DL6SW1863 on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. Further, while driving the above said vehicle in the aforesaid manner, accused hit his vehicle against one pedestrian namely Arun and caused his death not amounting to culpable homicide. Further, while driving the aforesaid vehicle without driving licence and without having a valid insurance. Therefore, the complainant made a complaint to the police on the basis of which FIR in the matter was registered. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, chargesheet in the matter was filed before the Court through concerned SHO for judicial verdict.
2. After completion of investigation, accused stood chargesheeted for offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act.
3. After filing of the charge sheet in the case, accused was supplied the State V/s Jai Prakash ("Acquitted u/s 279/304A IPC & Convicted u/s 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act") Page 2 of 10 FIR NO. 48/2010; PS DBG Road ; U/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act. DOD: 27.11.2015 documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C and thereafter, vide order dated 02.07.2011, Notice in terms of Section 251 Cr.PC for offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act was served upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove charges against accused, prosecution examined eight witnesses whereafter the PE in the matter was closed as prosecution has examined all the witnesses as per list. Thereafter, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded.
5. Before embarking upon appreciating the arguments advanced at Bar, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidences recorded in the matter.
6. PW1 Sh. Virender Singh is the material witness who deposed that 27.02.2010, at around 12.00 am (night) he was going from Ajmeri Gate to Prasad Nagar via DB Gupta Road towards his residence through is car. At that time, he saw a person was lying down on the road and a scooter was lying there in a fallen condition and around 1015 persons were standing there. He stopped his car and asked the people as to what has happened. They told him that one person coming through a car has hit the person lying on the road and had ran away. He saw the police came and he left the place. Thereafter, the said witness turned hostile and cross examined by the State. State V/s Jai Prakash ("Acquitted u/s 279/304A IPC & Convicted u/s 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act") Page 3 of 10 FIR NO. 48/2010; PS DBG Road ; U/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act. DOD: 27.11.2015
7. PW2 Ct. Bali Ram deposed that on the intervening night of 27/28.02.2010, he was on emergency duty at Police Station DBG Road. On receipt of DD No. 42 A (Ex. PW2/A), he alongwith HC Ranjit Singh reached at the spot i.e. ICICI Bank, DBG Road, where he saw one scooter bearing No. DL6SW1863 was lying in an accidental condition. After enquiry, they came to know that the injured had been taken to hospital by a PCR van. HC Ranjit Singh left for hospital and he remained at the spot. After sometime, HC Ranjit Singh returned to the spot and said scooter was seized vide Ex. PW2/B.
8. PW03 Ct. Devender Kumar deposed that on 11.03.2010 accused Jai Prakash was arrested in the present case at Police Station DBG Road by ASI Dev Singh. He had signed the arrest memo and the personal search memo of the accused as witness. He had also produced the photocopy of RC of his scooter which was also seized in this case and the same was witnessed by him. The arrest memo is Ex. PW3/A. Personal search memo is Ex. PW3/B and seizure memo of photocopy of RC is Ex. PW3/C. The photocopy is mark X.
9. PW04 HC Jagdish deposed that on 28.02.2010, I was posted at Police Station DBG Road as duty officer between 08.00 am to 04.00 pm. At about 11.15 am, he received one rukka through HC Ranjeet Singh, on the basis of which he registered the present FIR through computer installed in the police State V/s Jai Prakash ("Acquitted u/s 279/304A IPC & Convicted u/s 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act") Page 4 of 10 FIR NO. 48/2010; PS DBG Road ; U/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act. DOD: 27.11.2015 station. Computerized copy of the said FIR was handed over to HC Ranjeet Singh and another print out of the said FIR annexed in the register maintained at the police station. The copy of the same is Ex.PW4/A. His endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW4/B. During the period the said computer remained under his control and all the information were fed into the system in the routine course of his duty, there was no brake down in the said computer during the period the information was fed and the print out was taken.
10. PW05 Dr. Jyoti Barwa deposed that on 02.03.2010 he had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Arun Kumar, male aged about 45 years. His detailed postmortem report is Ex. PW5/A. Opinion regarding cause of death was given as due to cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force/surface impact to the head. All injuries were antemortem, possible in a road traffic accident.
11. PW06 ASI Ranjeet deposed that on 27.02.2010 he was posted at Police Station DBG Road. On that day, he received call regarding accident in front of ICICI bank. He alongwith Ct. Bali Ram reached there and where he found one scooter bearing No. DL6SW1863 lying in accidental condition. On inquiry, he came to know that injured was taken to hospital by the PCR. He left the Constable at the spot and went to LHMC Hospital where he obtained the MLC of unknown in which doctor declared him unfit for statement. He returned back to the spot and scooter was taken into possession vide seizure State V/s Jai Prakash ("Acquitted u/s 279/304A IPC & Convicted u/s 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act") Page 5 of 10 FIR NO. 48/2010; PS DBG Road ; U/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act. DOD: 27.11.2015 memo Ex. PW2/B and he tried to search the eye witness but could not be found. He returned back to the Police Station and call was kept pending. On the next day, he again visited to the LMHC Hospital where he came to know that injured was already transferred to RML Hospital. He went to RML Hospital where doctor again opined that injured was not fit for statement. He returned to the Police Station and made endorsement Ex. PW6/A on DD entry. Thereafter, FIR was got registered. On the same day, when he was present in the Police Station, one person namely Virender came to the Police Station and stated that he is the eye witness of the accident which took place on 27.02.2010. He made inquiry from him and also visited the place of occurrence with him where he prepared site plan Ex. PW6/B. He tried to find out the owner of scooter but could not found. Vehicle was mechanical inspected in the Police Station by the Mechanical Inspector. Thereafter, case was transferred to another IO on the directions of SHO concerned.
12. PW07 Sh. T U Siddiqui deposed that on 02.03.2010 he conducted the mechanical inspection of LML Scooter bearing No. DL6SW1863 on the request of IO of this case at Police Station DBG Road. During inspection, he found that vehicle was fit for road test. In this regard, his detailed report is Ex. PW7/A.
13. PW08 SI Sahdev is the IO who deposed that on 01/02.03.2010 he was posted at Police Station DBG Road. On that day, the investigation of the State V/s Jai Prakash ("Acquitted u/s 279/304A IPC & Convicted u/s 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act") Page 6 of 10 FIR NO. 48/2010; PS DBG Road ; U/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act. DOD: 27.11.2015 present case was handed over to him after the death of the injured. The postmortem of the deceased was done in Maulana Azad Medical College and the dead body was duly identified by his relative. The identification memo in this regard is Ex. PW8/A, Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW8/C. The postmortem report was collected and the same is Ex. PW5/A. During investigation, notice u/s 133 of M V Act was served upon the accused Jai Prakash who had replied the same in his handwriting. The notice and reply collectively exhibited as Ex. PW8/D. The mechanical inspection of the vehicle i.e. DL6SW1863 was done. The mechanical inspection report is Ex. PW7/A. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/B. Photocopy of RC of vehicle was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/C. During investigation, accused could not produced insurance of vehicle and his driving licence. He recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, he has filed the chargesheet before Hon'ble Court for judicial verdict. The vehicle is Ex. P1.
14. This is all as far as prosecution evidence is concerned. The accused did not examine any witness in defense despite being given opportunity.
Arguments advanced & Case law cited:
15. The learned defence counsel Sh. Praveen Kumar has very vehemently argued that accident took place on 27.02.2010 and accused was arrested on State V/s Jai Prakash ("Acquitted u/s 279/304A IPC & Convicted u/s 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act") Page 7 of 10 FIR NO. 48/2010; PS DBG Road ; U/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act. DOD: 27.11.2015 11.03.2010. It is further argued that sole eye witness namely PW1 Virender turned hostile before the court and did not identified the accused in the Court. It is further argued that PW1 has deposed that he did not saw the accident and came to know about the accident only from the public present at the spot. It is further argued that the case of prosecution rests entirely upon the testimony of PW1 and there is no independent corroboration thereof. It is further argued that case of the prosecution is full of contradictions and prosecution has failed to prove identity of accused. As the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt accordingly accused be given benefit of doubt and be acquitted of all the charges.
16. On the other hand, Ld. APP has very vehemently argued that though the eye witness turned hostile in the matter, however there are sufficient material on record to prove the guilt of the accused.
Court View & Final Decision:
17. In the present matter, accused is charged for offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act for causing death of Arun through the offending vehicle while driving in a rash and negligent manner. To substantiate its case, prosecution was under the statutory obligation to prove the factum of occurrence of accident and receiving injuries upon the person of deceased and the vehicle was being driven by the accused in rash State V/s Jai Prakash ("Acquitted u/s 279/304A IPC & Convicted u/s 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act") Page 8 of 10 FIR NO. 48/2010; PS DBG Road ; U/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act. DOD: 27.11.2015 and negligent manner.
18. Admittedly, there was only one eye witness of the case namely PW1 Virender Singh who could prove the factum of accident by driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner by the accused. Bare perusal of testimony of sole eye witness Virender Singh i.e. PW1 shows that he had not seen the accident and he reached at the spot after the accident and he came to know about the accident from the peoples gathered there. PW1 turned hostile before the Court and he was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State but nothing fruitful came on record to connect the accused with the offence of accident. There is no other eye witness of the case. The other remaining witnesses cited or to be examined by the prosecution are formal witnesses only. The testimonies of said witnesses are of no use as far as the identification of the driver of offending vehicle is concerned or that of proving rashness or negligence on the part of accused, driver of offending vehicle is concerned.
19. Now, I have to decide the other offences for which the accused have been charged i.e. driving the vehicle without driving licence and without valid insurance. In order to substantiate the said offence, Ld. APP for the State had relied upon the testimony of PW8 i.e. SI Sahdev. PW8 SI Sahdev specifically deposed before the Court that accused could not produce insurance of vehicle and hid driving licence during the investigation. Even, during trial accused could not prove that he was possessing the driving licence and insurance of State V/s Jai Prakash ("Acquitted u/s 279/304A IPC & Convicted u/s 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act") Page 9 of 10 FIR NO. 48/2010; PS DBG Road ; U/s 279/304A IPC & 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act. DOD: 27.11.2015 the vehicle. Therefore, I hold the conviction of accused for offence punishable u/s 3/181 & 146/196 of M V Act.
20. Keeping in view of the above stated facts and circumstances, Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and there is no evidence on record to prove the charges levelled against the accused u/s 279/304A IPC. Thus accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt u/s 279/304A IPC & accordingly he is acquitted for the offence u/s 279/304A IPC. However, considering the material available on record, accused Jai Prakash is convicted for offence punishable u/s 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act. To be heard separately on the point of sentence u/s 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act.
Announced in the open court (Pooran Chand)
on 27.11.2015 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
State V/s Jai Prakash ("Acquitted u/s 279/304A IPC & Convicted u/s 3/181, 146/196 of M V Act") Page 10 of 10