Delhi District Court
State vs . Lakhvinder Singh on 23 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA SHARMA METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 275/12
U/s 279/304 A IPC
PS: KNK Marg
State vs. Lakhvinder Singh
Date of Institution of case:07.02.2013
Date of Judgment reserved: 24.09.2019
Date on which Judgment pronounced:24.09.2019
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. : 5286093/16
Date of Commission : 21.08.2012
of offence
Name of the : ASI Gurjant Singh
complainant
Name and address of
Lakhvinder Singh S/o Gajjan Singh
the accused persons :
Offence complained : 279/304A IPC
of
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The case of the prosecution shorn of unnecessary details is that on 21.08.2012, at an unknown time, at KNK Marg, towards outer ring road, in front of Guru Nanak Polytechnic College, Sector 16, Rohini within the FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 1 of 17 jurisdiction of PS KNK Marg, accused was driving a vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 8516 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety to others and thereby accused committed an offence U/s 279 IPC.
On aforesaid date, time and place while driving so accused caused death of one Neeraj Jindal (not amounting to culpable homicide) and committed offence U/s 304A. Thereafter, upon investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and an FIR was registered against the accused.
2. After registeration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred as Cr.PC. for brevity]. The accused was arrested. Relevant record was collected. The final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., was prepared against the above named accused and challan was presented in the Court.
3. Copies of challan and relevant documents were supplied to the accused free of costs as envisaged under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
Charge
4. A prima facie case under Sections 279/304A IPC, was found to be made out against the accused. Notice was framed upon the accused accordingly, on dated 03.10.2013. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 2 of 17In order to prove its case prosecution examined following witnesses:
5. PW1 Harish Kumar had deposed that he is the registered owner of bus bearing no. DL 1PB 8516. On 21.08.2012, his driver Lakhvinder Singh was driving the said vehicle by which the accident occurred. He received the notice U/s 133 MV act from the police and had given the reply which is Ex. PW 1/A, bearing signature of PW 1 at point A. He had produced the bus in the PS and the same was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW 1/B bearing signature of PW 1 at point A. He also produced the ownership documents of the bus no. DL 1PB 8516 and the same was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW 1/C, bearing his signature at point A. On 07.09.2012, he got his bus released on superdari vide the order of court. Witness identified the vehicle, which is Ex. P1. Witness also produced 7 photographs of bus along with one CD and the same was taken on record and the same is collectively exhibited as Ex.P2. Witness was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
6. PW2 Sanjeev Kumar had deposed that on 21.08.2012, he went for the morning walk at Japanese park and while returning for home on the way, he saw public gathering and one dead body was surrounded by the public persons on the road, where he came to know about the death of his brother in law and identified the dead body of the deceased vide statement Ex.PW 2/A and received the dead body vide memo Ex. PW 2//B. FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 3 of 17
7. PW3 Sachin Singhal is the eye witness in the present case, who had deposed that on 20.08.2012, he went to the house of his brother and on the way when he reached at Tpoint, near Transport Authority at around 6:15 a.m., he saw one bus was coming at high speed and he saw the driver of the bus bearing registration no. DL 1PB 8516 had hit the cyclist at a fast speed and as a result the cyclist came under the said bus. PW 3 chased the bus, however, accused and the bus were not apprehended by PW 3 as accused along with the bus fled away from the spot. Accused was arrested at the instance of PW 3, vide arrest memo Ex. PW 3/A and got personally searched vide personal search memo Ex. PW 3/B. PW 3 had put his signatures on the seizure memo Ex. PW 3/C. PW 3 correctly identified the accused in court. The identity of the bus was not disputed by accused vide his statement dated 06.02.2014. Ld. APP also cross examined the witness after taking permission of the court and he was also cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
8. PW4 Ct. Om Singh, belt no. 1106, had deposed that on 21.08.2012, he was posted at PS KNK Marg and was on emergency duty with IO ASI Gurjant Singh from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. On that day, on the receipt of DD no. 11 B, he along with IO reached at the spot of accident i.e. KNK Marg in front of Gurunanak Polytechnic on way to outer ring road and there they found one bicycle in an accidental condition and at a distance of about 14 steps, one dead body was lying on the road. No eye witness of the accident was found on the spot at that time. IO clicked photographs of the spot from his mobile camera. IO seized the bicycle vide seizure memo Ex. PW 4/A, bearing signature of PW 4. IO prepared FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 4 of 17 the rukka on the DD entry and he took the same to PS for getting the FIR registered. He left the spot at about 7:40 a.m. and at about 9:00 a.m., he returned and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. Thereafter, IO prepared site plan after inspecting the spot. Thereafter, he arranged for a government vehicle and the dead body was sent to BJRM Hospital for postmortem examination. After the post mortem, dead body was handed over to the legal heirs/representatives of deceased vide receipt Ex.PW 2/B, bearing his signature at point B. Witness correctly identified the case property. He was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
9. PW5 SI Ramesh Kumar had deposed that on 21.08.2012, he was posted as ASI at PS KNK Marg. On that day he was working as duty officer and his duty hours were from 00.00 midnight to 8:00 a.m. At about 7:50 a.m., a rukka was brought by Ct. Om Singh which was sent by IO ASI Gurjant Singh for getting the case registered. On the basis of rukka, he got registered the present FIR through CIPA Operator under his supervision and the computer system worked properly and nothing adverse happened in the system during that time. PW5 proved the computerized copy of FIR No. 275/12 Ex. PW 5/A, bearing his signature at point A. He also made endorsement on original rukka, which is Ex. PW 5/B, bearing his signature at point A.
10. PW6 retired ASI Jai Karan had deposed that on 04.09.2012, he was posted at accident investigation Unit, Outer District, PS South Rohini. On that day, he received the case file of the present case through official FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 5 of 17 channel. After receiving the same, PW6 had gone through the case file. During the investigation, PW6 got verified the documents of the offending vehicle from the competent authority. On 07.09.2012, offending bus had been released on superdari as per law. PW6 recorded the statement of bus owner. After the completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet of the present case. He was the last IO of the present case and material investigation was done by the previous IO ASI Gurjant Singh.
11. PW7 SI Gurjant Singh had deposed that on 21.08.2012, he was posted at PS KNK Marg as ASI. On that day, he had received the information/DD no. 11B. After receiving the same, PW7 alongwith Ct. Om Singh reached at KNK Marg near Guru Nanak Polytechnic Institute, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi. After reaching there, they found one accidental cycle at the spot. From the accidental cycle i.e. at 15 to 16 step away, one dead body was also lying. From the public persons, one person namely Rajesh identified the dead body of deceased, who was the relative of the deceased. The name of the deceased person was revealed as Sh. Neeraj Jindal. At that time, no eyewitness was available. PW 7 made an endorsement on the DD no. 11B, which is bearing signature of PW 7 at point B. He handed over the Tehrir/rukka to Ct. Om Singh for registration of FIR at PS. Accordingly, Ct. Om Singh went to PS and got the registered the present FIR. After registration of FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to PW7. He clicked the photographs of the spot and dead body. After seeing the photographs, witness correctly identified the photographs. Photographs are Ex. P3 (colly.). SI Gurjant Singh seized the accidental cycle vide seizure memo FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 6 of 17 which is Ex. PW3/A, bearing his signature at point B. He prepared the site plan, which is Ex. PW7/A, bearing signature of PW 7 at point A. He sent the dead body of deceased to the hospital through Ct. Om Singh. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted at the mortuary of BJRM hospital. After the identification of the dead body by the relatives, he recorded the identification statement of the relatives, which was Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW7/B, both bearing signatures of PW 7 at point B. Thereafter, dead body was handed over to the relative of deceased vide dead body handed over memo, which was Ex. PW2/B, bearing signature of PW 7 at point C. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. He further stated that on 26.08.2012, one eyewitness of the incident namely Sachin Singhal reached at PS, who stated that he was the eyewitness of the incident and narrated the whole incident to SI Gurjant Singh. SI Gurjant Singh recorded the statement of the eyewitness Sh. Sachin Singhal. Eyewitness also disclosed the offending bus number as DL1PB 8516. During the investigation, he served the notice under Section 133 M.V. Act upon the owner of the abovesaid bus namely Sh. Harish Kumar. Notice was Ex. PW1/A, bearing signature of ASI Gurjant Singh at point B. During the investigation, owner Harish Kumar produced the accused driver namely Lakhvinder Singh, offending bus and relevant documents of the bus. PW7 SI Gurjant Singh seized the bus vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point B. The documents of the bus was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point B. He inquired from the accused about the incident and other relevant facts. Meanwhile, eyewitness Sh. Sachin Sighal also visited at PS, who identified the accused as the driver of the offending bus and stated that at the time FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 7 of 17 of accident, accused was driving the offending bus in negligent manner and committed the accident. He seized the DL and Badge of the accused vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point B. Photocopy of the DL and badge was marked as Mark 'A' (colly.). During the investigation, mechanical inspection of offending bus was conducted vide application Ex. PW7/C, bearing signature of PW7 at point A. PW 7 recorded the statement of the witnesses. Accused was arrested at PS vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/A and personal search memo is Ex. PW3/B, both bearing signature of PW 7 at point B. He moved the application before concerned Transport Authority, which is Ex. PW7/D, bearing his signature at point A. PW 7 handed over the case file to MHC(R) to send the case file to MACT Cell as the accident was fatal. Accused Lakhvinder Singh correctly identified by the witness.
At this stage, photographs of the offending bus were shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the same. Photographs was Ex. P2 (colly.). PW 7 cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
Statement under section 313 Cr.PC
12. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. All incriminating material brought on record were put to the accused to which he denied the allegations made against him and claimed himself to be innocent and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence and the same was closed.
Arguments FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 8 of 17
13. On the basis of the above oral and documentary evidence on record learned APP requested for conviction of the accused and severe punishment as per law.
14. On the other hand, learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt as prosecution has as such failed to establish the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused in the present case. Accordingly, he prayed for the acquittal of the accused.
Point for determination
15. In the present case, accused was chargesheeted under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Hence, the points for determination are following :
1. Whether the accused was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1PB 8516 at a public place in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others?
2. Whether the accused by so driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner caused death of one Neeraj Jindal not amounting to culpable homicide?
Answers to point for determination:
I) Yes II) Yes Reasons for determination
16. The onus lies on the prosecution to prove these allegations against FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 9 of 17 the accused.
17. In the present case, charges brought against the accused are under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC for driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner and thereby causing death of one Neeraj Jindal. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined seven witnesses in its evidence. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove:
Firstly, that accident in question took place; Secondly, accused was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant point of time and thirdly, accused was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle in question.
So far, question of taking place of accident is concerned, the same is not disputed. The death of deceased is also undisputed in the present case.
18. The next question to be determined by the court, is whether accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident or not. In the present case, the identity of the accused is not in doubt as the accused vide his statement recorded on 06.02.14, categorically stated that he does not dispute the identity of the vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 8516. Further, it is deposed by PW 1 i.e. Sh. Harish Kumar that he is the registered owner of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 8516 and on 21.08.2012, his driver Lakhvinder Singh was driving the said vehicle by which the accident had occurred. He further stated that a notice U/s 133 MV Act was received by him from the police and to the same he gave a FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 10 of 17 reply which is Ex. PW 1/A, bearing his signatures at point A. He further produced the bus in the PS and the same was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW 1/B, bearing his signatures at point A. The ownership documents of the said vehicle produced by him were also taken into possession vide Ex. PW 1/C, bearing his signatures at point A. Further, on 07.09.2012, he got the said offending vehicle released on superdari.
19. Now, since the identity of the accused stands undisputed, the only material question which is left to be determined is: Whether the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligence manner at the time when the alleged incident took place?
Before delving into the merits of this material issue, it becomes necessary to understand the emote of the term criminal negligence as defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bala Chandra Vs. State of Maharashtra 1968 SC1319 "Criminal Negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen. Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness". In deciding the question as to whether the accused was guilty of rash or negligent act within the scope of above sections, the court has to judge as to the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man is said to be having FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 11 of 17 regard to all the circumstances of the case.
20. In the light of the above definitions, it becomes necessary to examine the testimony of sole eye witness in the present case i.e. PW 3 Sachin Singhal. To sustain the conviction of the accused, it becomes imperative to carefully scrutinize the testimony of this sole eye witness. This witness stated that on 20.08.2012, he went to his brother's house at sector 17, Rohini, where he stayed overnight and as he left his mobile phone at his home, in the morning he received a call from his son at his brother's place regarding PW3's wife being unwell and on receiving the said information he at about 6:00 a.m., on his scooter left for his home. He further stated that while going towards his house via KNK Marg, when he reached at the T Point near Transport Authority, at around 6:15 a.m., he saw one bus coming at a high speed and due to this reason he stopped his scooter at the red light of the TPoint near the transport Authority. He further deposed that, thereafter he saw driver of the bus bearing no. D1 PB 8516 (herein after the offending vehicle) had hit a cyclist as the bus was coming in an extremely fast speed. He further deposed that due to the hit, driver of the bus ran away from the spot along with the bus and though he chased the driver for some distance but eventually he stopped his scooty at ESI Hospital and on looking backwards towards the place of the accident he saw many public persons had gathered there. He further stated that he could not call the police as he was not having his mobile phone and further he was in a hurry to reach home as his wife was unwell. At this stage it becomes apposite to state that the principle argument harped upon by Ld.defence counsel is to the effect that the FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 12 of 17 witness appears to be a planted one as neither did he call the police nor did he inform anyone at the PS but it is a matter of record that the witness has furnished due explanation for not doing the same as firstly he was not carrying his mobile phone and secondly he had to rush home to attend his ailing wife.
21. It is apposite to state that PW 3 further stated that on 26.08.2012, when he had gone to Rohini for some work, pursuant to that he went to the PS and inquired regarding the said incident and thereafter he came to know that the said cyclist, who met with the accident on 21.08.2012 succumbed to his injuries and thereafter he informed the police officials about the said incident and got his statement recorded and further the driver of the said incident was arrested at the instance of the said eye witness by arrest memo Ex.PW 3/A. It is further apropos to state that it is categorically stated by the eye witness that the alleged offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. He further stated that the driver was driving the vehicle without blowing the horn and this in itself speaks for the amount of negligence and carelessness adopted by the accused while driving such a heavy vehicle i.e. the bus in question. It is also relevant to mention that testimony of PW 3 recorded during investigation is in sync with the deposition made by him in the court. It is evident from the testimony of the eye witness that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at a very high speed and neither he blew any horn nor did he take any precautionary measures which are ideally expected from a person of ordinary prudence while driving such heavy vehicle on road. Thus, from FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 13 of 17 the bare testimony of the eye witness, it is evident that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time in a very rash and negligent manner. It is further material to mention that the close scrutiny of the site plan clearly shows that at point A, mentioned in the site plan, the dead body of the deceased was found and point B is the place where the cycle which the deceased was riding was found, implying thereby that the impact of the collision was so grave that the deceased post the hit was thrown away at a considerable distance from the cycle as a result of the impact of the hit by the alleged offending vehicle.
22. It is further material to mention that the eye witness was cross examined at length by Ld. Defence counsel but no discrepancy could be culled out from the testimony of PW 3, implying thereby that PW 3 clearly withstood the litmus test of cross examination. Moreover, it is a matter of record that the testimony of the eye witness is in sync with the testimony of other police officials and remaining witnesses and no inter se contradiction or discrepancy can be seen in the testimony of any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution per se. It is a settled proposition of law that testimony of a sole eye witness is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused and minor contradictions and embellishments in the testimony of a public witness cannot be allowed to act as a defence of the accused, in cases where minor embellishments do not go to the very roots of the case. Here, I would like to place reliance upon Prithipal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 1 SCC 10, it was held as under: "49. This court has consistently held that as a general rule the court can FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 14 of 17 may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable.
There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration.
In fact, it is not the number or the quantity, but the quality that is material.
The timehounoured principle is that evidence has to be weighted and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence."
The same principle was reiterated in Sudip Kumar Sen Alias Biltu V. State of West Bengal and others (2016) 3 SCC 26.
23. I would further like to place reliance upon Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai V. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217, where it was observed that undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 15 of 17 and discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witnesses. A witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident verbatim. Ordinarily, it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. A witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which very often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties cannot, therefore, be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details. Thus, minor discrepancies were bound to occur in the statement of witnesses.
The same principle was reiterated in State of U.P. V. M.K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505.
24. The police officials examined by the prosecution have duly testified about the investigation conducted by them and no significant discrepancy could be found in their evidence. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the eyewitness appears to be planted but at the cost of brevity it is again stated that despite duly cross examining the said witness, Ld. Defence counsel could not cull out any discrepancy in his testimony. Further, the witness had adduced plausible explanation for not making a call to 100 number as on that day he was not carrying his mobile phone and further he had to reach home immediately as his wife was unwell. In addition to this, accused has not lead any defence whatsoever to refute the allegations leveled against him. Therefore, in circumstances where the testimony of the eye witness is untainted and stands substantiated by the FIR no. 275/12 State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 16 of 17 testimonies of other prosecution witnesses and documents on record, there arises no reason to disbelieve the same.
25. Hence, in view of the cogent, specific as well as convincing testimony of the eyewitness and the other prosecution witnesses as well as the documents on records i.e the site plan, notice issued u/s 133 MV Act, the arrest and the search memos of the accused, the mechanical inspection report of the vehicle as well as their photographs, there appears to be no reason to disbelieve the truthfulness of the version of prosecution witnesses, especially in the absence of any defence evidence lead by the accused, therefore, accused Lakhvinder Singh is hereby convicted for the offence U/s 279/304A IPC.
Announced in open Court Digitally signed by
Today on this 24.09.2019 RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2019.09.24
16:06:56 +0530
(RICHA SHARMA)
MM8(North)Rohini Courts:Delhi
FIR no. 275/12
State Vs. Lakhviinder Singh Page 17 of 17