Delhi District Court
State vs Parvez @ Umar Daraj on 21 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-02, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED BY: SH. ANMOL NOHRIA,
DJS
STATE Vs. PARVEZ @ UMAR DARAJ
FIR NO. : 59/2012, U/s 279/337/338 IPC
PS : NEW USMANPUR
CNR NO. DLNE020004742012
-: JUDGMENT :-
1. CNR No. DLNE020004742012
2. FIR No. 56/2012
3. Unique Case no. 463254/2015
4. Title State vs. Parvez @ Umar Daraj
4 (A). Name of complainant Manoj Kumar
4 (B). Name of accused Parvez @ Umar Daraj S/o
Rahees Ahmad R/o F-27/1,
Gali no. 2, Shrotri Park, Delhi.
4 (C). Representation on Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ld. APP
behalf of State for the State.
5.Date of institution of challan 02.05.2012
6.Date of Reserving judgment 27.10.2025
7.Date of pronouncement 21.04.2026
8.Date of commission of 08.03.2012 Digitally signed by offence NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 15:24:24 +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 1 of 25
9.Offence complained of u/S 279/337/338 IPC.
10.Offence charged with u/S 279/337/338 IPC.
11.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
12.Final order ACQUITTED Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case :-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2012, at about 03:20 PM at Zero Pusta Dhalan, Shastri Park, Delhi, the accused Parvez @ Umar Daraj, who was driving a TSR/Gramin Sewa bearing no. DL 1W 0020 (hereinafter, "offending vehicle") in very high speed and in rash and negligent manner due to which the said TSR got over turned at 1st Pusta and caused grievous injuries to Manoj (passenger) and caused simple injuries to Raju (passenger). It is alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused Parvez @ Umar Daraj. As such, it is alleged that the accused has committed the offence under Section 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), for which FIR No. 59/2012 was registered at Police Station-New Usmanpur.
2. After culmination of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offence u/S 279/337/338 IPC by IO/ASI Madan Singh, PS-New Usmanpur. Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 15:24:29 +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 2 of 25
3. On appearance, same was supplied to him and on finding a prima facie case against the accused, charges u/S 279/337/338 IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated 30.01.2013 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt :-
ORAL EVIDENCE Manoj Kumar (complainant/ PW1 :
injured) Ct. Lachchee Ram (Police PW2 :
witness).
PW3 : Retd. SI Madan Singh (IO)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW1/A : Statement of complainant
Ex. PW2/A : Seizure memo
Ex. PW2/B : Arrest memo
Ex. PW2/D : Site plan
Ex. PW2/E &
: Seizure memo of documents
Ex. PW2/F
Ex. PW3/A : Tehrir
Ex. PW3/B : Notice u/S 133 MV Act
Digitally
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
Ex. A1 : FIR ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21
15:24:35
+0530
Ex. A2 : Rukka
FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 3 of 25
Ex. A3 & Ex.
: MLCs
A4
Ex. A5 : Mechanical Inspection Act
Ex. A6 : Superdarinama
5. PW1/Manoj Kumar is the complainant/injured in the present matter and has deposed on oath that on 08.03.2012, he was going to Bus Adda from 3 1/2 Pusta in a Gramin Sewa and accused while driving the said gramin sewa in a negligent manner and that the same got over turned at 1st Pusta. One other passenger Raju also received injuries. Somebody made a call to the police. They both were removed to Trauma Center where they were given medical treatment and his statement was recorded at the hospital by police. He further deposed that he did not want to state anything else and no other proceedings of the present case was done in his presence by the police. He correctly identified the accused during his deposition in the court.
5.1. Since PW1/Manoj Kumar was resiling from his previous statement, he was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State. In his cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, he could not tell the exact speed at which the accused was driving the Gramin Sewa i.e. offinding vehicle. He again deposed that the gramin sewa got over turned at the turn of 1st Pusta. He admitted Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
that he asked the accused to drive the vehicle slowly but he was 2026.04.21 15:24:43 +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 4 of 25 driving the same in a speed. He alongwith Raju had received injuries due to accident. He received injuries in both the bone of his left leg.
5.2. In his cross examination, PW1/Manoj Kumar deposed that he has given his statement to the police on the same day of the incident. He has given his to the police on two occasion but he cannot tell the exact date on which he had given his statement to the police. The registration number of offending vehicle is 020 but he did not remember the complete number.
Police had not recorded the statement of any public witness in his presence. He had not visited the spot after the accident alongwith the police for the preparation of site plan. He denied the suggestion that accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He had not signed any blank paper. He did not remember how many papers were signed by him. He denied the suggestion that at the sudden turn the vehicle got over turned due to loss of balance. He denied the suggestion that he was not present in the vehicle.
6. PW3/Retd. SI Madan Singh is the IO in the present matter and has deposed on oath that on 08.03.2012, he was posted as ASI in the concerned PS and was present in the PS Digitally signed by in the day emergency from 08:00 am to 08:00 PM. He received NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 15:24:49 the DD NO. 27A which was marked to him for the investigation. +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 5 of 25 After which, he alongwith Ct. Lachhi Singh went to the spot i.e. Zero Pusta, Dhalan, Shastri Park near JPC Hospital. He had seen the offending vehicle i.e. auto bearing registration no. DL 1W 0020 in the accidental condition and was turned over. The help of public persons the auto was turned in the accurate standing position. He came to know from the public person that two injured had been taken to the hospital who were sitting inside the auto. The accused driver was apprehended by the public persons and produced before him by the public and upon inquiry he disclosed his name as Parves @ Umar Daraj. He handed over accused to Ct. HC and he proceeded for the hospital. He obtained the MLC of two injured Manoj. He recorded the statement of complainant/Manoj Kumar in the hospital. He came back to the spot and recorded the Tehrir on the statement. He handed over the Tehrir to Ct. Lachhi Ram who immediately went to PS and got the present FIR registered. Ct. Lachhi handed over the copy of the FIR and original Tehrir to him at the spot. He prepared the site plan. He seized the DL of the accused. He had called the owner Mohd. Naseem of the offending vehicle at the spot to whom he had given notice u/s 133 M.V. ACT. He had seized the documents of the offending vehicle which was given by the order and include insurance policy, RC permit which he seized. He seized the offending vehicle i.e auto. He arrested the Digitally signed by NOHRIA accused and personally searched. He released the accused from NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 15:24:58 the spot after furnishing the bonds. They brought the offending +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 6 of 25 vehicle to the PS and deposited the same in the Malkhana. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. He searched for the other injured namely Raju on his address mentioned in the MLC but unable to find him on the said address. He had stated the fact about the non presence of Raju to the concerned SHO. He tried his best efforts for recording of statement of public person were found at the spot but no one is willing give the same. On the next day 09.03.2012, he got conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle. After that he recorded the statement of the mechanical inspection expert. The offending vehicle was got released by him after furnishing the superdarinama by the accused. The photographs of the offending vehicle was taken at the PS and he had filled the form no. 54. He had also taken the opinion on both the MLC and prepared the charge sheet which he filed before the concerned Court. He came back to the PS with the accused and the offending vehicle has been deposited in the Malkhana. After reaching at the PS he recorded the statement of witnesses and also inquired the accused at the PS. The owner of the cycle and Car had not agreed for giving their statement and had stated that they don't want any proceedings. He correctly identified the accused during his deposition in the court.
6.1. In his cross-examination, PW3/Retd. SI Madan Singh has deposed that the information about the accident was Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
received to DO on the telephonic call. No one had disclosed his 2026.04.21 15:25:05 +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 7 of 25 name from the public at the spot. He had not given any written notice to those public person. He had only recorded the statement of the complainant and Tehrir prior to the registration of the FIR. He had prepared the site plan at the spot and they were in the police uniform. Except the filling of mechanical inspection letter he had prepared the entire documents at the spot. Finally they left the spot at about 07:00 PM. In total may be he recorded the statement of 5-6 witness. He prepared the seizure memo of DL, RC, fitness, permit, insurance, seizure memo of offending vehicle etc. He denied the other formal suggestions put to him.
7. The remaining prosecution witness supported the case of the prosecution and proved the documents mentioned in the table above.
8. PE was closed on 16.04.2025 and thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC. He stated that he has been falsely implicated and not committed the offence as alleged and denied the allegations in toto. Pursuant thereto, he stated that he does not wish to lead any defence evidence. Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 15:25:15 +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 8 of 25
9. I have heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also have given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
10. It has been argued by the learned APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. She has argued that the witnesses of the prosecution have supported the case of prosecution and the other evidence like mechanical inspection also points towards the commission of offence by the accused. Other documents like MLC and PMR also prove the essential ingredients of the offence. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offence.
11. Per contra, written arguments have been filed for the accused and learned counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the basic essentials of the offence. It is submitted that neither rashness nor negligence of the accused is proved on record. He has further stressed upon the fact that prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle as there exist contradictions in the version of PWs. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence. Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 15:25:22 +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 9 of 25
12. This Court has thoughtfully considered the material on record and arguments advanced with due circumspection.
13. In Ras Bihari Singh v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12290, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that:
"7. At the outset, before delving into merits of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I find deem it appropriate to discuss the relevant Section involved in the instant case. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A IPC.
8. Section 279 IPC deals with rash and negligent driving, which reads as under:
S. 279. Rash driving or riding on a public way- Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both"
9. To constitute an offence under Section 279 IPC, it must be shown that the person was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Criminal negligence or criminal rashness is an important element of the offence under Section 279 IPC.
Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA
10. Section 304A reads as under:
ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 "304A. Causing death by negligence.-- 15:25:29 +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 10 of 25 Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
11. In a road accident case, to convict a person for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution is required to bring on record the basic requirement of the said Section i.e. "Rash or Negligent Act" with following conditions:
1) There must be death of the person in question;
2) that the accused must have caused such death; and
3) that such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide."
14. The essential ingredients which the Prosecution is required to prove to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC are as under :
"a) The accused was driving the offending vehicle;
b) On a public way;
c) In a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to Digitally cause hurt/injury to any other person." NOHRIA signed by NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 15:25:35 +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 11 of 25
15. Further, for offence punishable under Section 337/338 IPC, the Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that by aforesaid rash and negligent driving, the accused caused simple/grievous injuries to the victim.
16. It is imperative to prove for the prosecution for establishing the guilt of the accused for offence punishable under section 279/337/338 IPC that vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life. The identity of the offending vehicle and the accused driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident has to be established.
17. Before proceedings further it becomes pertinent to mention the Supreme Court judgment of Mohammed Aynuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 7 SCC 72, wherein Supreme Court has observed that:
"5. A passenger might fall down from a moving vehicle due to one of the following causes: It could be accidental; it could be due to the negligence of the passenger himself; it could be due to the negligent taking off of the bus by the driver. However, to fasten the liability with the driver for negligent driving in such a situation there should be the evidence that he moved the bus suddenly before the passenger could Digitally get into the vehicle or that the driver signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL moved the vehicle even before getting any ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 15:25:41 +0530 signal from the rear side.
FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 12 of 25
6. A driver who moves the bus forward can be expected to keep his eyes ahead and possibly on the sides also. A driver can take the reverse motion when that driver assures himself that the vehicle can safely be taken backward.
7. It is a wrong proposition that for any motor accident negligence of the driver should be presumed. An accident of such a nature as would prima facie show that it cannot be accounted to anything other than the negligence of the driver of the vehicle may create a presumption and in such a case the driver has to explain how the accident happened without negligence on his part. Merely because a passenger fell down from the bus while boarding the bus no presumption of negligence can be drawn against the driver of the bus.
8. The principle of res ipsa loquitor is only a rule of evidence to determine the onus of proof in actions relating to negligence. The said principle has application only when the nature of the accident and the attending circumstances would reasonably lead to the belief that in the absence of negligence, the accident would not have occurred and that the thing which caused injury is shown to have been under the management and control of the alleged wrong doer.
9. A rash act is primarily an over hasty act.
It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still, a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and Digitally signed by caution. Culpable rashness lies in running NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
the risk of doing an act with recklessness 2026.04.21 15:25:48 and with indifference as to the +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 13 of 25 consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
18. In other words, to seek conviction of the accused under the charged Sections, cogent evidence has to be led to establish "rashness"/"negligence" on the part of the accused.
"A rash act is primarily and over-hasty act and is thus opposed to a deliberate act, but it also includes an act which, though it may be said to be deliberate, is yet done without due deliberation and caution. In rashness the criminality lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness or indifference to consequences." (Page no. 321 Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal, The Indian Penal Code 28th Edition Reprint 2002). Further, a negligent act "involves blameworthy heedlessness on the part of the accused which a normal prudent man exercising reasonable care and caution ought to avoid". (Page no. 322 Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal, The Indian Penal Code 28 th Edition Reprint 2002). Either of these ingredients have to be proved by affirmative evidence and cannot be presumed res ipsa loquitur. Reliance is placed upon State of Karnataka Vs. Satish Digitally signed by NOHRIA (1998) 8SCC 493" NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 15:25:54 +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 14 of 25
19. The Prosecution also has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the direct and proximate cause of injuries of the victim was the rash and negligent driving by the accused.
20. The identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle also has to be cogently established beyond reasonable doubts.
21. Thus, now this Court proceeds to appreciate the evidence brought on record by the Prosecution.
22. In the present case, the main witness of the prosecution is the injured/PW1 who has narrated the incident as it happened and has also narrated about the injuries as well as identified the accused as well as the offending vehicle. He has also narrated the fact of injury to another person namely Raju. In his cross examination by the Ld. APP, he has admitted that the vehicle over turned at the turn of 1st Pusta and the accused did not slow the vehicle despite being asked to slow the same by him.
23. The investigation is duly proved by the police Digitally witnesses and the identity of the vehicle as well as the accused is signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
duly proved during the trial. Having found the testimony of PWs 2026.04.21 15:26:02 +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 15 of 25 to be worthy of reliance and proving the identity of the vehicle as well as the accused, what remains to be adjudicated is whether the manner of driving of the offending vehicle by the accused as described by PW1 satisfies the requirement of Section 279/337/338 I.P.C. The requirement of Section 279/337/338 I.P.C. is that the vehicle was being driven by the accused in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or personal safety of others or likely to cause hurt to any other person.
24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled S. N. Hussain Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 685' has held as under:-
"The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.......
..........Culpable negligence lies in the Digitally failure to exercise reasonable and proper signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL care and the extent of its reasonableness ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 will always depend upon the circumstances 15:26:10 +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 16 of 25 of each case.....".
25. PW 1 was a natural witness to the accident being the passenger in the offending vehicle which was being driven by the accused and he stated that the vehicle was being driven at negligent manner and same got over turned at the 1st Pusta. Further, in his cross examination by the Ld. APP, he has admitted that the vehicle got over turned at the turn of 1st Pusta and the accused did not slow down the vehicle despite being requested by him because of which he and person namely Raju received injuries. Further, in his cross examination he has stated that no public witness was examined by the police in his presence and he had not visited the spot after the accident alongwith the police for preparation of the site plan and he does not remember how many has he signed.
26. Further, the testimony of PW2 and PW3/IO is also silent upon the fact as to how the site plan was prepared and upon whose instance the same was prepared. Perusal of the site plan Ex. PW2/D shows that it is neither signed by PW1/injured and also does not show the 1st Pusta. Rather the spot of incident as per the same is the corner of Shastri Park Road which meets with Zero Pusta Road. No explanation qua the place of incident has Digitally been offered by the prosecution in testimony of any of the signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
witnesses and as per the testimony of PW3/IO the incident had 2026.04.21 15:26:17 +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 17 of 25 taken place at Zero Pusta Dhalan which is in corroboration with the site plan and in contradiction to the testimony of PW1/injured.
27. Further, the other injured namely Raju remained untraced during the entire investigation and was never made to join the investigation by the IO. Further, it is not in dispute that the place of incident is a public place and as per the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 the accused was apprehended by public persons and handed over to them by public persons when they reached the spot. Such public persons have never been made to join the investigation nor their statement has been recorded which would have been a missing link in the case of the prosecution as such public persons would be natural witnesses of the incident.
28. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the investigating officer can take action against such a person. No notice in writing was given to them to join the investigation. No action was taken qua the persons who refused to disclose their names or addresses. A public witness would have been an important link in the chain of Digitally signed by NOHRIA circumstances to support the prosecution version and to describe NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 15:26:23 the incident as well as the rashness and negligence on part of the +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 18 of 25 accused. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an afterthought and is not worthy of credence.
29. It is well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police especially when they are present and have interacted with the police. Even Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. casts statutory duty upon the official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society, which is not done in the present case.
30. PW1 is the only eyewitness in the present case. Even if his statement is taken to be the gospel truth, then also it is only alleged that the accused was driving at speed which was not slow and the vehicle over turned at the turn of 1st Pusta because of the high speed. It is a natural fact that a driver ought to slow down at the turns, however, the said witness/PW1 cannot tell the speed at which the offending vehicle was being driven and in his examination in chief had only stated that same was being driven in a negligent manner and has not stated about the fact of high speed even in his cross examination by the Ld. APP rather he had stated that he had asked the accused to drive the vehicle slowly Digitally signed by but the accused continued to drive in the same speed. It does not NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 15:26:30 say anything about how he was driving rashly and negligently. +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 19 of 25 Merely driving at high speed does not mean that vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. A rash act attributes to a reckless act without having any concern with the consequence of that act. Negligent act is an act which is a breach of duty that is not expected from a reasonable person. For proving Section 279/337/338 IPC, both rash and negligent act is to be proved. Merely driving slowly or speedily doesn't prove that the vehicle was being driven rashly. Accidents can happen due to negligence but for it to be a criminal offence, rash act of the accused has to be proved. Prosecution has failed to prove this fact with any corroborative evidence. Neither the site plan corroborates with the testimony of PW1 as does not show 1st Pusta where the accident is alleged by PW1 nor the same shows the direction towards 1st Pusta nor any skid marks or any such marks are shown on the same which could prove the rashness of the accused in terms of the testimony of PW1 to corroborate his version.
31. Thus, in totality the testimonies of the witnesses, the element of rashness and negligence on part of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle does not stand proved and the testimony of PW1/injured is insufficient to prove the same. Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21
32. In a criminal trial, the burden on the prosecution is 15:26:37 +0530 beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is a rule of FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 20 of 25 caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence in criminal cases. In Awadhi Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 116 at page 117, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"Before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no place. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities."
33. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 658 : 1999 SCC OnLine SC 577 at page 99 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind Digitally signed by NOHRIA entertains on a conspectus of the entire NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 evidence that the accused might not have 15:26:44 +0530 FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 21 of 25 committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression "reasonable doubt" is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge."
34. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law in the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his book Wharton's Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.) as follows:
"It is difficult to define the phrase 'reasonable doubt'. However, in all criminal cases a careful explanation of the term ought to be given. A definition often quoted or followed is that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster case. He says: Digitally signed by 'It is not mere possible doubt, because NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
everything relating to human affairs and 2026.04.21 15:26:50 +0530 depending upon moral evidence is open to FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 22 of 25 some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that consideration that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
35. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th Edn.) thus:
"The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fair- minded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid consideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt." Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 15:26:56 +0530
36. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution, is not sufficient to prove the criminal rashness and negligence as FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 23 of 25 required in the offences charged. As discussed above, for rashness the criminality lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness or indifference to consequences and a negligent act involves blameworthy heedlessness on the part of the accused which a normal prudent man exercising reasonable care and caution ought to avoid. Either of these have to be proved by positive evidence alongwith identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle.
37. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that act of the accused was rash and negligent driving, therefore, accused Parvez @ Umar Daraj S/o Rahees Ahmad is found not guilty in the present case and resultantly, he stands acquitted for the offence u/S 279/337/338 IPC in the present case.
38. Accused is directed to furnish bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with a surety of like amount u/S 437A Cr.P.C and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when directed.
39. This judgment contains 25 pages. This judgment has Digitally signed by NOHRIA been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21
15:27:03
+0530
FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 24 of 25
40. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Karkardooma forthwith.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by NOHRIANOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.21 15:27:10 +0530 Announced in the open (ANMOL NOHRIA) Court on 21st April, 2026 JMFC-02/NE/KKD COURTS FIR No. 59/2012 PS-New Usmanpur Page no. 25 of 25