Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Yadav on 16 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF Ms POOJA AGGARWAL:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No.58/2010
PS Keshav Puram
State Vs Ram Yadav
Date of Institution: 22.02.2011
Date of Judgment: 16.09.2019
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 534405/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 19.02.2010
(c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Ram Charita Sahu
(d) Name of Accused, his : Ram Yadav @ Ram Prakash
parentage & residence S/o Sh. Jagdish Lal,
R/o: H. No. WP-45, Ashok
Vihar,
Wazirpur Village, Keshav Puram,
Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : Under Section279/338/471 IPC &
3/181 M. V. Act
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order : Acquittal for offences under
Section 279/338 IPC
Conviction for offences under
Section 471 IPC and 3/180 MV Act
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The accused Ram Yadav has been sent to face trial for the commission of offences under Sections 279/338/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act') upon the allegations that on 19.02.2010 at about 12:30 pm near Kanhaiya Nagar, Metro Station, Tri Nagar, Delhi, he was driving a Santro car bearing registration number DL-2FBB-0041 without having any valid driving license on a public way in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving he caused grievous injury to one Ram Charitra Sahu. It has been further alleged against the accused that on the abovesaid date and time, he had dishonestly produced his driving license no 430P 2002 dated 15.03.2002 issued by STA, Agra (UP) as genuine despite knowing or to having reason to believe that the same was forged.
2) After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court under Section 279/338/420/468/471 IPC as well as 3/181 MV Act against the accused and one kalandra was filed against one Amit Jain under Section 5/180 MV Act. Cognizance of the offences was taken by the Ld Predecessor and the accused Ram Yadav was admitted to bail. Copy of chargesheet/kalandra and the documents were also supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused Amit Jain was thereafter convicted on his plea of guilt and sentenced by the Ld Predecessor. Hence this judgment shall be qua the accused Ram Yadav only.
3) After consideration of the submissions made on the point of charge, FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 charge were framed against the accused for commission of offences under Section 279/338/471 IPC of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act by the Ld Predecessor to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses.
5) PW1 Sh. Ramchirtar Sahu being the injured/complainant testified that on 19.02.2010 he was pulling a rickshaw loaded with Mayur Jugs and at or about 12:30 pm when he reached under Kanhaiya Nagar Metro Station suddenly the accused Ram Yadav, who was driving one white colour car bearing registration number 0041 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and struck his rickshaw from behind due to which the rickshaw got overturned and he received multiple injuries. PW1 further testified that he was taken to BJRM Hospital by the PCR Van where the accused also reached. PW1 further testified that in the hospital his left leg upper side was plastered and he remained admitted in HRH for about 5 months and a rod was inserted into his left leg.
6) PW1 further testified that the IO recorded his statement Ex.PW-1/A on which he also identified his thumb impression, his rickshaw was seized by police and the accused was arrested and personally searched by the IO in the hospital vide memo Ex.PW-1/B and Ex.PW-1/C respectively. He correctly identified the accused in the Court, identified his thumb impressions on the documents and was duly cross examined by the FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 counsel for accused. He was recalled on an application by Ld APP for identification and in his further evidence the PW1 testified that he could not identify the accused as he had become unconscious after the car had hit him from behind. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld APP for the State after which the accused did not cross-examine him further.
7) PW2 HC Ram Singh being the then Duty Officer proved the factum of registration of FIR ie Ex. PW2/A on 19.02.2010 on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. A. T. Sriniwas and also proved the endorsement on the same ie Ex. PW2/B. He identified his signatures on the documents and was duly cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for accused.
8) PW3 Ct. A. T. Sriniwas testified that on 19.02.2010, he went to the spot i.e. under Kanhaiya Nagar Metro Station with IO/ HC Kiran Pal after IO had received the DD no 16PP where they saw one rickshaw rehri and one Santro car bearing registration number DL-2FBB-0041 in accident condition and they also came to know that injured had already been shifted to BJRM Hospital. He further testified that from there the IO went to hospital after leaving him behind at the spot and that the IO returned to the spot after sometime and handed over the rukka to him for registration of FIR upon which he got the FIR registered and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to the second IO ASI Mohd Swaley.
9) PW3 further testified that then went to the spot with ASI Mohd Swaley FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 where IO HC Kiran Pal handed over the rickshaw rehri and the Santro car to ASI Mohd Swaley which were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW-3/B and Ex.PW-3/A respectively, accused was arrested at the instance of complainant and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW- 1/B and Ex.PW-1/C respectively. PW3 further testified that the IO seized the DL of the accused vide memo Ex.PW-3/C while photocopy of RC and Insurance produced by the owner of the Santro car were seized vide memo Ex. PW-3/D. PW3 correctly identified the accused in the Court and also identified his signatures on the documents. He was duly cross examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
10) PW4W/Ct. Meenaxi being the then DD writer testified as to having registered DD No. 16P ie Ex. PW4/A on 19.02.2010 at about 1.30 PM regarding the accident near Kanhiya Nagar Metro Station which information she conveyed to HC Kiranpal who left for the spot with Ct Sriniwas. She was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity.
11) PW5 Sh. Amit Jain testified as to being the registered owner of vehicle bearing no. DL2FBB-0041 which was being driven by the accused at the time of accident. He further testified that he had got his car released on supardari vide supardginama Ex. PW5/A on which he identified his signatures and he also proved the photographs of offending vehicle as PW1 to P5 as well as the negatives Ex. P6. He was duly cross examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
FIR No. 58/2010PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18
12) PW6 Ct. Sideshwar testified that on 20.10.2010, the accused Ram Yadav had come to the Police Station with bail order passed by the Ld Sessions Court upon which the IO formally arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex.PW-6/A, Ex.PW-6/B respectively and IO also recorded the disclosure statement of accused ie Ex.PW-6/C. He was duly cross examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
13) PW7 ASI Kiran Pal (HC Kiran Pal as he then was) being the first Investigating Officer testified on similar lines as PW3 Ct. A. T. Srinivasan. He went on to testify that in the hospital he had collected the MLC of Ram Charitra Sahu and went on to testify that the injured Ram Charitra Sahu had pointed towards the accused who was also present in the hospital. He further testified that he had instructed the accused to remain in the hospital after which he returned to the spot, prepared the Rukka ie Ex. PW7/A and got the FIR registered through Ct AT Srinivas. He further testified that after 2nd IO came at the spot and had seized the vehicles vide Ex PW3/A and Ex PW3/B which was sent to malkhana, he had gone to BJRM Hospital with the 2nd IO and Ct AT Sriniwas. He further testified as to the accused having been arrested and personally searched vide Ex PW1/B and Ex PW1/C. He correctly identified the accused in the Court and also identified his signatures on the documents. He also identified the offending vehicle through photographs Ex P1 to P5. He was duly cross examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
14) PW8 Dr. Shipra Rampal, Specialist Radiology, BJRM Hospital FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 testified that on 09.02.2010, she had examined X-ray plate no.623 of left hip joint of patient Ram Charitra Sahu and had opined fracture of femur. She also proved her report ie Ex.PW-8/A on which she also identified he signatures. She was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity.
15) PW9 Sh Hemant Singh, Junior Assistant, from RTO Agra brought the record pertaining to DL No.430/P/2002 dated 16.03.2010 and testified that regional Inspector Sh Rajeev Bansal had given his report that the said license was issued in the name of R.P. Saraswat S/o Sh. K.D. Saraswat and not in name of accused Ram Yadav. He also identified the signatures of Sh Rajeev on the report Ex.PW-9/A and also proved the copy of the license ie Ex. PW9/B. He was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
16)PW10 Retd. ASI/Tech Devender being the Mechanical Inspector testified as to having mechanical inspected the Santro Car bearing no. DL2FBB0041 at the PS on 21.02.2010 on the request of IO ASI Mohd. Swalay wherein he found that the front bumper and body was damaged from right side, right side headlight was damaged and bonnet was dented from the front side but vehicle was fit for road test. He also proved his report Ex PW 10/A but was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity.
17)PW11 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, CMO BJRM Hospital testified as to having been deputed by MS on behalf of Dr. Manoj who had left FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 hospital and whose whereabouts were not known for proving MLC no 6076. He identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Manoj on the MLC No. 6076 ie Ex. PW-11/A at point A, B & C testifying that he was conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Dr Manoj having seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties. He also proved the opinion as to grievous injury having been given by Dr Manoj on Ex PW11/A. He was also not cross examined by accused despite opportunity.
18) PW12 SI Mohd. Swalay (ASI Mohd Swaley as he then was) being the 2nd Investigating Officer testified on similar lines as PW3 Ct AT Sriniwas and PW 7 ASI Kiran Pal in respect of investigation done on 19.02.2010. He also identified his signatures on documents ie Ex.PW- 3/A, Ex.PW-3/B, Ex.PW-1/B, Ex.PW-1/C and Ex.PW-3/D. He further testified that on 20.02.2010, he again went to the spot where he also called the injured and then prepared the site plan Ex.PW-12/A at the instance of the injured. He further testified that on 21.02.2010, he got the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle conducted vide request Ex.PW-12/B, obtained the opinion of the doctors on the MLC and on 22.02.2010 he released the offending vehicle on superdari whereafter he prepared the panchnama/superdarinama and thereafter sent a request ie Ex.PW-12/D to Licensing Authority, STA, District Agra, UP for the verification of DL of accused which was found fake. He further testified as to having handed over the file to MHC (R) upon his transfer. He correctly identified the accused in the Court, identified FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 his signatures on the documents and also identified the offending vehicle through photographs Ex P1 to P6 with CD Ex P7. He was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
19) PW13 ASI Manoj Kashyap (HC Manoj Kashyap as he then was) testified that on 19.02.2010 when he was on PCR Duty, he received a call at about 1.30pm regarding accident near Kanhaiya Nagar Metro Station, Tri Nagar upon which he reached at the spot with the driver and one gunman and found one Santro car bearing registration number DL- 2FBB-0041 and one rickshaw in accident condition. He further testified that one injured person was also found there whom they took to the BJRM Hospital and left after getting him admitted in the hospital. He also identified the offending vehicle through photographs Ex P1 to P6 with CD Ex P7 and was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
20) PW14 SI Surender Singh being the 3rd Investigating Officer testified that investigation of the case was marked to him on 17.07.2010 and after perusing the file including report of MLO, Agra ie Ex.PW-9/A he added Section 420/468/471 IPC in the chargesheet. He further testified that on 21.09.2010 the accused was granted anticipatory bail by Sessions Court and he was formally arrested and personally searched by PW14 on 20.10.2010 vide memos Ex.PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/B and his disclosure statement Ex.PW-6/C was also recorded. He further testified as to having filed the chargesheet after completing the investigation. He FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 correctly identified the accused in the Court and identified his signatures on the documents. He was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
21)Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused who maintained his innocence. Though the accused initially chose to lead defence evidence but he closed the same without examining any witness.
22)Final arguments were advanced on behalf of the State wherein it has been argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused be found guilty in the case. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that sufficient material has not been brought on record to prove that the accident took place due to rashness or negligence on the part of the accused and hence accused be acquitted.
23) The arguments as advanced by both the parties have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
24) It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
Identity of the accused
25) In the present case, the identity of the accused as being the driver of Santro car bearing registration number DL-2FBB-0041 has been sufficiently proved from the testimony of the eye-witness PW1 Ram Charitra Sahu who had initially identified the accused as being the driver of the said Santro. During his entire initial cross-examination, not even a question was asked nor any suggestion was put by the Ld defence counsel on behalf of the accused as to the accused not driving the said car at the time of the accident. Even the accused did not dispute the factum of him driving the Santro car bearing registration number DL-2FBB-0041 at the time of the accident at the time of recording of his statement under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence the factum of the accused driving the Santro car bearing registration number DL-2FBB-0041 on the day of the accident stands sufficiently proved.
26) It is pertinent to note that though the PW1 Ram Charitra Sahu did not identify the accused as the driver of the car when he was recalled for further evidence regarding identification, the same is inconsequential in view of the initial identification of the accused by the PW1 since the FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 said identification was not disputed by the accused. Further it cannot be lost sight of that though PW1 has testified that he had not seen the driver of the car since he was hit from behind and lost consciousness, the said testimony of PW1 as to him having lost consciousness is not corroborated by the MLC Ex PW11/A wherein there is no alleged history of loss of consciousness (LOC) and hence the possibility of the said testimony being false cannot be excluded. Hence the mere non- identification by the PW1 in his evidence 9 years after the accident is not sufficient to raise any doubt in favour of the accused on this count.
Factum of accident
27) The factum of the accident having been caused between the Santro car bearing registration number DL-2FBB-0041 and the rickshaw/rehri of the injured has also been sufficiently proved from the testimony of PW1 Ram Charitra Sahu who has categorically testified that on 19.02.2010 he was pulling a rickshaw loaded with Mayur Jugs and at or about 12:30 pm when he reached under Kanhaiya Nagar Metro Station suddenly the accused Ram Yadav, who was driving one white colour car bearing registration number 0041 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and struck his rickshaw from behind due to which the rickshaw got overturned and he received multiple injuries. Even the mechanical inspection report Ex PW10/A of Santro car bearing registration number DL-2FBB-0041 also sufficiently corroborates the oral testimony of PW1 Ram Charitra Sahu as to the accident having occurred between the said car and rickshaw/rehri since FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 fresh damage was found on the car on the front bumper and body was damaged from right side, right side headlight was damaged and bonnet was dented from the front side but vehicle was fit for road test.
28) It is also pertinent to note that even the testimony of PW3 Ct AT Sriniwas and PW 7 ASI Kiran Pal corroborates the factum of the accident having taken place between the Santro car bearing registration number DL-2FBB-0041 and the rickshaw/rehri since they have both testified that upon reaching the spot, they had found both the said vehicles at the spot in accident condition. Even the accused did not dispute the factum of the accident having taken place between the Santro car bearing registration number DL-2FBB-0041 and the rickshaw at the time of recording of his statement under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since his only defence is that the rickshaw had overturned and there was no rashness or negligence on his part.
29) In these circumstances, as there is nothing on record to disbelieve the prosecution evidence led in this respect, the factum of the accident having taken place between the Santro car bearing registration number DL-2FBB-0041 and the rickshaw/rehri also stands sufficiently proved.
Rashness/negligence on the part of the accused
30) It is duly noted here that to prove its case, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to only establish that an accident took place with a vehicle FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 being driven by the accused and it was also imperative for the prosecution to prove that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused while he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. It has to be borne in mind 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 that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness 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 (Ref: Mohd. Aynuddin alias Miyam v. State of A.P. (2000) 7 SCC 72).
31) It has been argued by the Ld APP for the State that the negligence on the part of the accused was clear since he had hit the rickshaw of the accused from behind. On the other hand, the accused has set up the defence that the rickshaw of the injured overturned itself due to overload.
32) It is duly noted that the complainant/PW1 Ram Charitra Sahu has admitted in his examination in chief itself that he was carrying Mayur Jugs in his rickshaw when the accident took place. Even PW7 ASI Kiran Pal has admitted in his cross-examination that the rickshaw rehri FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 was loaded with material. However, there is no further evidence on record as to the exact weight of such material nor there is anything on record to indicate how much material could have been loaded on the rickshaw safely. That being so, the possibility of the rickshaw having been overloaded at the time of the accident cannot be ruled out.
33) It is duly noted that the case of the prosecution as to the rickshaw of the injured having been hit from behind also has not been sufficiently corroborated from the other evidence on record. For instance, the site plan Ex PW 12/A reflects the Santro car bearing registration number DL-2FBB-0041 to be travelling in the extreme left lane while the rickshaw is shown to be travelling in the lane adjacent to the car. It is also duly noted that while the car is shown to be travelling straight, the movement of the rickshaw is shown to be veering towards the left side ie towards the car. There is no explanation on record as to why the rickshaw would have been going towards the car nor there is anything on record to indicate that the injured/PW1 had even attempted to indicate any such lane change to the other traffic on the road. This seemingly innocuous aspect adversely affects the case of the prosecution as in accident cases, the path of the movement of the vehicles involved in the accident is required to be established during the course of investigation. (Ref: Abdul Subhan v State (NCT of Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562). However, in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to do so and the veering line towards the car suggests it is possible that the rickshaw was infact overloaded and it over turned FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 causing injuries to the complainant/PW1 and damage to the Santro car and hence benefit of the same accrues to the accused.
34) Further it is duly noted that in the entire evidence on record, there is not even a whisper as to the Santro car bearing registration number DL- 2FBB-0041 being driven in high speed nor any further evidence has come on record to prove what act constituted rashness or negligence of the accused since none of the prosecution witnesses especially PW1 did not explain what was the rashness or negligence on the part of the car driver. It is to be borne in mind that while a witness may depose as to the manner of driving or speed at which the vehicle was being driven, the witness cannot render an opinion on 'rash and negligent'. (Ref:
Kishore Chand Joshi v State (2018) SCC Online Del 12337).
35) It is also duly noted that the prosecution has neither cited nor examined any independent witness despite it having come on record in the testimony of PW7 HC Kiral Pal that he had been told by some shopkeepers that the rickshaw had been hit by a car from which at least the presence of the independent witnesses at the spot can be inferred.
This failure of the investigating agency to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available or their presence can reasonably be secured with minimum efforts casts a doubt as to the authenticity of the version being put forth by the investigating agency. Hence, as despite the presence of independent persons at the place of accident, the investigating officer failed to join those independent FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 public persons as witness to the proceedings of the present matter, warrants an adverse inference to be drawn under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that the evidence if produced would have been unfavourable to the case of the investigating agency the benefit of which omission accrues to the accused.
36) For reasons best known to the prosecution, it has also not placed on record any photographs of the rickshaw/rehri in question nor any photographs of the spot have been proved which omission further weakens the case of the prosecution as the photographs of the spot, vehicles at the spot as well as the site plan as required to be proved to corroborate the factum of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle since the photographs and site plan allow the Court to assess the circumstances under which the accident took place. In the absence of the same, the Court cannot resort to conjectures and surmises to convict the accused.
Injury to the complainant due to rash and negligent act of accused
37) The factum of the grievous injury having been sustained by PW1/Ram Charitra Sahu has also not been sufficiently proved by the prosecution from the report Ex PW8/A since the original X ray plates were never produced by the prosecution.
Use of forged licence
38) The factum of the accused Ram Yadav having used the DL as FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18 genuine on 19.02.2010 stands proved from the testimony of PW9 as his testimony in respect of the report Ex PW9/A as to the DL in question not having been issued in the name of the accused has gone unrebutted. No circumstance has come on record to disprove the intention of the accused Ram Yadav to use the same as genuine despite knowing the same to be false. No explanation has been furnished by him even in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and hence the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden qua the offence under Section 471 IPC qua the accused Ram Yadav and since the accused failed to prove any valid licence for the said day, consequently the commission of offence under Section 3/180 M V act also stands proved.
Decision
39) In view of the aforesaid discussion, with the prosecution failing to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts for the commission of offences under Section 279/338 IPC, the accused Ram Yadav S/o Sh. Jagdish Lal is given the benefit of the doubt and is hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 279/338 IPC but he is convicted for the commission of offences under Section 471 IPC and Section 3/180 MV Act in FIR no.58/2010 PS Keshav Puram.
40) Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
Announced in the open court
FIR No. 58/2010
PS Keshav Puram
U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act
State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18
on 16.09.2019 Digitally signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2019.09.16
17:11:33 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 18 pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2019.09.16 17:11:45 +0530 (POOJA AGGARWAL) Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 58/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 MV Act State Vs Ram Yadav Page No. 18 of 18