Delhi District Court
State vs . Vipin @ Kashmiri on 19 December, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANKUR JAIN
ACMM-SOUTH-WEST: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 04/11
U/s. 285/337/304 A IPC
PS: Dwarka Sec.23
State vs. Vipin @ Kashmiri
Date of Institution of case:16.01.2012
Date of Judgment reserved:19.12.2015
Date on which Judgment pronounced:19.12.2015
Unique ID no. of the case : 02405R0053062012
Date of commission of offence: 16.01.2011
Name of complainant : SI Ram Pratap
No. D-4215, PS Sector 23,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
Name and address of accused : Vipin @ Kashmiri
s/o Sh. Findell Singh
r/o H.No. RZF-1, Mahavir Enclave,
New Delhi - 110045.
Offence complained of : 285/337/304-A IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of order : 19/12/2015
Final order : Convicted
JUDGMENT
The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
Brief facts as necessary are that :-
1) On 16.1.2011, SI Ram Pratap was handed over DD No. 17 A and on receipt of said DD he alongwith ct. Chhittar Mal went to the spot i.e. Sector 09, Metro Station where they found one RTV bearing registration FIR No.04/11 PS Dwarka Sec.23 Page 1 of 4 2 no. DL1VA-1247 which was burning, in the meantime, fire brigade came and extinguish the fire. On checking the RTV, one body was found and it was completely burnt. IO also came to know that injured has been removed to the hospital. Crime team was called and photographs were taken. One Rajnish came at the spot and identified the body of the deceased to be that of Raj Kumar. IO received a call from Police Station that injured has been removed to the DDU Hospital. Accordingly, IO left Ct.
Chhittarmal at the spot and went to the hospital obtained the MLC of Ajit and Rakesh Awasthi but could not record their statement as they were unfit. On the DD Entry IO prepared tehrir and got the present FIR registered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused Vipin @ Kashmiri.
2) Accused was summoned vide order dated 16.01.2012 and vide order dated 28.05.2012, notice was framed u/s 285/337/304 A IPC. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of accused was recorded on 04.11.2015 and he chose not to lead any evidence in hisdefence.
3) PW-1 is SI Jaiveer who was posted as Duty Officer on 16.01.2011. He recorded DD No. 17 A which is Ex.PW-1/A. He also recorded the FIR which is Ex.PW-1/B. PW-2 is Sri Pal in whose presence accused was arrested vide arrest and personal search memo Ex.PW-2/A & Ex.PW-2/B, disclosure statement Ex.PW-2/C of the accused was also recorded. PW-3 is Rajnish who came to the spot after receiving information and found out that Ajit and Rakesh have already been taken to the hospital whereas his brother in law has expired. PW-4 is Rakesh Awasthi who stated that on 16.01.2011 accused alongwith his friends namely Raj Kumar, Ajit and him had gone to CNG Station for filling of CNG in the RTV bus after filling of CNG when they had passed the distance of about 100 FIR No.04/11 PS Dwarka Sec.23 Page 2 of 4 3 metres, all of a sudden fire started in the RTV and consequent to the fire, his two friends sustained burn injuries and they were taken to DDU Hospital. He further stated that the RTV bus did not catch fire because the fault of the accused. PW-5 Brij Pal identified the dead body of his elder brother Raj Kumar vide memo Ex.PW-5/A. PW-6 Prakash Vir was posted as SO Janak Puri Fire Station and stated that they have reached the place of incidence and they extinguish the fire after efforts. PW-7 is ASI Attar Singh who was posted at Distt. Control Room and alongwith the crime team reached at the spot and took photographs. PW-8 is Parshuram Singh who stated that on 15.02.2011, they had inspected the RTV and gave his report Ex.PW-8/A. PW-9 identified the signatures of Dr. Sabreena Majeed who had carried out the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Raj Kumar. The report is Ex.PW-9/A. PW-10 is Dr. Narender Solanki who had identified the signatures of Dr. Nitin and Dr. Kamya on the MLCof Ajit and Rakesh Awasthi. The MLCs were exhibited as Ex.PW-10/A & Ex.PW-10/B respectively. PW-11 is Ct. Chhittarmal who had accompanied the IO to the spot and in his presence, the RTV was seized vide memo Ex.PW-11/A and burnt pieces of clothes were seized vide memo Ex.PW-11/B. PW-12 is HC Raj Kumar who had taken the injured to the hospital. PW-13 is SI Ram Pratap who is the IO of the present case. Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that there is no evidence against the accused that he was negligent in any manner or that death has taken place because of any negligence on the part of the accused. On the other hand, Addl. PP for the State has argued that there is sufficient material on the record to convict the accused.
4) I have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5) There is no eye witness to the accident except PW-4. As per his FIR No.04/11 PS Dwarka Sec.23 Page 3 of 4 4 testimony the RTV bus did not catch fire because the fault of the accused. He in his cross-examination has stated that the bus was property maintained by the accused. Therefore, his evidence is of no value to the case of the prosecution.
6) PW-8, who was the assistant Director of Physics, FSL, Rohini has given his report wherein it is stated that "The overall burning pattern, pattern of melting of regulator near the battery indicate that the fire could have started due to leakage of CNG near battery area. Ignition of fire could be possible due to sparking at the battery points". In view of this report it is clear that there was leakage of CNG near the battery areas, however, the report is silent as to whether it was a sudden leakage or because there was no proper maintenance of the CNG Kit. In the absence of a specific report, the prosecution has not been able to prove as to what caused the leakage. If the area where the CNG had leaked was not maintained, then of course the accused was liable because he was the owner of the vehicle. However, the investigation, is completely silent on this aspect. If the leakage was caused suddenly, then it can be only termed as a freaked accident and no negligence can be attributed to the accused. There is no clarity whether the gas supply system could have been kept near the battery or there was some negligence on part of the owner to have kept the gas supply system near the battery. The prosecution has been unable to prove its case beyond reasonable case. The accused is entitled to be acquitted for the offences u/s 285/337/304 A IPC.
Announced in the open court (Ankur Jain)
today i.e on 19/12/2015 Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Dwarka Court, New Delhi
FIR No.04/11 PS Dwarka Sec.23 Page 4 of 4