Delhi District Court
State vs . Akash Garg on 15 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MANISH KHURANA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
OUTER:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
STATE VS. AKASH GARG
PS: Prashant Vihar
JUDGEMENT
(a) The FIR no. of the case : 165/2006
(b) Police Station : Prashant Vihar
(c) The date of commission of offence : 10.03.2006
(d) The name of complainant : Sh. Krishan Avtar Jain,
S/o Sh. B D Jain,
R/o H. No. 2636,
Punjabi Basti,
Old Sabji Mandi, Delhi.
(e) The name of accused : Akash Garg,
S/o Sh. Gauri Shankar Garg
R/o H. No. G8/117,
Sector16, Rohini, Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 279/338 IPC
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
(g) Date of Institution : 11.07.2007
(h) The date on which
judgment was reserved : 15.01.2013
State Vs. Akash Garg page 1
of 5
(i) The final order : Acquitted
(j) The date of such order : 15.01.2013
(k) The Unique Identification Number : 02404R0352472007
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 10.03.2006 at about 2:30 pm near ganda naala, A2 Block, Tpoint, Sector16, Rohini within the jurisdiction of PS Prashant Vihar, accused was found driving the vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing number DL3S U 6371 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so, he caused grievous injuries on the person of complainant Krishan Avtar Jain and have thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC. The accused was arrested and chargesheeted for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC.
2. The matter was investigated by the police and a charge sheet U/s 279/338 IPC was filed against the accused.
3. From the material on record, notice u/s 279/338 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has examined two witnesses.
5. PW1 HC Gajender Singh deposed that on 10.03.2006, he was posted as Duty Officer and his duty hours were from 5 pm to 1 am State Vs. Akash Garg page 2 of 5 and on that day at about 11:05 pm, he received a rukka through Ct. Laxmi Narayan sent by ASI Prem Singh. He further deposed that on receipt of the rukka, he registered the present FIR which is Ex.PW1/A and the rukka and copy of FIR were handed over to Ct. Laxmi Narayan. He also proved the endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
6. This witness was not cross examined by defence counsel.
7. PW2 Major Gurmukh Singh deposed that he was posted as Chief Administrator Office, Jeevanmala Hospital, Karol Bagh, Delhi and he produced the record pertaining to MLC No. 4781/06 dt. 10.03.2006. He further deposed that as per record, the MLC belonged to patient Krishan Avtar Jain aged about 53 years male and the same was prepared by Dr. Amit Jindal under the supervision of Dr. Sudheer and Dr. Chander. He also deposed that Dr. Amit Jindal had left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. He deposed that he was well aware of the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Amit Jindal in his day to day office work. He proved the MLC of Krishan Avtar Jain as Ex.PW2/A.
8. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
9. No other witness was examined by the prosecution as the star witness complainant Krishan Avtar Jain and Anil Jain remained untraceable despite sending the summons through DCP Outer. Therefore, PE was closed and statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.
State Vs. Akash Garg page 3
of 5
PC was recorded in which accused pleaded innocence and denied that he was driving the offending vehicle or that he caused any injuries to the injured. Further he denied for leading the defence evidence.
10.I have heard Ld. Counsel for the accused as well as Ld. APP for the State.
11. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of the criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial files prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot drive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness if any in the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial through out the trial is on the prosecution and its never shifts to the accused and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubts entitles the accused to acquittal.
12. In this case, the prosecution has failed to examine the complainant and PW Anil Jain who were the star witnesses for the prosecution. The complainant Krishan Avtar Jain and Anil Jain could not be traced despite sending the summons through DCP Outer as they left the given address and moved to an unknown destination. All the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution or mentioned in the list of witnesses are formal in nature and are not sufficient to State Vs. Akash Garg page 4 of 5 prove the guilt of the accused.
13.Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was driving the motorcycle bearing number DL3S U 6371 in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused injuries to complainant Krishan Avtar Jain.
14. Hence in these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. The accused Akash Garg is accordingly acquitted for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 15th day of January, 2013.
(MANISH KHURANA)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
State Vs. Akash Garg page 5
of 5