Delhi District Court
State vs . on 13 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 2199/2017
CNR No. -: DLSH020032702017
FIR No. -: 373/2016
Police Station -: Seemapuri
Section(s) -: 279/337/304A IPC & 117/177 MV Act
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
SHANU
S/o Salim,
R/o J - 173, Janta Colony, Welcome,
Delhi.
... Accused Person
1. Name of Complainant :- Mohd. Sehzad
2. Name of Accused Person :- Shanu
3. Offence complained of or :- 279/337/304A
proved IPC & 117/177
MV Act
4. Plea of Accused Persons :- Not Guilty
5. Date of Commission of :- 12.03.2016
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 06.05.2017
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 13.12.2022
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 13.12.2022
9. Final Order :- Acquitted
Argued by -: Sh. Pramod Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Neeraj Kumar , Ld. Counsel for the
accused.
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on ANKU Digitally 12.03.2016 at about 01:00 AM, at near underpass Dilshad Garden signed by R ANKUR PANGHAL PANG Date:
the accused person, namely Shanu, was found driving auto 2022.12.13 16:53:40 HAL +05'30' bearing registration no. DL-1RL-6360, in a rash and negligent Cr. Case No. 2199/2017 State vs. Shanu Page 1 of 9 manner, and while so driving accused person has caused injury to Sahjad and caused death of Rajkumar. As such, it is alleged that the accused person has committed the offences punishable under section 279/304A/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") and section 117/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, "MV Act"), for which the present FIR was lodged in PS Seemapuri.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC). The accused person was arrested. Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed accused person and chalan was presented in the court on 06.05.2017. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused person was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, notice under section 279/337/304A IPC was framed against the accused person on 08.04.2022. The accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, in order to prove its case, prosecution examined only three witnesses i.e., PW1 namely Bhagwan Das, PW2 namely Rajinder and PW3 (complainant) namely Mohd. Shezad. PW1 and PW2 are the witness who have identified the body of deceased namely Rajkumar and PW3 is the eye witness as well as complainant in the present case. PW3 was ANKUR PANGHAL examined on 17.11.2022 who deposed that he does not know Digitally signed by Cr. Case No. 2199/2017 State vs. Shanu Page 2 of 9 ANKUR PANGHAL Date: 2022.12.13 16:54:00 +05'30' anything regarding present case and further submitted that he does not want to say anything.
4.1 PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. APP as he was resiling from his previous statement recorded by IO and he was shown the complaint Ex.PW3/A on which he admitted his signatures at point A. He further deposed that on 11.03.2016, in night, he along with his labour Rajkumar left from welcome towards old Seemapuri, in auto bearing registration number DL- 1-RL-6360, where sister of Rajkumar was residing in order to bring some articles from her house. He further admitted that accused was driving the auto and he along with his friend Rajkumar was sitting on backseat of auto. He further accepted the fact that at about 01:00 AM when they reached at under Dilshad Garden Flyover accused took a wrong side from DG Flyover in order to merge with the road of old Seemapuri gol chakkar and when he crossed underpass, he hit his auto to eco van which was coming from frontside and as result of the accident, accused, Rajkumar and PW3 sustained injuries. He accepted the fact that he made a call at 100 no. and thereafter they were taken to the hospital.
4.2. PW3 in his cross-examination by Ld. APP thereafter denied the suggestion that accident occurred due to rash, fast and negligent driving of the accused. He thereafter also denied the fact that contents of Ex. PW3/A one read over to him. Witness identified accused in the court and also accepted the fact that IO seized TSR which was driven by the accused. He denied the suggestion that site plan was prepared at his instance.
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2022.12.13 16:54:15 +05'30' Cr. Case No. 2199/2017 State vs. Shanu Page 3 of 9
5. Ld. counsel for the accused have submitted that he does not want to cross examine PW1, PW2 and PW3. A separate statement of Ld. counsel was recorded in this regard on 08.12.2022.
6. Since, the prosecution has cited only three independent/public witnesses in the present matter, who are the complainant and witness who have identified the body of deceased Rajkumar. The star witness as well as complainant PW3 has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the present case, since the complainant/eyewitness of the case has not supported the version of the prosecution, no fruitful purpose would have been served to examine other witnesses as they are formal in nature and even if their testimonies ever taken together, they will not establish the guilt of the accused.
7. Prosecution evidence was closed, vide separate order passed on 08.12.2022, as recording of any further prosecution evidence in the present case would have resulted in to wastage of judicial time, money, resources and would also have caused unnecessary oppression to the accused person who has anyhow faced the ordeal of the trial in the present case for last six years. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Govind & Ors. vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104 (2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that: -
"...In cases where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak for there is no prospect of the case and again conviction ANKU Digitally signed by in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by R ANKUR PANGHAL allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is PANG Date:
2022.12.13 advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable HAL 16:54:31 +05'30' time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the Cr. Case No. 2199/2017 State vs. Shanu Page 4 of 9 purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion of a future date."
7.1. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused person. The present case pertains to an FIR of the year 2016 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused person would tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P.Ramchandra Rao vs. Satte of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its power available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right of speedy trial to the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Mahrashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Abr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
8. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded without oath under section 281 read with section 313 CrPC. In reply, the accused person stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Thereafter, he stated that he does not wish to lead evidence in his defence and the same was closed.
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. ANKUR counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my PANGHAL Digitally signed by thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record. ANKUR PANGHAL Date: 2022.12.13 16:54:44 +05'30' Cr. Case No. 2199/2017 State vs. Shanu Page 5 of 9
10. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that evidence of hostile witness can be read on material points and it can be used to prove the offences charged against the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the set offences.
11. Per contra, the Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel has argued that main witness has turned hostile and despite reading his evidence as a whole, nothing has come on record against the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted for the said offences.
12. The accused person has been charged for the offence under section 279/337/304A IPC. For offence under section 279/337/304A IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. That accident actually took place;
ii. that a vehicle was driven or ridden by the accused at the time of accident;
iii. that the accused was driving it on a public way; iv. the said vehicle was driven in a rash or negligent manner;
v. as a result of such driving hurt has been caused to the victim; and vi. as a result of such driving death of any person has been caused.
While the first, second and third ingredients need to be established beyond reasonable doubt with the aid of eyewitnesses ANKUR and circumstantial evidence, the fifth and sixth ingredient needs PANGHAL Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL to be proved with the help of medical documents and expert Date: 2022.12.13 16:54:58 +05'30' Cr. Case No. 2199/2017 State vs. Shanu Page 6 of 9 witnesses. As far as the fourth ingredient is concerned the same is required to be proved with judicial measurements and with the judicial interpretation as already established.
13. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
14. The main witnesses of the prosecution, PW3, have turned hostile in the present case on the point of driving of vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by the accused. He also denied the suggestion that site plan was prepared at his instance. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in ombnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under: -
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
15. Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of such hostile witnesses can be relied in part. In the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to help the prosecution. PW3 has in his examination in chief deposed that he does not know anything regarding present case. He has also ANK signed Digitally by UR PANGHAL ANKUR denied the suggestion put to him by Ld. APP that the accused PAN Date:
2022.12.13 16:55:09 Cr. Case No. 2199/2017 State vs. Shanu Page 7 of 9 GHAL +05'30' was driving the said vehicle in a rash, fast and negligent manner. The witnesses have denied all the facts put forwarded by the prosecution. Therefore, there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence.
16. Thus, even if the evidence of the hostile witness PW3 is considered partly, there is nothing to implicate the accused person in the present case. As such, even if all the other prosecution witness cited in the list of witnesses were to be examined, the case of the prosecution could not be proved.
17. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution.
17.1. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of accused person, the prosecution was required to prove the offence under section 279/337/304A IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The star witnesses of the prosecution i.e., the complainant and injured have turned completely hostile. There is no evidence to link the accused person with the crime charged against him. His driving the auto in rash and negligent manner is not proved during the trial. Further, the ingredients of the offence are not fulfilled from the material on record. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offences in question and thus, the accused person is entitled to benefit of Digitally signed doubt. ANKUR by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2022.12.13 16:55:26 +05'30' Cr. Case No. 2199/2017 State vs. Shanu Page 8 of 9
18. Resultantly, the accused person namely, SHANU S/o SALIM is hereby found not guilty. He is hereby ACQUITTED of the offences under section 279/337/304A IPC.
19. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court on 13.12.2022 in the presence of the accused. The judgment contains 9 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL (ANKUR PANGHAL)
PANGHAL Date: 2022.12.13
16:55:38 +05'30' MM-06, Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
13/12/2022
Cr. Case No. 2199/2017 State vs. Shanu Page 9 of 9