Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh Kumar on 10 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUL VARMA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT02-004332-2016
New Case No. 295635/2016
FIR No.: 117/2016
PS: DBG Road
U/s 279 IPC
State Vs. Ramesh Kumar
(a) S. No. of the case : 295635/2016
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. Ankit
S/o Sh. Sudhir
R/o H. No. H-5/4, DLF,
Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana.
(c) Date of commission of offence : 13.03.2016
(d) Name of the accused : Ramesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Narendra Kumar
R/o H. No. 74/74, Bulward
Road, Bhargav Lane, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 279/427 IPC
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 10.02.2020
(h) Final Order : Acquitted
(i) Date of such order : 10.02.2020
FIR No. 117/2016 PS DBG Road Page 1 of 12
FACTS IN BRIEF / CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION
1. Accused Ramesh Kumar has been arraigned for trial on the allegations that on 13.03.2016 at 8.15 PM at Rani Jhansi Road, in front of showroom of Sony, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS DBG Road, accused drove cluster bus bearing registration number DL- 1PD-0691 ( of route No. 236) in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. Further, accused hit against one Mercedez car bearing registration number DL-3CBC- 5454 from behind and caused damage to the car. On the complaint of complainant, FIR was registered under section 279/427 IPC.
INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS
2. During investigation, IO arrested the accused on 13.03.2016. Statement of witnesses were recorded, site plan was prepared, steps were taken to seize the offending vehicles, seizure memos were prepared and other steps were taken towards investigation of the case. On completion of investigation, chargesheet/report as per Section 173 Cr.PC was filed on 22.04.2016. Cognizance of the offence was take on 22.04.2016.
CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST ACCUSED
3. Subsequent to compliance of section 207 Cr. P. C, i.e. supply of charge-sheet to the accused and scrutiny thereof, notice was framed FIR No. 117/2016 PS DBG Road Page 2 of 12 against the accused under Section 279 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE LED BY PROSECUTION
4. In the trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined 5 witnesses, the succinct testimony whereof are as follows:-
(a) PW-1 Sh. Ankit Badhwar is the complainant/sole eye witness. PW-1 deposed that on 13.03.2016, he was going to Civil Line Gurgaon via Jhansi Rani Road by his car bearing registration number DL-3CBC-5454. On that day, at about 8.00-
8.30 PM, when he reached at Rani Jhansi Road in front of Sony Showroom near Transformer, there was a heavy traffic and that traffic was moving very slowly. His above said car was also moving very slowly due to heavy traffic, in the meantime, one bus bearing registration number DL-1PD-0691 had come from his back side by driving the same at very high speed, rashly and negligently hit his abovesaid car from back left side and his car was got damaged very badly. Due to this impact, his said car has also collided with another cluster bus who was moving in front of him and due to which his said car was also damaged from the front side. He could not noted down the registration number of said cluster bus who was moving in front of him as he did not stop. He stopped his car and came out and asked to the driver of the abovesaid offending bus to come out. On this, accused/driver had come out from the said offending bus from the driver seat. Public persons were also gathered there and tried to beat to the FIR No. 117/2016 PS DBG Road Page 3 of 12 accused. Anyhow, he saved him from the public. On asking accused disclosed his name Ramesh. He did not receive any serious injury. He made call at 100 number and after sometime, police officer reached on the spot. He handed over the accused and offending abovesaid bus to the police officer. Police officer recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A and FIR was got registered. Accused was arrested and personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. Police officer prepared the site plan at his instance vide Ex. PW1/D. The abovesaid offending vehicle was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/E. The abovesaid his car was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/F. He had also handed over copy of the documents of his abovesaid car to the police officer which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/G. Police officer recorded his statement in this regard. Photographs of the spot were taken. He had got released his abovesaid car on superdari by executing Superdginama Ex. PW1/H (running into two pages). At the time of releasing the said car, Panchnama was prepared vide Ex. PW1/I. The photographs of the car are Ex. PW1J1 to Ex. PW1/J4, PW1/K1 to Ex. PW1/K4. The photograph of the offending bus are Ex. PW1/L1 to Ex. PW1/L4.
(b) PW-2 Sh. Gaurav Kumar. PW-2 deposed that on he was working as Conductor in Cluster bus at Raj Ghat Depot-II, Delhi. On 13.03.2016, his duty hours were from 7.30 AM to 11.00 PM in bus route No. 236, bearing registration No. DL- 1PC-0691. The bus was being driven by driver Ramesh Kumar.
FIR No. 117/2016 PS DBG Road Page 4 of 12The bus was moving towards Anand Vihar from Nangloi. The said bus was at a speed of 10-15 KM/H due to heavy traffic. When the bus reached at Eidgah Gol Chakker near Rani Jhasi Road, one Mercedes car bearing No. DL-3CBC-5454 was moving ahead of their Cluster bus. One more bus was also moving ahead of the said Mercedes Car. When the bus moving ahead of Mercedes Car took the brake then the said Mercedes Car also took sudden brake. As their cluster bus was behind the Mercedes Car, the driver/accused Ramesh Kumar hit the said car from behind at about 8.15 PM in front of Sony Showroom near Transformer. Due to this reason, the said car got damaged. Thereafter, he asked the passengers of the bus to board down and they were sent to their respective destinations by another DTC bus. IO recorded his statement. The photographs of the car are Ex. PW1J1 to Ex. PW1/J4, PW1/K1 to Ex. PW1/K4. The photograph of the offending bus are Ex. PW1/L1 to Ex. PW1/L4.
(c) PW-3 Ct. Anil Kumar, No. 1068/C. PW-3 deposed that on 13.03.2016, he was on emergency duty from 08.00 PM to 08.00 AM. At about 08.45 PM, a PCR call was received at the Police Post regarding accident. In this regard, a DD no. 32PP was recorded. Pursuant thereto, he along with ASI Bhagmal Singh went to the spot i.e. near Sony Showroom, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. At the spot, they found a bus and a Car in accidental condition. The driver of the Car namely Ankit Kumar and bus namely Ramesh Kumar were also present at the spot. IO/ASI Bhagmal Singh recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A and FIR No. 117/2016 PS DBG Road Page 5 of 12 prepared a rukka. The said rukka was handed over to him for getting the FIR registered. Accordingly, he left the spot whereas IO/ASI Bhagmal Singh remained at the spot. The rukka was handed over to the concerned duty officer for registration of FIR. The instant FIR was registered and he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO/ASI Bhagmal Singh. The IO/ASI Bhagmal Singh arrested the driver of the offending bus namely Ramesh Kumar vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. Accused Ramesh Kumar was also personally searched vide memo Ex. PW1/C. Thereafter, IO/ASI Bhagmal Singh seized the documents of the offending bus and the car. The car was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/F. The IO also seized the photocopy of RC and Insurance of the car, and Driving License of Ankit vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/G. IO/ASI Bhagmal Singh also seized the offending bus vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/E. The driving license of the accused was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. The said photographs are Ex. PW1/J1 to Ex. PW1/J4. The photographs of the car are Ex. PW1/K1 to Ex. PW1/K4 and the photographs of the offending bus are Ex. PW1/L1 to Ex. PW1/L4.
(d) PW-4 retired SI Daya Nand. PW-4 deposed that on 13.03.2016, he registered the FIR on the basis of rukka Ex. PW4/A. He made the endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW4/B. (OSR).
(e) PW-5 retired ASI Bhagmal Singh is the IO. PW-5 deposed that on on 13.03.2016, on obtaining DD No. 32PP, he alongwith FIR No. 117/2016 PS DBG Road Page 6 of 12 Ct. Anil reached at the spot where they found car bearing registration number DL-3CBC-5454 and one bus bearing number DL-1PC-0691 in accidental condition. He clicked the photographs of the vehicles from his mobile phone. He recorded the statement of complainant which is Ex. PW1/A. He prepared the rukka which is Ex. PW4/B and handed over the same to Ct. Anil for registration of FIR. Accordingly, FIR was got registered. He prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW1/D. Accused was also present at the spot. Accordingly, he prepared the arrest memo and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. He seized the above said vehicles vide seizure memos Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/E. He also seized DL of the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. He seized the photocopy of RC and Insurance vide seizure memos Ex. PW1/G. He seized the documents of bus vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. Mechanical inspection of both the vehicles was got conducted which is Ex. D1. He released the car on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW1/H and Panchnama is Ex. PW1/I . he also released the aforesaid bus on superdari, panchnama of the same is Ex. PW5/B. He also recorded the statement of witnesses.
(f) Vide separate statement recorded under section 294 CrPC on 07.12.2019 and 10.02.2020, accused admitted the genuineness of several documents, that is, Mechanical Inspection Report Ex. D1 and DD No. 32PP, Ex. D2.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED FIR No. 117/2016 PS DBG Road Page 7 of 12
5. Examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C, of accused has asserted his innocence and alleged false implication. Accused further stated that he did not commit any offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND LD. DEFENCE COUNSEL
6. Ld. APP for the State Sh. Rajiv Kamboj had contended that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused, as is apparent from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
7. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Tara Singh for the accused contended that no case is made out against him and he is entitled to be acquitted. It has been argued that there is no material on record to show any rashness or negligence on his part. It is further argued that the prosecution case ought to fail because none of the sole eye- witness of the case has deposed that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. At this juncture, it would be apposite to peruse section 279 IPC which is reproduced hereunder :-
"Section 279. Rash driving or riding on a public way. - Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligently as to endanger human life, or FIR No. 117/2016 PS DBG Road Page 8 of 12 to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
10. The prosecution is required to prove the following in such a case :-
(i) That the offender was driving the vehicle in question;
(ii) That he was driving or riding on a public way;
(iii) that he was driving rashly or negligently;
11. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to peruse the testimony of star witness PW1 Sh. Anit Badhwar, who was owner of Mercedes Benz ar which was allegedly hit by the bus driven by the accused herein. It would be imperative to peruse his testimony wherein he categorically deposed that at about 8.00-8.30 PM, when he reached at Rani Jhasi Road in front of Sony Showroom near Transformer, there was heavy traffic and that the traffic was moving very slowly. He avowed that his car was also moving very slowly due to heavy traffic. In the same breath, he deposed that impugned bus bearing registration number DL-1PD-0691 had come from the back side and same was driven at a very high speed, rashly and negligently and hit the above said car from back left side and his car got damaged badly. Now these two statements are quite contrary to each other as much as it is quite unfathomable when the traffic was so slow, there was heavy traffic, how could the bus have been driven at a very high speed. Further, apart from merely averring that the bus was being driven in a rash FIR No. 117/2016 PS DBG Road Page 9 of 12 and negligent manner, the complainant witness has not deposed further in this regard. In fact, the other witness cited by the prosecution i.e. Sh. Gaurav Kumar gave a completely different version. He deposed that the speed of the bus was 10-15 KMPH due to heavy traffic. It would be pertinent to peruse the relevant extract of his testimony in this regard is reproduced hereunder:-
" The bus was moving towards Anand Vihar from Nangloi. The said bus was at a speed of 10-15 Km/h due to heavy traffic. When the bus reached at Eidgah Gol Chakkar near Rani Jhansi Road, one Mercedes Car bearing No. DL-3CBC-5454 was moving ahead of our Cluster Bus. One more bus was also moving ahead of the said Mercedes Car. When the bus moving ahead of Mercedes Car took the brake then the said Mercedes Car also took sudden brake. As our cluster bus was behind the Mercedes Car, the driver/accused Ramesh Kumar hit the said car from behind at about 8.15 PM in front of Sony Showroom near Transformer. Due to this reason, the said car got damaged.".
12. Further, during cross examination the witness gave another version. The relevant extracts of his testimony in this regard is reproduced hereunder:-
FIR No. 117/2016 PS DBG Road Page 10 of 12"It is correct that the spot was a crowded area and the traffic used to move slowly. It is correct that the present incident took place due to the negligence of driver of the Mercedes Car and one bus was also moving ahead of the said car. It is correct that the said bus driver applied sudden brakes as a result of which, the car collided with the bus moving in its front. It is correct that the front portion of the Mercedes Car got damaged. I do not know if its near portion was damaged or not. It is correct that the bus that was in front of the Mercedes Car did not stop and was driven away from the spot. It is correct that the accused was not at fault".
13. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the bus was being driven at any fast speed, or in any dangerous manner or in a zigzag manner. There is no evidence to show that the driver was in drunk condition or was not taking due care and caution. There is no evidence to show that the driver had jumped any traffic signal, or was driving in excess of the speed limits, or was talking on phone, or was not having a valid driving license, or was violating any traffic rule, or was otherwise at fault.
14. It has to be understood that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, by leading positive evidence. This burden never shifts upon FIR No. 117/2016 PS DBG Road Page 11 of 12 the accused to establish his innocence. The prosecution case has suffered a fatal blow which goes to the root of the matter.
15. In the entirety of these given facts and circumstances and for want of suitable evidence on record, the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused. The accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt.
16. Accused Ramesh Kumar is thus held not guilty and is accordingly acquitted of the charges. His bail bond shall remain in force for the next six months in terms of section 437-A, CrPC.
17. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA Date:
Announced in the open Court VARMA 2020.02.10 this 10th Day of February, 2020 15:37:39 +0530 (Arul Varma) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 117/2016 PS DBG Road Page 12 of 12