Delhi District Court
State vs . Pramod Kumar on 23 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER MOHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04/CENTRAL: DELHI
STATE VS. PRAMOD KUMAR
FIR No. 168/2008
Case No. 286816/2016
P.S. : Sarai Rohilla
U/s 279/337/304A IPC & 3/181 MV Act 1988
Date of institution of case : 21.11.2008
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 17.12.2019
Date of judgment : 23.12.2019
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence : 08.07.2008 b) Offence complained of : U/s 279/337/304A IPC & u/s 3/181 M.V. Act 1988 c) Name of complainant : Om Prakash d) Name of accused, : Parmod Kumar his parentage : S/o Suresh Prasad local & permanent residence R/o: Plot no.4, Shop no.8, Ambey Garden, Libaspur, Delhi. e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty f) Final order : Convicted. BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:
1. Tersley put, the case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2008 at about 5 am one Om Prakash, herein PW 1, was taking his sister Neelam and her Husband Saroj to New Delhi Railway Station on a Motorcycle bearing No DL 8S AN 2883. It is alleged that a truck bearing number HR 38 3960 came from behind in rash and negligent manner and hit their motorcycle. Om Prakash and Neelam sustained injuries whereas Saroj was dragged by the truck and died on the spot. The information of the alleged accident was received by PW 2 SI Ram Mehar (Retd.) at about 5.45 AM, who after making an entry in DD register at Serial No 7A, marked the same to PW 10 HC Rawat Singh and PW 9 Ram KIshore. FIR No 168/08 of the alleged incident was registered by PW2 on receipt of rukka from PW 9 sent by PW 10. The investigation of the case was further handed over to PW 12 Raj Kumar.
2. The investigation was set int motion and chargesheet was filed on 21/11/2008. The copy of the chargesheet as well as annexures were supplied to the accused in compliance with Section 207 Crpc and Charges under section 279/337/304A IPC and 3/181 MV Act were framed against the accused Pramod Kumar on 27/04/2009 to which the accused pleded not guilty an claimed trial. A total of 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish the case against the accused. Two prosection witnesses, namely, PW Manoj KUmar and PW Shiv Kumar were dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses for not being material to the case at hand vide order dated 30/01/2017.
3. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and placed reliance on MLC reports of the victims along with the documents/seizure report of the offending truck and motorcycle.
4. The Complainant/injured Om Prakash has been examined as PW 1. PW 1 in his examination dated 17/09/2009 and 08/03/2011 has stated that on 08/07/2008 at about 5 am, he was taking his sister Neelam and her husband Saroj, since deceased, to New Delhi Railway Station and when they reached near ganda nala, Kali Dass Marg, a truck bearing no HR 38 3960 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and hit their motorcycle. He further states that due to the accident he and his sister suffered injuries whereas Saroj died on the spot. He further states that the accused was apprehended by him and his custody was handed over to the Police which arrived on the spot of the accident. He thereafter was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital (HRH). Police recorded his statement which is Ex. PW 1/A. PW 1 further identified the case property i.e. offending truck. PW 1 was crossexamined on 08/03/2011.
5. PW2 SI Ram Mehar (Retd) in his examination dated 19/09/2014 stated that at about 5.45 am he received an information with respect to an accident and after making an entry in DD register at Serial No 7A, he marked the same to PW 10 HC Rawat Singh and PW 9 Ram KIshore. He further registered FIR No 168/08 of the alleged incident on receipt of rukka at about 8.45 am from PW 9 sent by PW 10. The investigation of the case was further handed over by him to PW 12 Raj Kumar. PW 2 was examined and discharged on 19/09/2014. No crossexamination was done by the counsel of the accused of PW2 after opportunity being given.
6. PW 3 Neelam, one the injured/victim in the present case, in her examination dated 13/08/2015 reiterated the facts of the accident with respect to time and place as stated by PW 1. She further correctly identified the accused who is stated to be the driver of the truck as well as the offending truck. PW 3 was examined, crossexamined and discharged on 13/08/2015.
7. PW 4 Sh Ramu is the father of the deceased Saroj. In his examination dated 30/01/2017 he states to have identified the dead body of his son Saroj in the mortuary of Hindu Rao Hospital on 08/07/2008 vide identification memo exhibited as Ex PW 4/A. PW 4 was not crossexamined and discharged on 30/01/2017.
8. PW 5 ASI Ramesh KUmar in his examination dated 17/04/2017 stated that he reached the spot of accident and took photographs of the case property i.e. offending truck which are Ex. PW 1/1 to Ex. PW1/13. In his cross examination he stated to have received a call at about 6.05 am and reached at the spot of accident at about 6.30 am. PW 5 was examined, cross examined and discharged on 17/04/2017.
9. PW 6 Dr M.K. Panigrahi conducted post moterm examination of deceased Saroj. In his examination dated 17/10/2017 he stated the cause of death due to Shock and hemorrhage consequent to combined effect of all injuries as mentioned in his detailed post moterm report no HRH/74/08 which is exhibited as Ex PW6/A. PW 6 was not cross examined by accused counsel after opportunity benig given and was discharged on 17/10/2017.
10. PW 7 & PW 11, Sh K.V. SIngh, Medical Record Clerk, HRH Delhi, was examined on behalf of Dr Deepak & Dr Kamlesh, respectively. In his examination he identified the handwriting and signature of Dr Deepak in MLCs bearing NO 5270/08 dated 10/07/2008 of Neelam, 5211/08 dated 08/07/2008 of Om Prakash and 5209/08 dated 08/07/2008 of unknown.The MLCs are exhibited as Ex PW7/A, Ex PW7/B & PW7/C. PW7 was examined, cross examined and discharged on 26/03/2018 with respect to DR Deepak. Further, in his examination dated 03/04/2019 with respect to Dr Kamlesh, he identified the handwriting, signature and results of Dr Kamlesh on MLC No 5270/08. Sh K.V. Singh as PW 11 was discharged on 03/04/2019.
11. PW 8 ASI/Tech Devender KUmar (Retd) was examined with respect to the mechanical inspection report made by him of the case property vehicle i.e Truck HR 38 D 3960 and Motorcycle .He identified the detailed mechanical report which are exhibited as Ex PW7/A and PW7/B dated 17/10/2017. PW 8 was examined, cross examined and discharged on 25/09/2018.
12. PW 9 ASI Ram KIshore in his examination dated 18/10/2018 stated that on receiving DD No 7A from PW 10 Rawat Singh he along with PW 10 reached the spot and found a truck bearing NO HR 38D 3960 in accidental/burnt condition with one motor cycle beneth the said truck.He further states that he met PW 1 Om Prakash who was present at the spot of the accident and PW 1 handed the accused to them. He further states that PW 10 HC Rawat SIngh prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him after which he went to the Police station Sarai ROhilla to get the FIR registered. Thereafter, he handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to PW 12 Raj Kumar who was the I.O of the case. PW 9 was crossexamined and discharged on 22/11/2018.
13. PW 10 SI Rawat Singh was examined on 25/02/2019. PW 10 reiterates what PW 9 stated in his statement with respect to their reaching on the sport and the fact of a truck bearing NO HR 38D 3960 in accidental/burnt condition with one motor cycle beneath the said truck. He further affirmed meeting the Complainant/PW1 on the spot of accident and also handing over of the accused by PW 1 to them. He states that he came to know that one injured was taken to HRH by PCR Van. He states that he recorded the statement of complainant/PW 1 and thereafter reached the hospital and collected two MLCs, one of PW 1 and other of an unknown person who was brought dead as per the MLC. He further states that he prepared the rukka on which basis the complaint was registered. He thereafter handed over the case files to PW 12 IO Raj Kumar. PW 10 was further examined, cross examined and discharged on 06/03/2019.
14. PW 12 Inspector Raj Kumar is the I.O of the present case. He was examined on 21/11/2019. In his examination PW 12 states that he was handed over the case file from PW 10 SI Rawat Singh. On reaching the spot he found that one truck bearing no HR 38D 3960 and one motorcycle in burnt condition was lying beneath the said truck. He states that he met the Complainant/PW 1 and was informed that one person namely Saroj had died on the spot due top the accident. PW 12 further states that he prepared the site plan which is Ex PW 12/A. Thereafter, he seized the truck and motorcycle vide memo Ex PW9/B and Ex PW9/C along with relevant documents of seized truck and motorcycle vide memo Ex PW9/D and Ex PW1/B, respectively. PW 12 further arrested the accused, conducted his personal search and thereafter prepared an arrest and personal search memo which are exhibited as Ex PW9/A and Ex PW12/B, respectively. PW 12 then got conducted the mechanical inspection of both the Vehicles. He then went to HRH and got identified the dead body of the deceased Saroj from his relatives i.e. father and brother and prepared identification memo exhibited as Ex PW 12/C. He thereafter got conducted the postmortem of the deceased and prepared handing over memo exhibited as Ex PW4/B. He further on 10/07/2008 got conducted the MLC of injured PW 3 Neelam and recorded her statement and after obtaining final opinion on the MLCs of PW 3 & PW 1 he prepared the challan.
15. Accused was examined u/s 313 Crpc on 23/11/2019 wherein all the incriminating evidence on record along with the documents were put to him which he generally denied. He deposed that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further deposed that he was not driving the offending truck at the time of the accident and his owner took him to the police station.
16. Accused chose not to lead any defence Evidence and his DE was closed on 23/11/2019.
17. Final arguments were heard on behalf of LD. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. THe entire record has been carefully perused.
18. The Complainant/PW 1 & injured PW 3 Neelam, are the eye witnesses and victims of the accident, and therefore, their testimony is relevant and need conscious scrutiny/consideration and it is on the touchstone of their testimony along with other corroborative evidence that the fate of the accused and of this case is going to be decided. The Complainant/PW 1 stated that on 08/07/2008 at about 5 am, he was taking his sister Neealm and her husband Saroj, since deceased, to New Delhi Railway Station and when they reached near ganda nala, Kali Dass Marg, a truck bearing no HR 38 3960 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and hit their motorcycle. He further states that due to the accident he and his sister suffered injuries whereas Saroj died on the spot. He further states that the accused was apprehended by him and his custody was handed over to the Police which arrived on the spot of the accident. He thereafter was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital (HRH). Police recorded his statement which is Ex. PW 1/A. PW 1 further identified the case property i.e. offending truck. Question was raised in cross examination with respect to his presence at the spot of the accident and a suggestion was put to PW 1 that no accident occurred in his presence. The same was denied by PW 1 in his cross examination. PW 3 in her statement reiterated and corroborated the facts of the accident with respect to time and place as stated by PW 1. She further correctly identified the accused who is stated to be the driver of the truck as well as the offending truck. Both the witnesses corroborated each other and a conjoint reading of the statement of PW 1 & 3 along with their MLCs would reveal that they were not only present at the spot of the accident but were also injured by the same.
19. Testimony of PW 1 has also been further corroborated by PW 9 & 10 who reached on the spot on receipt of the DD entry made by PW 2 soon after the accident. IO/PW 12 has also corroborated the version of PW1. PW 9, 10 & 12 have specifically deposed in their examination that they met Complainant/PW1 at the spot of the accident being the injured and eye witness of the accident and who also produced the accused then and there. This fact has also stood the test of the cross examination as in the cross examination of PW 9 a suggestion was made that PW 9 & PW 10 did not met the complainant at the spot of the accident, which was specifically denied by PW 9. The presence of the complainant/injured at the spot of the accident and the presence of the accused who was handed over by the Complainant/PW1 to the police at the spot of the accident hence stands proved.
20. The death of Sh Saroj has been proved by PW 6 Dr M.K. Panigrahi who conducted postmortem examination of deceased Saroj mentioning the cause of death due to Shock and hemorrhage consequent to combined effect of all injuries in his detailed postmortem report no HRH/74/08 which is exhibited as Ex PW6/A. The injuries to PW 1 & 3 has been proved by PW 7 & PW 11, Sh K.V. SIngh, Medical Record Clerk, HRH Delhi, who was examined on behalf of Dr Deepak & Dr Kamlesh, respectively, wherein he identified the handwriting and signature of Dr Deepak in MLCs bearing NO 5270/08 dated 10/07/2008 of Neelam, 5211/08 dated 08/07/2008 of Om Prakash and 5209/08 dated 08/07/2008 of unknown which are exhibited as Ex PW7/A, Ex PW7/B & PW7/C. There is no dispute with respect to the abovementioned medical records.
21. The Investigating Officer PW 12 deposed that on 08.07.2008 the present case was marked to him. He alongwith Ct. Ram KIshore reached the spot where he found one truck bearing registration No HR 38D 3960 & one motorcycle in a burnt condition lying underneath the truck. He also met the complainant/PW 1 at the spot. During inquiry, he came to know that one Saroj had died on the spot and his body was taken to HRH Hospital. He proved the site plan which is Ex PW 12/A. Thereafter, he seized the truck and motorcycle which is proved vide memo Ex PW9/B and Ex PW9/C along with relevant documents of seized truck and motorcycle which are proved vide memo Ex PW9/D and Ex PW1/B, respectively. PW 12 further arrested the accused, conducted his personal search and thereafter prepared an arrest and personal search memo which are proved by Ex PW9/A and Ex PW12/B, respectively. PW 12 then got conducted the mechanical inspection of both the Vehicles. He then went to HRH and got identified the dead body of the deceased Saroj from his relatives i.e. father and brother and prepared identification memo which is proved as Ex PW 12/C. He thereafter got conducted the postmortem of the deceased and prepared handing over memo proved as Ex PW4/B. He further got conducted the MLC of injured PW 3 Neelam and recorded her statement and after obtaining final opinion on the MLCs of PW 3 & PW 1 he prepared the challan. IN his cross a suggestion was put to PW 12 that he did not went to the spot of the accident or the hospital and remained at the PS itself. The same was denied by PW 12. The statement of PW 12 and the documents exhibited by him also stood the test of cross examination. No such infirmity or discrepancy was revealed with respect to the documents and his statement. PW 12 testimony remained constant through his cross examination as well.
22. PW 8 ASI/Tech Devender KUmar (Retd) proved the mechanical inspection report made by him of the case property vehicle i.e Truck HR 38 D 3960 which is identified by him and exhibited as Ex PW7/A dated 17/10/2017. As per the report the driver cabin, engine, steering & brake system of the Truck HR 38 D 3960 were found to be damaged. Further, it has also been found that the truck was on fire since the front body, driver cabin, both Headlight, indicator lights, dash board etc were damaged due to fire. He has also proved the mechanical inspection report made by him of the Motorcycle which is identified by him and exhibited as PW7/B dated 17/10/2017. As per the report the vehicle is totally damaged due to fire. The said reports stood the test of cross examination and stands duly proved.
23. Further, a perusal of the mechanical inspection report in conjunction with the photographs of the case property which are exhibited as PW 1/1 to PW1/13 clearly reveals the extent and the force with which the accident have taken place. From the above said documents conclusion can be safely drawn that such a type of damage cannot happen if the vehicle was being driven at low or controlled speed. For such kind of damage to occur in which the motorcycle was completely crushed and destroyed under the tyres of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing no. HR 38 D 3960 and fire engulfed both the truck and the motorcycle, it is not wrong to conclude that the truck was being driven at a very high speed.
24. The offence with which the accused is charged with is Section 304A IPC, hence, it is apposite to set forth the law on the anvil of which the facts of the present case is to be tested.In Sushil Ansal vs State thrgh. CBI (2014) 6 SCC 173 the Supreme Court laid down the law on Section 304A IPC and observed that one of the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 304 A IPC indeed is that the rash or negligent act of the accused ought to be the causa causans i.e. direct, immediate and proximate cause of the death. An equal, if not more important dimension of the offence punishable under section 304 A IPC viz, that the act of the accused must be the proximate,immediate or efficient cause of the death of the victim without the intervention of any other persons negligence. The act of the accused must be proved to be the causa causans and not simply a causa sina qua non for the death of the victim in a case under section 304 A IPC. Hence, for an offence under Sectio0n 304A IPC to be proved , it is not only necessaqary to establish that the accused was either rash or grossly neglient but also that such rashness and gross negligence was the causa causans that resulted in the death of the victim. The causa causans can be defined as the immediate cause, the last link in the chain of causation, the immedioate cuase as opposed to a remote casue, the ral effective cause of damage.
25. When the above test is applied to the facts of the case in hand it is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the eye witness account of PW 1 & 3, mechanical inspection report which are exhibited as Ex PW7/A and PW7/B dated 17/10/2017 and the photographs of the case property which are exhibited as PW 1/1 to PW1/13 that the casue of death of the victim Saroj was direct, immediate and proximate result of the rash and negligent act of driving by the accused pramod kumar. The presence of skid marks in the photographs of case property further corroborates that the vehicle was being driven at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and the accused was not able to control the offending vehicle before the incident. The causa causans indeed was the act of the driver driving the offending vehicle at a very high speed and it is due to such rash and negligent driving the death of Saroj was caused along with injuries to PW 1 & 3. Further, accused was not having any valid licence when he was driving the offending vehicle. During the course of evidence or even during arguments, this fact has not been disputed by the Ld. Counsel for accused. Infact, accused has failed to produce any valid licence even during the arguments.
26. As per medical report, Saroj died on the spot and PW 1 & 3 also suffered simple injuries in the accident. Accordingly, accused Parmod stands convicted under section 279 IPC for driving in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. He further stands convicted under section 337 IPC for causing hurt to Smt. Neelam (PW3) and Om Prakash (PW1) while driving in the aforesaid manner and hitting against the motorcycle bearing no. DL8S AN 2833. He is also held guilty under section 304A IPC for causing death of Saroj by the aforesaid rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. Finally, accused also stands convicted under section 3/181 M.V Act for driving the above truck without any valid driving license.
Let convict Pramod Kumar be heard on the quantum of sentence on 13.01.2020.
Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2019.12.24
12:17:54 +0530
PRONOUNCED IN THE
OPEN COURT (CHANDER MOHAN)
TODAY ON 23rd DECEMBER 2019 MM04 (CENTRAL)
DELHI