Delhi District Court
State vs . Satpal @ Mallu on 3 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. RASHMI GUPTA, MM06, NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
State v. Satpal @ Mallu
FIR no. 212/07 Date of Institution 30.04.2008
Police Station Adarsh Nagar Judgment Reserved on Not reserved
Sections 279/337/304A IPC Date of Judgment 03.12.2019
JUDGMENT
a) Serial Number of the case 5290038/2016
b) Date of offence 13.04.2007
c) Name of Complainant Ajeet Kumar, S/o Sh. Bhoj Raj
d) Name and address of the Satpal @ Mallu S/o Raghubir Singh,
accused person R/o Village Ladrawan Distt. Jhajjar,
Haryana.
e) Offence complained of Section 279/337/304A IPC
f) Plea of accused persons Not guilty
g) Final Order Acquitted
h) Date of Order 03.12.2019
JUDGMENT:
1. Accused Satpal @ Mallu s/o Sh. Raghubir Singh has stood trial for offence under section 279/337/304A IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.04.2007 at about 9:30 a.m. at Shah Alam Bagh Road, Near Jahangir Puri Mod within the jurisdiction of PS Adarsh Nagar, the accused was found driving vehicle / the truck bearing no. DLIG7472 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving the aforesaid vehicle in the said State vs. Satpal @ Mallu FIR No. 212/07, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 1 of 6 aforesaid manner he hit against a motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAF 9239 due to which the motorcyclist and pillion rider fell down on the road and one of the rider of the motorcycle Amar Naath succumbed to his injuries and the pillion rider sustained simple injuries.
3. After taking the cognizance and compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, notice against the accused was framed for offence under section 279/337/304A IPC on 13.07.2009.
4. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses.
5. Sh. Ajeet Kumar was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 13.04.2007, he alongwith his brother was going on motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAF9239 and the accused was driving the truck bearing no. DL1G 7472 ahead of their motorcycle. It is further deposed that at about 09.30 am when they reached in the right side of the truck of the accused, the accused immediately turned his truck towards their motorcycle without blowing any horn, in rash and negligent manner and hit their motorcycle. The accused was apprehended at the spot. He correctly identified the accused in the court. His statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded. Site plan Ex. PW1/B was prepared at his instance. The accused was arrested in his presence vide memo Ex. PW1/D.
6. ASI Satyaveer was examined as PW2. He deposed that on 13.04.2007, he had received rukka through Ct. Sukhbir and got the FIR registered in the present case which Ex. PW2/A based on the said rukka.
7. Sh. Krishan Kumar Rana was examined as PW 3. He deposed that at the time of incident he was working as an ASI at Mubark Bagh Workshop MCD Civil Line Zone Road. He got released the truck bearing registration no. DL1G7472 on superdari on 11.09.2007 vide memo Ex. PW3/A bearing his State vs. Satpal @ Mallu FIR No. 212/07, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 2 of 6 signature. It is further deposed by him that he had not brought the vehicle as the same was sold by auction by the order of Executive Engineer (Auto) NDMC R.P.S. Deshwal on 20.10.2014 vide Ex. PW3/B. He correctly identified the vehicle after seeing the same and the same are Ex. P1 and P2.
8. Sh. Sukhbir Singh and retired Inspector Ram Kanwar were examined as PW4 and PW11 respectively. They deposed that on 13.04.2007 they reached at the spot and found truck bearing no. DL1G7472 and motorcycle no. DL 8SAF9239 in accidental condition. The accused was found in the hospital. Statement of the complainant was recorded in his presence. PW11 prepared rukka and got the FIR registered through PW4. Motorcycle was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/C. The truck was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A. The driving license was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/B. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/D.
9. Dr. Shipra Rampal was examined as PW5. She deposed that she had examined the X ray plates of the injured and gave report Ex. PW5/A.
10. HC Mohd. Azhar Khan was examined as PW6. He deposed that on 13.04.2007, he was posted at PS Adarsh Nagar as a DD writer from 08.00 am to 05.00 pm. He had brought the original rojnamcha A of the relevant time. However, the said roznamcha was written by HC Shiv Dan Singh, No. 2390/NW. On that day, he was working as Ct. and he was having roznamcha B wherein the said fact was not mentioned. It is further deposed that in the list of witnesses, it has erroneously mentioned as DD no. 8B and 9B instead of 8A and 9A dated 13.04.2007.
11. Dr. Deepak was examined as PW7. He deposed that on 13.04.2007, injured Amar was examined vide MLC Ex. PW7/A and injured Ajit Kumar was examined vide MLC Ex. PW7/B. State vs. Satpal @ Mallu FIR No. 212/07, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 3 of 6
12. Dr. V.K. Jha, Department of Forensic Science, BJRM hospital, was examined as PW8. He deposed that Dr. Ashish Jain had conducted the postmortem of deceased Amar Nath and prepared postmortem report Ex. PW8/A. As per the said PM report, the death was caused due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of, chest and abdominal injuries possible in RTA.
13. Dr. Deepak, CMO, BJRM hospital was examined as PW9. He deposed that the injured Amar was examined vide MLC no. 26204 by Dr. Rakesh Kumar.
14. Sh. Bhram Prakash, Dealing Assistant, MLO Head Quarter, Rajpura Road, Delhi was examined as PW 10. He deposed that he had been working in the said office for past three yers. I had brought the registration details of vehicle bearing no. DL1G7472 make TATA motors. The attested copy of the same is Ex. PW10/A bearing the signature of present MLO. He had also brought the report of MLO (HQ) regarding the summons issued by the court. The same is Ex. PW10/B bearing the signature of MLO.
15. Retired ASI Tech. Devender was examined as PW12. He deposed that he had mechanically inspected the motorcycle no. DL8SAF9239 and truck bearing no. DL1G7472 and prepared report Ex. PW12/A and Ex. PW12/B.
16. Sh. Sunil Dutt, ASI DEMS, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi was examined as PW13. He deposed that on 13.04.2004 the accused was working as driver in DEMS Department of NDMC. He proved the copy of the said attendance register as Ex. PW13/A.
17. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed and the matter was fixed for recording statement of accused Satpal @ Mallu under section 313 Cr.P.C.
State vs. Satpal @ Mallu FIR No. 212/07, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 4 of 6
18. Thereafter, all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused and he was given an opportunity to answer the same. His statement under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 08.01.2019 wherein he stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. He opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
19. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
20. During final arguments, it came to light that the sole eye witness of the case namely Ajit Kumar (PW1) could not be crossexamined by the accused. An application was moved on behalf of the accused under section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of Ajeet Kumar for the purpose of his crossexamination. The same was allowed in the interest of justice, Ajeet Kumar (PW1) was the sole eye witness of the case. The application was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 5000/ which was paid by the accused. Ajeet Kumar (PW1) was recalled and he was crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused on 18.09.2019.
21. Ajeet Kumar (PW1) in his crossexamination admitted that he saw the accused for the first time in the hospital and for the second time in the court. The said witness did not identify the accused in the court and stated that he was told by the IO about the accused in the hospital. He further stated in his crossexamination that he was told about the registration number and make of the offending vehicle by the police.
22. Thereafter, the matter was fixed again for final arguments.
23. Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Hira Lal Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi in 2012 [2] JCC 1311.
24. Both the sides have been heard and record has been perused carefully.
State vs. Satpal @ Mallu FIR No. 212/07, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 5 of 6
25. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Although, it has examined as many as 13 witnesses, but, only one eye witness has been examined namely Ajeet Kumar, who was examined as PW1. Although, in examination in chief, he supported the case of the prosecution. But, in his crossexamination, he has clearly stated that he saw the accused for the first time in the hospital impliedly, he did not see the accused causing the said accident. He also stated that he was told about the accused by the IO in hospital and also that the registration number of the offending vehicle and its make was told to him by the IO. Thus, it can be said that the sole eye witness did not see accused causing the accident out of which, the present case has arisen. Rest all other witnesses are formal in nature. Although, there is evidence on record that the accused was on duty on the offending truck on the date of accident, but, it can not be sufficient to prove that the accident was caused by the accused.
26. Thus, in view of the above, accused Satpal @ Mallu is acquitted in the present case i.e. FIR No. 212/07 PS Adarsh Nagar under section 279/337/304A IPC.
27. Bonds under section 437 A Cr.P.C. are already on record and same hasd been accepted vide order dated 29.08.2019.
28. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by RASHMI Announced in open court RASHMI GUPTA GUPTA Date:
on 03rd Day of December, 2019 2019.12.04
12:02:23
+0530
(Rashmi Gupta)
MM06, North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi/03.12.2019
State vs. Satpal @ Mallu
FIR No. 212/07, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 6 of 6