Delhi District Court
State vs Simranjeet Singh on 9 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05 SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Simranjeet Singh Digitally
signed by
FIR No : 385/12
RISHABH
RISHABH KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
U/s : 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
2025.05.09
17:13:25
+0100
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Case No. : 425096/16
2. Date of commission of offence : 02.10.2012
3. Date of institution of the case : 23.05.2013
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : Simranjeet Singh s/o
Sh. Bachiter Singh
6. Offense complained or n proved : U/s 279/338/304AIPC
and 146/196 MV Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 04.04.2025
9. Final order :Acquitted for offence
u/s 304A IPC and
Convicted for offences
u/s 279, 338 IPC and
146/196 MV Act
10. Date of final order : 09.05.2025.
1. The accused Simranjeet Singh is facing trial for offences u/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act. The genesis of the prosecution story is that vide DD no. 10 A dated 02.10.2012, State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 1information regarding the incident in question was received at PS Dabri and pursuant thereto, the team of police comprising Ct. Rajender and ASI Ram Niwas went to the spot i.e. Dabri- Palam Road, Dashrath Puri Bus stand Delhi where one Santro car no. DL-2CW-0634 was found in an accidental state and the accused along with eye witness Neeraj Soni were also present at the spot. The accused was stated to be the driver of the alleged offending car and in the meantime, another information vide DD no. 23B was received qua the injured persons from Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and thereafter, ASI Ram Niwas went to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital leaving the Ct. Rajender at the spot. The injured persons namely, Ram Singh and Uma Rani were found under treatment at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and they were stated to be unfit for giving their statements. The statement of eye witness Neeraj Soni was recorded by ASI Ram Niwas on the basis of which the FIR was registered. As per the version of eye witness Neeraj Soni, on 02.10.2012 at around 6:30 AM, while he was waiting for the passengers for his TSR at Dashrath Puri Bus Stand, then the santro car no. DL- 2CW-0634 which was driven by accused in rash and negligent manner at a high speed came from the side of Dabri and struck against the four persons who were sitting at the bus stop. The accused Simranjeet Singh was identified as the driver of the alleged offending santro car. After the registration of FIR, the investigation into the same began and the offending vehicle was seized by the police. The mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was conducted and the MLC of injured persons were obtained. The injuries sustained by victim Uma Rani were opined as grievous in nature and offence u/s 338 IPC was added in FIR. It was informed to the police that on 02.11.2012, victim Ram Singh unfortunately passed away due to the injuries State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 2suffered by him during the incident and the said information was given by the family members of the victim after his cremation, due to which the post-mortem of dead body of victim Ram Singh could not be conducted. The opinion regarding the cause of death of victim Ram Singh was obtained on the basis of his medical records and the offence u/s 304A IPC was also added in the case FIR. The accused also failed to produce the valid insurance policy of the vehicle during the investigation, due to which the offence u/s 146/196 MV Act was also added in the case FIR. After investigation, the present charge sheet was filed for conducting trial of accused for offences u/s 279/304A/338 IPC and Section 146/196 MV Act.
2. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offences was taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court and on the basis of material available on record, notice of accusation for offences u/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act was framed and served upon accused Simranjeet Singh. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in all.
4. Thereafter, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused. The accused did not lead evidence in his defence.
5. Ld. APP for State has contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts with the help of coherent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 3for the alleged offences.
6. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the police. It has also been argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that the alleged incident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle by the accused. It has also been contended that the alleged incident in question rather took place due to the rash or negligent driving of the some other vehicle. It has also been argued that there exists serious doubts in the prosecution story and hence, accused is liable to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
7. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the prose- cution and defence and have also gone through the case record carefully.
8. Prior to delving into the merits of the contentions ad- vanced on behalf of parties, let us briefly discuss the testi- monies of the material prosecution witnesses.
PW-1 Uma Rani deposed that on 02.10.2012, she along with her husband Sh. Ram Singh and Shri Kant Panday was present at bus stand at Dashrath Puri Bus Stand and waiting for the bus for going to satsang and at about 6.00-6.30 AM in the morning, one santro car which was coming from side of Palam came at a very high speed and first hit her husband and thereafter, hit her. She further deposed that the driver of the said santro car was driving the same in a very rash manner and the impact of hitting was so high that her husband fell little ahead of the bus stand. She further deposed that she sustained injuries on the head and leg while her husband became State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 4unconscious. She further deposed that the entire vehicle ran over her body and she sustained injuries on entire body. She further deposed that the driver of the said car was stopped by himself and thereafter, they were taken to the hospital at Mata Channan Devi where they were medically examined. She further deposed that her husband remained in coma for a month and thereafter, he died. She correctly identified the accused as the driver of alleged offending vehicle in the court. During her cross-examination, she stated that she does not remember the date on which her statement was recorded by the police. She further stated that within a minute or two after the accident, Satsang vehicle came there and they were taken to the Mata Channan Devi Hospital. She deposed that satsang people call her son regarding the accident as they already had his number. She could not state whether her son was available in the hospital when the police reached there. She further deposed that no inquiry was conducted by the police officials in her presence at the hospital from any public person and she could not state the number of offending vehicle. She could not state about the color or make of the offending vehicle. She could not state about the date or about the number of days from the incident when she was discharged from the hospital. She further stated that she was discharged on 01.01.2013 and she sustained injuries on her entire body and that she does not remember the date when police recorded her statement. She could not state whether the police officials recorded her statement after about four or five months from the incident or not. She admitted that her husband was discharged from the Trauma Center after cure up of the injuries and he was taken to the house. She further deposed that she does not know whether her husband died at hospital or at house as neither her State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 5status was told to her husband nor the status of her husband was informed to her. She further stated that she was not in a position to see her husband when her husband remained admitted in the hospital. She admitted that she had never accompanied any police officials for the investigation of the case and police had read over her statement after recording the same. She denied that statement was not read over to her. She further deposed that she does not remember whether in her statement to the police, she narrated that her son and satsang wala took them to the hospital. She further stated that age of her husband was about 70 years at the time of incident and he was a retired at that time. She further deposed that her son admitted her husband at Trauma Center but she could not state the date of admission. She denied that she sustained injuries due to the incident. She denied that her husband was suffering from various elements or that no accident had happened with her.
PW-2 Shri Kant Panday deposed that on 02.10.2012, he along with Mr. Ram Singh and his wife were present at Dashrath Puri bus stop and waiting for the bus for going towards Nihal Vihar for attending satsang and at about 6.15-6.20 AM one grey color car came from the side of Palam and going towards Dabri side at a very high speed and dashed into the bus stand because of which his friend Ram Singh and his wife sustained injuries. He further deposed that his friend Ram Singh became unconscious and his wife's right leg got smashed in this process. He identified that accused as driver of the alleged offending vehicle. During his cross examination, he stated that his statement was recorded after about one or two days after the incident at his house but he could not state the exact date on which his statement was recorded. He denied that his State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 6statement was recorded after 10 days of the incident and it was not recorded more than 3-4 days of incident. He further stated that he was not waiting at the bus stop for the arrival of bus and was waiting at the stop for a car. He further stated that he had not told the IO that he was waiting at the bus stand for the arrival of bus and IO has not asked him about this fact. He further stated that he had not read over his statement which was recorded the IO. He could not state what statement was recorded by the IO and that he believes that the IO has written the same facts which he had told to the IO. He deposed that he was waiting for the arrival of Maruti Van belonging to his friend but he could not state the number of said vehicle. He further stated that the distance between the main road and the bus stop is about one or one and half foot as shown at point A in the site plan Ex. PW2/DA and on 02.10.2012 he along with deceased and his wife were going to attend the march (pag yatra) organized by his spiritual guru Shri Satpal Ji Maharaj and the same was organized at Nihal Vihar, New Delhi. He further stated that he did not sustain any injury in the accident. He further deposed that that the deceased and his wife were sitting at the Dashrathpuri bus stand and after some time, Ram Singh stood up and stood nearby to him. He further stated that the deceased and his wife were taken to hospital in two separate vehicles. He denied that accident was not caused by accused by the offending vehicle rather it was caused by some other vehicle and accused also sustained injuries in the accident. He further stated that about 10-15 persons gathered at the spot and that he does not know as to who made the call to police. He denied that he had not joined the investigation.
PW-3 Sh. Pankaj Thakur deposed that on 02.10.2012, his State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 7mother and father were waiting for the bus at Dashrath Puri bus stand after attending the satsang at Nihal Vihar, he dropped them at the bus stop and thereafter, he received a call that accident had occurred. He further deposed that thereafter, he immediately reached the hospital and by that time, they were being shifted to hospital. He further that his father was in Coma and his mother's left leg was totally crushed in the incident. He further deposed that on 07.10.2012, his father was shifted to AIIMS Trauma Center and on 25.10.2012 he was discharged from there. He further deposed that after being discharged, his father was taken to emergency at AllMS Trauma Center for check-up and on 02.11.12, he died. During his cross examination, he stated that PCR officials informed him after reaching at the spot that his parents had already been taken to the hospital and accused was present at the spot and that he wanted to go with him to the hospital but policemen did not allow him to go with them. He could not state the date on which his statement was recorded by IO. He further deposed that it was in the month of November and he had told the IO on 07.10.2012 his father was shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre. He further stated that he had told the police officials that as his father was in Coma and his mother's left leg was totally crushed in the accident, he had told the IO that on 25.10.2012, he was discharged from there. He further deposed that after discharge, his father was taken to emergency at AIIMS Trauma Centre for check-up and he took his father for medical check-up on 30.10.2012 at AIIMS Trauma. He produced the photocopy of the entry qua taking his father to AIIMS vide Mark PW3/X. He admitted that his father remained at the house after 30.10.2012 till 02.11.2012. He further deposed that he brought his father to nearest hospital (Bhagat Chandra hospital, Mahavir Enclave) State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 8where he died but he could not state whether he died in the hospital or he was declared brought dead. He admitted that he cannot state or produce any medical documents available at the hospital.
PW-4. Shri Neeraj Soni deposed that in the year 2012, he used to reside at Dwarka Puri, Vijay Enclave and was plying auto. He further deposed that on the fateful day of incident i.e. on 02.10.2012 at about 6:00 AM, he was waiting for the passengers at Dashrath Puri Bus Stand and when some passengers were waiting at the bus stop including a lady, one Santro Car which was coming from the side of Palam and going towards Dabri bearing no.634 caused the incident. He further deposed that the driver of the car was driving the vehicle at a high speed that after reaching there, it struck in the bus stand and the impact of collision was so high that one uncle who was standing at the bus stand, was thrown away towards back. He further stated that one lady also sustained injury due to the incident and 2-3 other passengers also sustained injuries. He further deposed that he sent the injured to the hospital by a private vehicle and in the meanwhile, their family members also reached at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. He further deposed that police came there and recorded his statement vide Ex.PW4/A. He further stated that he had shown the place of occurrence to the police and police prepared site plan. He correctly identified the accused in the Court. He further deposed that after the accident, accused remained there as he did not get the chance to escape and because of the public pressure, he came forward to help the injured. During his cross-examination, he stated that his working hours were from 6:00 AM to 8:30 AM and on 02.10.2012, he was standing at Dashrath Puri bus stand as he State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 9used to park his auto at said place. He further deposed that apart from the injured mentioned in the chargesheet, he does not know the names of the other injured who sustained minor injuries. He further deposed that Dashrath Puri bus stand is properly filled up with sitting accommodation in the same. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was Santro Vehicle but he could not state about the model of the Santro car. He further deposed that when the accident occurred, he was standing on opposite side of the road. He further deposed that due the manner in which accident occurred, there was no chance for the offender to escape from the spot. He further deposed that he had arranged private vehicle with the help of public and have informed about that in his statement to the police. He further stated that injured were shifted to hospital around 6:00-15-6.30 AM and someone from the public made a call to the police but he could not state as to who made the call. He further deposed that police reached the spot after injured were shifted to the hospital. He could not state the exact time when police took the accused. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was being driven at the speed of 80-100 KM/H. He stated that he had seen the vehicle being driven at a fast speed and then causing the accident and after the accident, injured lady was conscious while injured uncle was unconscious. He denied that he had not seen the accused driving the vehicle.
PW-6 Ct. Rajender Kumar deposed that oп 02.10.2012, DD no.10A was received by IO ASI Ram Niwas and he along with ASI Ram Niwas reached at Dashrath Puri Bus Stand where he saw one car bearing no.0634 in an accidental condition. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, DD no.23B regarding State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 10admission of injured person was also received and he along with IO reached at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital where they met the injured. He further deposed that that the injured were unfit for the statements and thereafter, they reached the spot where eye witness Neeraj Soni met them. He further deposed that IO recorded statement of Neeraj Soni and prepared rukka on the basis of which FIR was registered. He further deposed accidental vehicle was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A and thereafter, IO prepared site plan. He further deposed at the spot, accused Simranjeet Singh also met them and he was arrested by IO Nvide memo Ex.PW6/B. He further deposed thereafter, offending vehicle was brought in the police station and drviving license of the accused was also seized vide memo Ex.PW6/C. He identified RC of the offending vehicle as Ex. PW6/D. He also correctly identified the accused. During his cross-examination, he stated he and IO remained at the spot for about 10-12 minutes. He further deposed no statements were recorded by IO when they reached at the spot but he inquired from the public persons at that time. He further deposed neither family members of injured persons nor any public persons met them in the hospital. He could not state the name of any public person except Neeraj Soni who was present at the spot when we reached at the spot again from the hospital. He could not state whether any statement was recorded by the IO except the witness Neeraj Soni. He further deposed that injured was taken to hospital by some public persons. He first could not state about the number of offending vehicle and then stated that it might be DL-2CW-0634. He further deposed that the offending car was brought in the PS with the help of the crane which was called by the IO and that he does not remember the number of the said crane neither he remembered about the name of the State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 11driver or owner of the crane. He further stated that two persons were with the crane but the he does not know their names. He could not state about the name of the photographer who conducted the photography at the spot. He denied that he never joined the investigation along with the IO.
PW-8 ASI Ram Niwas deposed that in the intervening night of 01/02.10.2012, while he was on emergency duty, he received DD no.10A regarding the incident and thereafter, he along with Ct. Rajender reached at the spot i.e., Palam Dabri Road, Dashrath Puri Bus Stand where they saw that one car Make Santro bearing no.DL-6-0634 of grey color, in an accidental condition. He further deposed at the spot, one eye witness, namely, Neeraj Soni met him and also produced the driver of the said car. He also informed that the injured were taken to the hospital and in the meanwhile, he received a DD no.23B that the injured were admitted in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. He further deposed he handed over the accused to Ct. Rajender and left for Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and at the hospital, he obtained the MLC no.4091 and 4092 and requested doctor for obtaining the statements of injured but doctor opined them "unfit for statement" and thereafter, he returned to the spot. He further deposed of having recorded the statement of complainant Neeraj Soni which is Ex.PW4/A and prepared the rukka Ex.PW8/A. He further deposed that on 04.10.2012, he got conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending and on the same day, he went to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital where he obtained the statement of one of the injured, namely, Smt. Uma Rani under Section 161 Cr.P.C whereas the second injured was still unconscious at that time. He further deposed that on 07.10.2012, both the injured were shifted to AIIMS State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 12Trauma Centre and Smt. Uma Rani was discharged but Ram Singh remained hospitalized. He further deposed that on 25.10.2012, injured Ram Singh was discharged from the hospital and on 02.11.2012, injured Ram Singh died and he was informed by the relatives that last rites of Ram Singh had also been carried out. He further deposed that after that, he obtained the opinion from the doctor of AIIMS Trauma Centre who opined that cause of death of Ram Singh was the accident in question.
During his cross examination, he deposed that at he had not made any departure entry while he left the PS for the investigation. He further deposed that the departure entry might have been recorded by the duty officer. He further deposed that reached the spot within 10 to 15 minutes and found about 5 -7 persons there. He admitted that situation at the spot was very calm and no quarrel was found there. He admitted that neither the injured nor his family members were found at the spot and that he remained at the spot for about 15 minutes. He admitted that when he reached the hospital, no eye witnesses were present there. He admitted that he had not made any request to the doctors for obtaining the statements of the injured. He denied that the injured Uma Devi was in a conscious condition when he reached the hospital or that he has not deliberately recorded her statement. He admitted that a PCR call was made regarding the incident. He admitted that no inquiry/investigation was conducted by him to trace the PCR caller. He denied that the information regarding accident was given by the accused himself with his own mobile number 9953220029. He denied that accused himself informed about the accident and told that one swift car had hit his vehicle. He could not state if he had made any investigation or inquiry regarding the above-mentioned mobile number. He further State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 13stated that he reached at the spot at about 9:00 AM from the hospital and when he reached at the spot, there were two to three auto drivers, one of his constables and accused. He admitted that by that time he had not recorded any statement of witnesses in the present case. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of complainant at the spot and that he also tried to obtain the statements of other public persons but none of the persons came forward and agreed to give the statement. He admitted that he had not issued any notice to the public persons to join the investigation. He admitted that accused was not interrogated prior to the registration of FIR. He denied that he deliberately did not record the statement of accused and not reduced the information provided to him in relation to the incident. He admitted that complainant was available at the spot once he reached at the spot first time. He admitted that no statement of any person was recorded at the spot when he reached the spot for the first time. He admitted that he arrested the accused at the spot. He could not state about the date on which he had moved an application for obtaining permission of attending doctors for conducting inquiry from the injured persons. He further deposed that he had not called crime team at the spot for inspection. He further stated that he had inquired from the family members of deceased after the death as to whether the deceased was following the instructions of doctors which was prescribed to him or not. He further deposed that the family members of deceased replied that that deceased was following the due instructions given by the doctors. He denied that he had not investigated the matter fairly.
PW-9 Dr. Ajit Kumar Mishra has proved the record MLC no.
State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 144091 and MLC no. 4092 which Ex PW9/A and Ex. PW 9/B respectively.
PW-10 Dr. R. K. Kapoor has proved the discharge summary of patient Ram Singh which Mark 10A.
PW-11 Sh. Tasnimuddin Siddiqui deposed about having conducted the mechanical inspection of vehicle and has proved the mechanical inspection report vide Ex. PW11/A. PW-12. Sh. Tasvir Singh is the medical record technician and has proved the record of discharge summary report of victim Ram Singh vide Ex. PW12/A. PW-13 Dr. Jitender Kumar deposed that he has been working as In-charge Casualty, Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, since 2020 and has worked with Dr. Sheril who has left his job since 2013. He further deposed that the whereabouts of the Dr. Sheril were not known to the office and he identified the signatures of above-named Dr. Sheril on the MLC no. 4092 dated 02.10.2012 which is Ex. PW 9/B. He further deposed that as per MLC, the nature of injury sustained by the patient was sub-total amputation (crush injury) left foot 3 - 4 inches above ankle joint and multiple abrasions over body.
PW-14 Dr. Adarsh Kumar deposed that he has worked with Dr. S. Janani who has left her job and her whereabout are not known. to the office of the said officer. He identified the signatures of above-named Dr. S. Janani on subsequent opinion no. 43 was which is Ex. PW 14/A. He further deposed that as per the said document, after detailed analysis of State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 15discharge summary of patient Ram Singh which was prepared at trauma Center AIIMS as well as other documents including MLC of the said patient, Dr. Janani gave the opinion that "the patient would have died consequent to complication of head injury". He further stated that the patient was admitted at Trauma Center on 07.10.2012 vide TC no. 333615 and treated, surgically operated and discharged on 25.10.2012 with certain advise in view of serious condition of patient. He further deposed that the patient was again brought to Trauma Center on 27.10.2012 with the complaint of abdominal distension for which he was attended again and discharged. He proved on record the discharge summary of patient which is Ex.PW 14/B. He further deposed that photocopy of the follow up OPD Card of the said patient is marked as Mark PW-3X which shows that the said patient again attended Trauma center AIIMS on 30.10.2012 because of the deteriorating health condition and that the patient was again advised the requisite treatment on OPD basis.
PW-15 HC Banwari Lal was the MHC (M) who proved the entry no. 5611/12 dated 02.10.2012 in register no. 19 vide Ex. PW 15/A .
PW-16 Sh. Mahesh Thakur first deposed that on 12.11.2012 and then stated that on 02.11.2012, he went to Bhagat Chandra Hospital and there he identified the dead body of his brother namely Sh. Ram Singh who died due to the accident. He further deposed that the body was handed over to him. He further deposed that he had brought the certificate of casualty death report of the victim which is Ex. PW 16/A During his cross examination, he stated that earlier the deceased was treated at State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 16AIIMS. He could not state regarding the prescription given to his brother by AIIMS. He further deposed that at the time of death, the deceased was in his other house and his nephew namely Pankaj Thakur informed him about the death of his brother. He denied that he did not visit the hospital or that dead body was handed over to him.
9. Having discussed the evidences on record, now let us advert ourselves to the merits of the present case. The accused has been indicted for offences u/s 279,304A,338IPC and Section 146/196 MV Act. The allegations with respect to offences u/s 279,304A ,338 IPC are to the extent that the accused was driving santro car no. DL-2CW-0634 on the given date, time and place in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and public safety of other and due to his aforesaid act of rash or negligent driving of vehicle, the accused struck the same against victims Uma Rani and Ram Singh, due to which the former sustained grievous injuries and the latter after sustaining the injuries succumbed to them while he was under treatment. The allegations against accused qua offence u/s 146/196 MV Act also relates to the facts that the accused was driving the vehicle in question at the time of incident without holding a valid insurance policy of the vehicle.
10. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to discuss the position of law with respect to offence u/s 279 IPC which is as under ;
11. It is a settled law that Section 279 IPC punishes the act of a person driving or riding a vehicle on a public way in a manner State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 17so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. In the case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133(2006) DLT 562, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while discussing about the ingredients of section 279 has observed:-
"In Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under Section 279 or Section 304A, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved".
Further, what would constitute rash and negligent act has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh de- cided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:-
"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 caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with reckless- ness and with indifference as to the 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."
10. Besides this, it has also been upheld in various decisions that evidence of high speed simpliciter, is not ipso facto proof of rashness or negligence.
State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 18In the case of Rajiv Netra Panigrahi Vs. State of Orrisa decided on 20.07.1990, Hon'ble Orrisa High Court observed the following:-
"It is no doubt true, as contended on behalf of the peti- tioner and as supported by authorities, that high speed in driv- ing of a vehicle does not by itself amount to rash and negligent driving. If the accused driver was driving the vehicle on the highway and had negotiated the distance safely, it could not have been said that he was driving rashly or negligently be- cause of the high speed."
In the case of Kishore Chand Joshi Vs. State decided on 12.11.2018 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed:-
"17. A witness can depose as to the manner of driving or speed at which the vehicle was being driven but not render an opinion on "rash and negligence". High speed by itself may not in each case be sufficient to hold that a driver is rash or negli- gent. Speed alone is not the criterion for deciding the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan (Supra), also observed that: "The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court make it more than clear that a mere allegation of high speed would not tantamount to rashness or negligence. In the present case also, I find that apart from the allegation that the truck was being driven at a very high speed there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner acted in a manner which could be re- garded as rash or negligent."
State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 19Further in Abdul Subhan (Supra), the decision of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish 1998 SCC (CRI) 1508 was also dis- cussed in which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-
"3. Both the trial court and the appellate court held the re- spondent guilty for offences under Section 337, 338 and 304A IPC after recording a finding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed". No specific finding has been recorded either by the trial court or by the first appellate court to the effect that the respondent was driving the truck either negli- gently or rashly. After holding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed", both the courts pressed into aid the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor to hold the respondent guilty.
4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness"
by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what is meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything es- sential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitor".
State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 2012. Besides, the ingredients mentioned above, the identity of the accused as driver of the vehicle must also be established separately by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused.
13. Whereas, in order to hold a person liable for offence u/s 338 IPC, the prosecution is also duty bound to establish that the rash or negligent act done by the accused has led to grievous injuries, on the person of another. In other words, in order to hold a person liable for offence u/s 338 IPC, it is necessary to establish that the injuries sustained by the victim are either grievous and same were a resultant consequence of the acts of rash or negligence of accused. Further, so as to hold a person liable for offence u/s 304A IPC, it is necessary to establish that the death of victim was a resultant consequence of rash or neg- ligent act of driving of vehicle by the accused and same was not a result of any other supervening cause. Whereas, to hold a person liable for offence u/s 146/196 MV Act, it is necessary to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident without holding a valid insurance policy.
14. Hence the prosecution was duty bound down to prove the following for holding the accused liable for the alleged offences :-
i. The identity of accused Simranjeet Singh being the driver of the offending vehicle.
ii. The factum of the accident having been caused by the of- fending vehicle.
iii. The accident to be a result of rash and negligent driving of the accused at public place.
State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.P.S. Vikas Puri 21
iv. Death of victim Ram Singh to have resulted from such rash and negligent act of accused.
v. Grievous injuries to have resulted to victim Uma Devi from such rash and negligent act of accused.
vi. The offending vehicle was driven by accused without hold- ing a valid insurance policy.
15. The identity of accused as being the driver of the santro car bearing no. DL-2CW-0634 has been proved by prosecution from the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4. PW-1 Uma Rani is cited as an eye witness to the incident. She is also one of the victim who allegedly sustained the injuries during the incident in question. She has correctly identified the accused as the driver of the alleged offending Santro car in the Court during her testi- mony. Likewise, PW-2 Shrikant Pandey is another eye witness to the alleged incident and he also has correctly identified the accused as the driver of the alleged offending Santro car the during his testimony. PW-4 Neeraj Soni is another eye witness to the incident who during the course of his deposition has also identified the accused as the driver of the alleged offending Santro car. All the above-named witnesses have with-stood the test of cross-examination and their testimonies inspire confi- dence of the Court. Further, it infers that the PW-2 and PW-4 had sufficient time to see the accused at the time and place of the accident as the accused remained with them at the spot un- til the arrival of police. More pertinently during the course of his statement u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.PC., the accused has also not dis- puted the fact that he was driving the alleged offending Santro car at the time of the incident in question and rather raised the defence that an auto rickshaw which was driven ahead of him rammed the same into one swift car and in order to save him- State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 22self and his car from being struck against the auto-rickshaw, he turned the same to the left side of the road due to which it hit against the bus stand. From the consistent and credit-worthy testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 as well as the version narrated by accused in his statement u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.PC., the factum of accused driving the Santro car no. DL-2CW-0634 at the time of the incident stands proved. As per the testimony of PW-1 Uma Rani, when she along with her husband Ram Singh and PW-2 Shrikant Pandey was waiting for the bus for going to Satsang, the Santro car driven by the accused came at a very high speed and first struck against her husband and thereafter, the said car hit her and the impact was such that her husband fell a little ahead of bus stand while sustaining injuries on his head and she sustained the bodily injuries due to the said incident. PW-2 Shrikant Pandey being the other eye wit- ness to the incident has also testified on similar lines as PW-1, as to the factum of accident caused by the Santro car no. DL- 2CW-0634 being driven by the accused. Further, in a similar fashion, PW-4 Neeraj Soni being the other eye witness to the incident has also testified that the incident took place when the high speeding Santro car no. DL-2CW-0634 being driven by the accused rammed into bus stand and the impact of collision was such that injured uncle (Ram Singh) was thrown away towards back side. Pertinently, during the examination of all the above- named three witnesses, the accused and his Counsel have not raised the dispute regarding the identity of the vehicle i.e Santro car no. DL -2CW-0634. The defence has failed to show any mo- tive or intent on the part of all the above-named witnesses for falsely implicating the accused nor has led any evidence to show that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case at the behest of the above-named witnesses, hence there State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 23is no reason to believe the testimonies of the above-named three witnesses. Further, the mechanical inspection report of the Santro car bearing no. DL-2CW-0634 which Ex.PW 11/A also corroborates the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 as it reflects about the extensive damage being on the car and said report has gone unrebutted since PW-11 i.e Mechanical expert Taslimuddin Siddiqui was not cross examined in respect of the same despite the opportunity given to the defence. In absence of any reason to disbelieve the cogent and credit-worthy testi- monies of PW-1 , PW-2 and PW-4, the prosecution has suc- cessfully proved that the accident was caused by the Santro car of accused bearing no. DL-2 CW-0634.
16. Moving further, in order to prove its case, it was also imper- ative for prosecution to prove the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused while he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The position of law discussed above sug- gests that a rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense it was done without due care and caution. While culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with reckless- ness and indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negli- gence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public gener- ally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution. In the present case PW-1 has categorically tes- tified that while she along with PW-2 and her husband Ram Singh (since dead) was waiting for bus for going to Satsang on the fateful day of 02.10.2012, the accused who was driving car no. DL-2CW-0634 came at a very high speed while driving the State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 24vehicle in a rash manner and struck the vehicle against the bus stand due to which the husband of complainant ( Ram Singh) fell ahead of the bus stand while the PW-1 sustained bodily in- juries. While it is no doubt true that the term high speed is a rel- ative term and no specific evidence has been led by the prose- cution to the speed at which the offending vehicle was being driven at the time of accident, yet it cannot be over looked that the act of ramming the vehicle into a bus stand is in itself rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehi- cle i.e. the accused herein. The accused was duty bound to re- main careful while driving the vehicle and especially when he was crossing the crowded place where a bus stand was lo- cated. The defence of accused that the accident took place without any fault of the accused as the auto rickshaw which was driven ahead of the vehicle of accused suddenly rammed the auto into a swift car, has not been established by accused through any cogent and convincing evidences. Even assuming that some auto-rickshaw driven ahead of car of the accused suddenly applied brakes or rammed into some other car, still the accused was having option to stop his car had the same been driven at a slow speed. The accused while driving his car negligently did not stop the same and rather rammed it into the bus stand where the persons were waiting for the buses and the impact of such collision was such that even victim Ram Singh fell ahead at some distance from the bus stop. It stands clearly established from the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW11/A that the brakes of the vehicle no. DL-2CW-0634 were completely fine at the time when the incident had taken place but still the accused failed to stop the vehicle to avert the inci- dent, which he could not do so possibly due to the reason that he was driving the vehicle at an excessively high speed. These State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 25facts reflects the failure on the part of accused to exercise the duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding the injuries to the public generally and to victims Uma Rani and Ram Singh (since dead) in particular. The testimony of PW-1 was duly corroborated by PW-2 and PW-4 and the said wit- nesses also consistently narrated that the accident had taken place due to the fast driving of vehicle of accused in a place near crowded area. The negligence of accused is also writ at large in his act of ramming the vehicle in the bus stand where the public persons were present. No evidence has come on record as to the accident having been caused despite exercise of due care and caution by the accused as the accused has chosen to merely deny or the incriminating evidences put to him during his statement recorded u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr. PC. Even though the accused has narrated therein that there was no fault on his part leading to the incident as one auto-rickshaw which was driven ahead of his car hit the overhead swift car from its back side and so as to save his car ramming into auto, he turned the same to left side due to which it hit the bus stand. The fact that the statement of accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr. PC is not the evidence of accused, cannot be lost of sight. The ex- planation furnished at the time of recording such statement is to be proved by the accused by appearing as a witness in accor- dance with section 315 Cr. PC and that is the stage when the accused appearing as defence witness can be subjected to cross-examination. The mere explanation given by accused in statement u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr. PC does not amount to proof. In the present case, with the accused not stepping into witness box and in view of the, cogent, consistent and credit-worthy tes- timonies of eye witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, the prosecu- tion can be said to have proved beyond reasonable doubts that State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 26the accused was driving his car with rashness and negligence leading to the incident.
17. Further, the death of victim Ram Singh having ensued due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused was required to be established by the prosecution for holding accused liable for offence u/s 304A IPC. The charge-sheet states that initially after the incident, victim Ram Singh was taken to the Mata Channan Devi Hospital, Janak Puri where his statement could not be recorded due to the injuries suffered by him but subsequently on 02.11.2012, when it was informed that victim Ram Singh passed away due to the injuries suffered by him, IO took the opinion qua the death of victim Ram Singh on the basis of his medical records as the post-mortem of his dead body could not be done as the dead body was cremated by the family members of victim before giving the information to the IO. Herein, the question which arises is that as to whether the death of victim Ram Singh had taken place due to the injuries suffered by him during the incident in question or that whether same resulted through any other supervening cause? PW-1 who is the wife of victim Ram Singh during her cross examina- tion, has admitted that her husband was discharged from the Trauma Center after cure-up of injuries and he was taken to the house. She has also candidly stated that her husband was 70 years old at the time of incident. PW-3 who is the son of victim Ram Singh also admitted to the fact that his father got dis- charged from AIIMS Trauma Center on 25.10.2012 and there- after, he was taken again to AIIMS for check-up on 30.10.2012 and subsequently, he was taken back to the house where he re- mained from 30.10.2012 to 02.11.2012 and that thereafter, he died at Bhagat Chandra Hospital, Mahavir Enclave on State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 2702.11.2012. The testimony of both PW-1 and PW-3 makes it clear that victim Ram Singh was discharged from the hospital on 25.10.2012 after having recovered from the injuries suffered during the incident in question. The prosecution is relying upon the report issued by Dr. S. Janani qua which PW-14 Dr. Adarsh Kumar was examined and the said report Ex. PW 14/A states that the patient (Ram Singh) might have died consequent to complications of head injuries. It is pertinent to mention that this report was issued not after the post-mortem of the victim Ram Singh but same was prepared on the basis of the medical records of the victim. There is nothing in the testimony of PW-1 or PW-3 specifying any reasons or pressing circumstances un- der which they did not inform the IO qua the death of victim Ram Singh immediately and rather got him cremated without any intimation to the IO. PW-8 (Retired SI Ram Niwas) being the IO of the case has also admitted that he made inquiry from the family members of the deceased that after his discharge from hospital, the deceased was following the instructions of the doctors which were prescribed to him and as per the version of the relatives of deceased, such instructions were duly followed by him. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 is again silent regard- ing such facts that the prescribed instructions of the doctors were duly followed by the deceased after he was discharged from the hospital. The victim Ram Singh got discharged from the hospital on 25.10.2012 and he eventually died on 02.11.2012 i.e. after 7 days from his discharge from AIIMS Hos- pital. More pertinently, in the intervening 7 days' period, the vic- tim was also taken to the AIIMS Hospital on 30.10.2012 for his medical checkup and thereafter, he remained at his home until 02.11.2012. These facts makes it crucial on the part of prosecu- tion to establish that in the intervening period of seven days af-
State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 28ter 25.10.2012, the victim Ram Singh was duly following the in- structions given by the doctors concerned but such facts have not been established by the prosecution and rather from overall material on record, the possibility that the death of victim Ram Singh had taken place either due to his old age (he being 70 years old) or due to any other supervening circumstances i.e. he being not following the prescribed medications / medical ad- vices given by the doctors at the time of his discharge or due to any other reasons etc., cannot be completely ruled out. The overt and hasty act on the part of family members of victim Ram Singh in hurriedly getting his body cremated without giving in- formation to the IO also gives rise to an inference that such act might have been done by the family members of the victim so that the post-mortem could not be conducted and the reasons for same which can be assumed are that the death of the victim might have occurred due to some supervening causes and not the injuries suffered during the incident. In the considered view of this Court, the prosecution has failed to establish that the death of victim Ram Singh had taken place due to rash and negligent act of driving vehicle by the accused or in other words, that same was a direct cause of the rash and negligent act of accused, hence the liability cannot be imputed upon the accused qua the offence u/s 304A IPC.
18. Further, it was also imperative on the part of prosecution to establish that grievous injuries sustained by victim Uma Devi have resulted due to rash and negligent act of accused and to prove this fact, prosecution is relying upon the testimony of PW- 1 primarily. PW-1 through her oral testimony has clearly nar- rated to have sustained bodily injuries due to the incident and she has been duly corroborated in her version by the testimony State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 29of PW-2 and PW-4. Further, PW-9 Dr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, RMO from Mata Channan Devi Hospital who has identified the signa- tures of Dr. Sheril and has thus, proved MLC no. 4092 Ex. PW 9/B of the victim Uma Devi. The version of PW-9 was further corroborated by PW-10 Dr. R. K. Kapoor who deposed of hav- ing conducted operation of victim Uma Rani. He also identified the signatures of Dr. Sudhir on the final opinion qua the injuries suffered by victim Uma Rani as reflected in MLC Ex. PW 9/B. The MLC Ex. PW 9/B mentions the injuries sustained by victim Uma Rani as grievous in nature and the due corroboration of such fact was also given by PW-13 Dr. Jitender Kumar. It is evi- dent from record that victim Uma Rani suffered the grievous in- juries in the nature of sub-total amputation (crush injuries) left foot 3-4 inches above ankle joint and multiple abrasions over her body. The injuries suffered by the victim Uma Rani falls within the domain of grievous injuries and all the relevant wit- nesses (medical experts i.e. PW-9, PW-10 and PW-13) who have deposed in that regard were not examined by defence on any aspects despite opportunity and hence, the documentary evidence in the nature of MLC and other medical records of vic- tim Uma Rani have remained unrebutted and the factum of grievous injuries having been caused to the injured/victim Uma Rani has been duly proved by the prosecution , which is suffi- cient to hold accused liable forn offence u/s 338 IPC.
19. The prosecution was also duty bound to establish the fact that the accused was driving the alleged vehicle no. DL-2CW- 0634 at the time of incident without holding a valid insurance policy in accordance with section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this regard, pertinently, the identity of the accused being the driver of the alleged offending vehicle stands duly established in State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 30view of the discussion made in the preceding part of this judg- ment. Accused has not produced the valid insurance policy of the vehicle as on the date of incident during the course of the proceedings of the present case nor has examined any witness to prove such fact. Conversely, from the overall evidences led by prosecution and more specifically from the testimony of PW- 8, it clearly surfaces that the offending vehicle of accused was not having the valid insurance policy as on the date of the al- leged incident. The accused only made a denial simplicter of the fact with regard to the insurance policy of the vehicle at the time of his statement u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.PC. The accused has neither stated that the vehicle was duly insured at the time of in- cident nor any suggestions by defence to such regard were of- fered even to the material prosecution witnesses including the IO. The accused was having an option to show that the vehicle in question was duly insured as on the date of incident by pro- ducing the copy of the insurance policy of the vehicle or by call- ing the record of such insurance policy from the insurance com- pany at an appropriate stage of the trial proceedings but same has not been done by the accused for the reasons best known to the defence. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the necessary ingredients for holding the accused liable for of- fence u/s 146 r/w 196 MV Act are also fulfilled in the present case and hence, the accused deserves to be convicted for such offense.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court hereby holds accused not guilty for offence u/s 304A IPC and therefore, accused is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 304A IPC. Whereas, the accused is held guilty for having committed offences u/s 279, 338 IPC and Section 146 r/w State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 31196 MV Act and he is hereby convicted for the offences u/s 279, 338 IPC and Section 146 r/w 196 MV Act.
21. Let the convict be heard separately on the point of sentenc- ing.
Announced in the open Court on 09.05.2025.
(Rishabh Kapoor) JMFC-05 South West District Dwarka Courts, Delhi State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.
P.S. Vikas Puri 32