Delhi District Court
State vs . Hasan Akbar on 26 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR, MM-04,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
STATE Vs. HASAN AKBAR
FIR No. 769/14
PS: MIANWALI NAGAR
U/S: 279/337 IPC & 3/181 & 146/196 MV Act
Sr. no. of the case : 84/2/15
Unique Case ID no. : 02401R0134202015
Date of commission of offence : 08.10.2014
Date of institution of the case : 11.03.2015
Name of the complainant : ASI Sher Singh
Name of accused and address : Hasan Akbar,
s/o Sh. Mohd. Akbar,
r/o Flat no. 117, LIG Flats,
Pocket 3, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 279/337 IPC and u/s 3/181
& 146/196 MV Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted U/s 279/337 IPC.
Separately convicted U/s 3/181,
& 146/196 MV Act on pleading
guilty.
Date on which reserved for judgment : 26.05.2016
Date of judgment : 26.05.2016
*******************************************************************************************************************************
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR DECISION:
THE FACTS :
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.10.2014 at about 11.36 AM near Red Light, Jwala Puri road towards Nangloi side, Delhi, accused was driving a motorcycle bearing registration no.
DL-4SCC-5819 in rash and negligent manner. While so driving he hit against pedestrian namely Smt. Krishna due to which she received FIR No. 769/14, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 1/6 simple injuries. During the investigation it was found that accused was driving the said vehicle without having the requisite driving licence, insurance. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused.
2. Complete set of copies were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused Hasan Akbar @ Shan Hussain for trial of offence U/s 279/337 IPC and 3/181 and 146/196 MV Act, to which he pleaded not guilty. During trial accused voluntarily pleaded guilty for commission of offence U/s 3/181 and 146/196 MV Act. On his voluntarily plea of guilt accused Hasan Akbar was convicted and sentenced to pay fine for comission of offence U/s 3/181 and 146/196 MV Act vide separate order. Fine was paid by him.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
3. The prosecution in support of present case has examined only one witness i.e. PW-1 Retd. SI Sher Singh, who is the complainant in the present case.
4. PW1 Retd. SI Sher Singh deposed that on 08.10.2014, his duty was on PCR Van from 08.00 AM to 08.00 PM. It is stated that at about 11.40 AM he received a call regarding accident at Red Light Jwala Puri in front of Nangloi Depot. It is stated that on receipt of such information he along with HC Sunil and HC Kapil reached at the spot. It is stated that on reaching there they found that one lady was lying at left side of road at Nangloi Side. It is stated that the accused was handed over to HC Sunil and thereafter the said injured lady was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. It is stated that she informed her name as Krishna. It is stated that at the spot offending motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-4SCC-5819 and accused Hassan Akbar were also present. It is stated that the injured was admitted in the hospital vide MLC no. 19337/14. Thereafter, he came back at the spot. It is stated that at the spot IO SI Padam Singh was present, accused and the offending vehicle were handed over to the IO. It is stated that his statement was FIR No. 769/14, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 2/6 recorded by the IO which is Ex. PW1/A. The offending vehicle was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B.
5. PW-1 Retd. SI Sher Singh is the complainant in the present case however, from his testimony it appears that he had not seen the accident in question rather reached the spot of accident only on receiving a PCR call regarding the same as he was on PCR duty. The only eye witness of the incident i.e. victim Smt. Krishna has expired. She died almost one year after the accident in question. Her death has no connection with the accident in question. Hence, there is no living eye witness of the accident in question who can prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. In these circumstances, it would be a futile exercise to proceed with the prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the present case was a result of an act of accused. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/s 279/337 IPC.
6. The case is at the stage of PE, however, since there is nothing incriminating against the accused, proceeding further and recording the statement of remaining formal witnesses would be futile exercise and wastage of judicial time, resources and money. Hence PE is closed. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs. reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "in case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date". Since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, as such, recording of statement of accused is also dispensed with.
7. In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 the Honorable Supreme Court while FIR No. 769/14, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 3/6 commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression.
Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons
- cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts.
8. It has been held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
9. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/337 IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused. Recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is also dispensed with.
10. Thus, in view of the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be held that the accused was grossly negligent or reckless that he must be held criminally liable. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 Indian Penal Code are that there must be FIR No. 769/14, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 4/6 rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. The prosecution in the present case has failed to prove how the act of the accused was rash or negligent to bring the same under the purview of Sections 279/337 Indian Penal Code.
11. It was observed by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in the case titled as "Vinod Kumar v. State" 2012(1) RCR (criminal) 567 as follows, "No evidence or any other material was placed on record by the prosecution to show the manner in which the Petitioner was driving the said vehicle to prove the rashness and negligence of the Petitioner. No photographs of the spot or the bus have been taken. PW-10, the alleged eye witness to the incident has also not deposed anything in regard to the accident or manner in which the vehicle was being driven by the Petitioner, except making a bald statement that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner which does not prove the guilt of the Petitioner. There is no evidence placed on record to show the speed of the vehicle or the manner in which it was being driven to show rashness and negligence on the part of the Petitioner, especially when the area was a crowded one."
12. In case titled as "Abdul Subhan vs State, NCT of Delhi" 2007 Cr.L.J 1089, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that, "In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential 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".
FIR No. 769/14, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 5/613. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of alleged incident. The evidence coming on record entitles the accused for the benefit of doubt. Therefore, accused Hasan Akbar is hereby acquitted of the charges in the present case for commission of offence U/s 279/337 IPC.
14. Formalities of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. have been complied with. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 26.05.2016 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 6 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 769/14, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 6/6