Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunil Maan on 8 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MANISH KHURANA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
NORTH:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
STATE VS. SUNIL MAAN
PS: Prashant Vihar
JUDGEMENT
(a) The FIR No. of the case : 216/10
(b) Police Station : Prashant Vihar
(c) The date of commission of offence : 07.06.2010
(d) The name of complainant : Vishal Singla,
S/o Sh. Suresh Singla,
R/o A1463,
Near DAV Public School,
Urban Estate, Jind, Haryana.
(e) The name of accused : Sunil Maan,
S/o Sh. Hari Om,
R/o A3/705,
Printers Apartments,
Sector13, Rohini, Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 279/338 IPC
(f) The plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
(g) Date of Institution : 11.01.2011
State Vs. Sunil Maan page 1
of 4
(h) The date on which
judgment was reserved : 08.08.2013
(i) The final order : Acquitted
(j) The date of such order : 08.08.2013
(k) The Unique Identification Number : 02404R0010022011
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 07.06.2010 at about 11:15 am at DDA Market, Sector13, Rohini within the jurisdiction of PS Prashant Vihar, accused was driving the car bearing no. DL4C S 3987 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving so, he caused grievous hurt on the person of complainant Vishal Singla and the accused thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC. The accused was arrested and chargesheeted for the offence.
2. The matter was investigated by the police and a charge sheet was filed against the accused.
3. From the material on record, notice u/s 279/338 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and three witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
5. PW1 complainant Vishal Singla narrated the incident but he failed to identify the accused in the court. During his cross examination by Ld. APP, complainant was shown the accused but he could not State Vs. Sunil Maan page 2 of 4 identify him as the driver of the offending vehicle. The complainant was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
6. PW2 WASI Sangeeta was the Duty Officer who proved the FIR as Ex.PW2/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW2/B.
7. PW3 Sanjay Maan who is the registered owner of the alleged offending vehicle no. DL4C S 3987 produced the vehicle in the court and he could not tell as to who was driving the said vehicle on the date of alleged offence and he stated that on said date, his vehicle was parked at his residence. During his cross examination by Ld. APP, he denied that on 07.06.2010, the accused Sunil Maan was driving the vehicle no. DL4C S 3987. During his cross examination, he admitted that police never recorded his statement and the aforesaid vehicle never caused the alleged incident.
8. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded in which he denied that he was driving the vehicle no. DL4C S 3987 or caused the accident. Further he denied for leading the defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the accused as well as Ld. APP for the State.
10. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of the criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial files prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it State Vs. Sunil Maan page 3 of 4 cannot drive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness if any in the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial through out the trial is on the prosecution and its never shifts to the accused and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubts entitles the accused to acquittal.
11. In this case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Sunil Maan was driving the vehicle no. DL4C S 3987 or caused the accident or grievous hurt to the complainant Vishal Singla. In this case, the star witness of the prosecution i.e. complainant PW1 Vishal Singla has failed to identify the accused as the driver of the above said vehicle in the court. Even the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle has stated that his vehicle was parked at his residence on the date of alleged offence. He has also stated during his examination that his aforesaid vehicle never caused the alleged incident. Remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution or mentioned in the list of witnesses are formal in nature.
12.Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused Sunil Maan is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 08th day of August, 2013.
(MANISH KHURANA)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
State Vs. Sunil Maan page 4
of 4